Universal healthcare is increasingly popular in the U.S., but it is difficult to formulate a plan that is amenable to all and is in harmony with our values. There are several key ideas that are routinely offered as desirable to a universal health system. The purpose of this blog is to outline a rough, foundational overview of what an ideal healthcare system should look like in the United States. Mapping out our latest sources revealed that money remains a formidable foe, but there is another, more basic obstacle on the path to Universal Healthcare.
The first key point on US healthcare is fundamentally an issue of perspective. The above graphic shows a clear fact; your health is not solely your making. There is a significant environmental and societal influence on your health decisions. Therefore, healthcare mustn’t be viewed as a privilege or personal responsibility. It must be viewed collectively, as a right. According to this article, despite the fact that the United States adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Article 25 which includes health as a basic human right, we have consistently failed to uphold any such standard and have even gone so far as to not even refer to health as a right. This is unacceptable. As long as healthcare is not viewed properly, both by the government and the populace at large, then the healthcare we need will remain elusive.
The second key is that at the least, the insurance aspect of the healthcare system should be single-payer. According to an opinion piece by Kate de Klerk, OMS IV, and Mayra Salazar, OMS III, much of physicians’ time is spent on administration, on the order of 10+ hours for about 70% of physicians. This robs them of time with patients. To boot, switching to single-payer can potentially save a combined 200 billion in overhead, billing, and paperwork costs.
The third, and for this blog, the final key is that the ideal healthcare system covers everyone. Switzerland, which currently holds the top-rated healthcare system, covers its entire citizenry, rich to poor, for all health needs. Uninsured, notably the lower-income citizens, pay more out of pocket. Ultimately, they burden the whole populace as they must receive aid, yet cannot afford it, so the cost is handed off to the insured. These costs go on to cause more issues everywhere for everyone.
At base, healthcare must be treated as the basic right that it is. Indeed, the first inalienable right spoke of in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. From that basic understanding, every other aspect of universal healthcare takes root. You cannot have health for some, and not for others. You cannot have many people bartering and interfering with your healthcare. All this, because it’s a right. You cannot have rights for some, but not for others, or have companies bartering over how you are to enjoy your rights and what rights they are willing to pay for.
Suggestion: In your third example you say “Switzerland, which currently holds the top-rated healthcare system, covers its entire citizenry, rich to poor, for all health needs. Uninsured, notably the lower-income citizens, pay more out of pocket.” Which yes I agree with your statement but two things are lacking that would be helpful for people to fully grasp your idea. One more facts about how Switzerland’s healthcare system works and then a relation to why the US system is not as good.
Right after you the quote above i would suggest that you insert a couple sentances like “One reason their system functions more effectively is because of *insert fact here* and the US system does not do so due to *insert factors here*.” then finally saying something along the lines of “therefore Switzerland’s system is much more ideal because of these facts.
The article below has many facts that will help you.
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/switzerland/
Suggestion: In the dialogue ” According to an opinion piece by Kate de Klerk, OMS IV, and Mayra Salazar, OMS III, much of physicians’ time is spent on administration, on the order of 10+ hours for about 70% of physicians. This robs them of time with patients.” it doesn’t really indicate just how much time of physicians is going to something so draining just because of the system we have in place, assuming the reader is clueless of the inner workings of a hospital it would be hard to guess 10+ hours out of what is dedicated to admin work. This journal link https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/HS.44.4.a?journalCode=joha suggests that 1/6 of a U.S physician’s working time is dedicated to admin work. I would reword it as: “According to an opinion piece by Kate de Klerk, OMS IV, and Mayra Salazar, OMS III, much of physicians’ time is spent on administration, on the order of 10+ hours for about 70% of physicians, which ultimately amounts to 1/6 of a physician’s total working hours” to further illustrate the absurdity of physician time wasted because of all of the heavy admin work stemming from all of the insurance plans. My rewrite gives a frame to work with rather than leaving the reader guessing as well as supplements your further pieces