Should the U.S. have free universal healthcare? Con

Universal “free” healthcare would cause a long list of problems that would hinder our current medical system even less efficient and set the world back in the advancement of medical science.

First of all, “free” is just a gimmick. A study released by DecisionData.org stated that, the federal government covers 47 percent of medical costs for the average American.

Medications ready for use in a medical emergency. Feb 25. Meer/The Telescope.

Medications ready for use in a medical emergency. Feb 25. Meer/The Telescope.

According to the study, a transition to a universal system would require $562 billion more in taxes. It’s extremely unrealistic to state this system would be “free” when we would need to come up with billions through taxes, out of pocket, to still pay for it.

Higher taxes would be the only reliable way to pay for the system. The money can not come from the national budget. Last year, 28 percent of the nation budget was spent on medical care.

For the budget to fully cover a free healthcare system, it would require cuts in social security, military, and underfunded programs like education. Keep in mind that military spending would be cut significantly less than social security since last year only 15 percent of the budget was spent on military spending vs. 33 percent on social security.

Medical Equipment laid out ready to be used. Meer.1 / The Telescope.

Medical Equipment laid out ready to be used. Meer.1 / The Telescope.

So we can’t keep taxes low, we can’t increase spending in the national budget, can we pay doctors more? Short answer: no. Long answer: still no.

For the long answer, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “U.S. medical research remains the primary global source of new discoveries, drugs, medical devices, and clinical procedures.” The reason for this, is the high pay of medical researchers and doctors.

A cut in the salaries of these individuals would cause large setbacks for the future of medical science and procedures. This means if you’re in favor of cutting the salaries of doctors for a less expensive healthcare system, you are against the advancement and development of lifesaving medical technology.

The back of an ambulance. Feb. 25. Meer/The Telescope

The back of an ambulance. Feb. 25. Meer/The Telescope

Aside from this system being a nightmare when it comes to funding, the system itself has been proven to be drastically inefficient.

A major problem in other countries with a universal healthcare system is their wait times.

A report released from HuffPost Canada states that, from 1993-2013 “between 25,456 and 63,090 Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times.” This is an atrocious number is an incredible flaw with the use of a universal healthcare system that should not be overlooked.

The population of Canada is 37 million. In other words, Canada as a whole country has a smaller population than California alone(CA is at 40 million). What this then means is if a universal healthcare systems gets implemented in the States, it would result in mortalities upwards towards 10 times the amount of Canada’s numbers.

A universal healthcare system in the U.S. will never become reality due to the vast majority of issues with implementation, funding, and lack-luster efficiency.

Gehrig Rosen

Author: Gehrig Rosen

Share This Post On

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.