The United States Should Provide Universal Healthcare (the Utilitarianism Perspective)
U.S. healthcare has experienced several challenges that make its healthcare system complex, dysfunctional, expensive and broken. Notwithstanding high expenditure on healthcare compared to other high-income nations, the U.S. is poorly rated on several primary procedures, such as avoidable hospital admission, life anticipation, self-annihilation, and motherly transience. In addition to all the expenses, there is a relatively reduced satisfaction with the existing U.S. healthcare system. Integrating high costs with a higher number of underinsured or uninsured implies that many individuals’ risk if they suffer from chronic diseases. Hospital charges differ broadly, and it is practically intolerable to compare the healthcare choices’ cost superiority or know the significance is anticipated. In addition, if one asks a lot before time and adheres to the suggested medics in the health cover system, one can, with time, get an unbelievable bill. Therefore, the U.S. generally needs improvement when it concerns equality in healthcare. Although the provision of Universal healthcare in the U.S will make the government not to accomplish other basic national needs, providing universal healthcare will give every legal citizen the ability to access healthcare facilities despite their ability to pay, it eliminates admittance to overhaul which may perhaps potentially save a person’s life and reduces healthcare costs for the underinsured.
There are pros and cons associated with all universal healthcare systems. Such costs and profits and costs are what result in a highly varying background of universal healthcare systems sideways all industrialized countries offering healthcare. From a different point of view, the high costs involved in universal healthcare are all people’s need to reimburse the same healthcare expanse, notwithstanding their health. Therefore, it effectively makes vigorous individuals remunerative of the care for ill-health individuals. Other barriers to universal health come in as additional government control in different healthcare sectors (Raghupathi and Raghupathi 8). A general healthcare system should restrict costly facilities with low possibility for achievement. The utilitarian healthcare view applies in this situation. Utilitarianism as an ethical model holds that a morally right action produces the best; therefore, action is evaluated in terms of its outcomes (Fernandez 218). Therefore, it eliminates admittance to overhaul, which may save a person’s life because of the substantial opportunity it could flop and the associated cost. In addition, universal healthcare is related to long waiting times for admittance to elective procedures and the significant reserves are aimed at necessary healthcare facilities for individuals. This results in the increased expense for the government of the U.S. General healthcare can assume an immense proportion of the government’s annual budget, which can assume approximately 40% total.
The significant benefit of universal healthcare is providing all nation’s legal citizens with the ability to access healthcare services regardless of their potential to pay. The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains that health is a vigorous basic need, and from a human-centred standpoint, providing individuals with healthcare access is one of the most significant roles of the government. Other benefits of the universal healthcare system include a consistent standard of care in which medical clinicians are obligated to care providers with a similar level of lawful citizens (Gao et al.468). These healthcare providers and citizens will incur reduced costs since there is no conflict among healthcare organizations under the general system of care (Raghupathi and Raghupathi 13). The U.S. government controls healthcare costs as an initiative. Then, the government initiates healthcare expenses considerably down. In the same way, it reduces managerial costs for healthcare doctors and medics since it is pointless to contract with varying insurance organizations. Numerous inhabitants are needed to primary care doctors and preemptive medication in denationalized systems of the healthcare system due to their inability to reimburse. As a result, most populations rely on emergency chambers as their major admittance to medical care. Appointments in the emergency chamber remain notoriously affluent and frequent when an individual needs emergency medical care; healthcare challenges significantly develop and become classier (Gao et al. 481). Under general healthcare, most citizens have total access to exceptional care doctors and pre-emptive discussion, constantly acquiring impending health calamities.
The U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA) is critical for municipal health programs. Due to a pattern of procrastination and modifications to the various rules organized by the ACA, incorporating the centralized lawful outline for the healthcare system in the U.S., the act formulates a rudimentary legalized protection that has been vague till today (Gao et al. 471). A closer universal capacity for admittance to cheaper healthcare cover exposure, from natal through superannuation. When completely used, the act resolved to cut off many uninsured American citizens by more than half. Hopefully, the law led to the outcome in health coverage reporting for approximately 94% of Americans. Thirty-one million underinsured citizens reduced this by upsurging medical conscription by about 15 million beneficiaries (Raghupathi and Raghupathi 14). Approximately 24 million citizens are likely to keep on short of healthcare coverage. From a practical point of view, government intervention in healthcare coverage helps maximize the utility of general welfare members’ welfare for all members of society (Fernandez 221). Thus, healthcare facilities should be generated, allotted effectively, and disseminated according to equity. The approach gave rise to the universal healthcare systems in an attempt to offer healthcare focus for many community members.
In conclusion, the government of the U.S. should provide universal healthcare to all its citizens despite having utterly experienced a problem in its healthcare system. Individuals are incapable of accessing medication because of increased medical and hospital services. If the government funds medication for all individuals, it will be unable to accomplish other fundamental operations in the country. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether it should intervene in the healthcare situation for the general public or not. Suppose the government is believed to participate in providing universal healthcare to citizens. In that case, advantages are also realized because of advanced intervention in the deteriorating situation to the general public. Since the cons and pros of the government provision of universal healthcare outweigh one another, the ACA should balance them to ensure people’s health is considered.
Fernandez, Rosa Maria. “From a utilitarian universal health coverage to an inclusive health coverage.” Good Health and Well-Being (2020): 214-223.
Gao, Pengjie, Chang Lee, and Dermot Murphy. “Good for your fiscal health? The effect of the affordable care act on healthcare borrowing costs.” Journal of Financial Economics 145.2 (2022): 464–488.
Raghupathi, Viju, and Wullianallur Raghupathi. “Healthcare expenditure and economic performance: insights from the United States data.” Frontiers in public health 8 (2020): 156.pp1-15