Universal healthcare is certainly an intriguing prospect. There are a number of proponents for this form of healthcare and, within the United States, at least, perhaps an equal (as well as equally vociferous) amount of dissidents. Nonetheless, universal healthcare is a reality throughout Europe. In North America, it has long been implemented in Canada with effective results and little reason for disparagement. When one considers these two examples, as well as the numerous advantages that universal healthcare presents for the society that implements it, it becomes perfectly clear that universal healthcare should get instituted within the United States, as well. Perhaps the most cogent reasons for the efficacy and utility of universal healthcare are found when comparing it to the current system of healthcare in the United States. At present, healthcare in America involves individuals paying for nearly every aspect of services related to this industry. Perhaps the lone exception is in some of the preventative care that individuals have access to with the recent passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. Still, to access those purportedly 'free' preventative care measures -- which generally include a yearly physical and the requisite blood work -- individuals must enroll in exorbitant health insurance plans with premiums numbering thousands of dollars a year in expenses (and which are almost certainly higher after the implementation of this act than they were for individuals beforehand) (Matthews and Litow). With universal healthcare, however, every person in the country is guaranteed healthcare regardless of economic conditions (Guileford). Everyone has equal access to healthcare, and as such, money is typically not a factor in determining whether or not individuals should properly take care of their bodies. Equal access to services regardless of pecuniary concerns is perhaps the most convincing reason for the implementation of a universal healthcare system.

Another...

In this respect, universal healthcare is actually a facet of nationalism, in some regards. However, it is so in a rational, non-political manner that merely underscores the fact that a country has a vested interest in the health of its citizens. When considering this boon associated with universal healthcare, it is necessary to clarify some of the implicit and explicit facets of nation states. Every country depends on the labor of its citizens for its economy. Whatever it chooses to export (and, to a lesser degree perhaps, export) is largely dependent upon the means of its people to labor effectively. Provisioning universal healthcare for these people indicates a nation's commitment to its labor pool, its national economy, its gross domestic product (GDP), and other facets of its nation. It is in the best interest of a country to keep its citizens healthy to provide a steady, effective labor supply because conversely, healthy, well cared for citizens actually provide the optimum labor supply. Thus, universal healthcare is actually recommendable because it can enhance the overall utility of a country by readily supplying it with healthy workers that can advance the interests of that country better than unhealthy workers ever could. Countries without universal healthcare are indifferent to their labor supply and are looking to readily discard older or unfit workers for new ones.
Additionally, universal health care is the only way to ensure that all individuals in a particular country are able to have health insurance. This fact is best demonstrated by utilizing the United States and its varieties of health care. Prior the passage and full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, there were a number of individuals in this country who could not get healthcare because, quite simply, insurance…