Universal Healthcare Today's Hot Debate

Universal Healthcare Today's hot debate in political circles seems to be focused on universal health care and whether such a policy is viable for implementation in the United States. There are comparisons to other country's universal or 'one-payer' plans that are used by both sides to justify reasons for and against the implementation. One recent article espouses, "universal health care would mean something akin to socialism, making people more dependent on handouts, expanding the clumsy hand of regulation, and hobbling individual choice" (Menzel, Light, 2006, pg. 37).

Since socialism is such a dirty word in American society, conservatives and moderates alike immediately balk at anything closely associated with the use of such language, especially among those who are most likely to pay for a universal plan through taxes or corporate requirements. Many leaders in health care, industry and government are adamantly opposed to a one-payer system.

Many of these same leaders understand that with the aging of society, health care costs will continue to rise, and that something must happen in order to ensure that older citizens and those most likely to need medical care are cared for in an efficient and cost effective manner.

One article states, "There is more agreement on the goal of universal access than on the claim that justice requires it -- some hold that it is required by beneficence or decency, not justice, while others believe it is not required at all, but is nevertheless an appropriate goal" (Thompson, 2008, pg. 8). Whether these services are provided through justice, beneficence or decency, most experts are very cognizant of the cost factors involved in such a large undertaking.

Someone is going to have to pay for that care, but the question remains as to what entity would best handle that responsibility. The debate rages on due to the importance of the subject. Universal health care implementation is important to the average citizen because it affects so many of them. The majority of people will be affected in one way or another by poor health.

Oftentimes it will not be their own health that will be at risk, rather it will be the health of loved ones, parents, siblings, spouses and even children that will be adversely affected. When issues as important as one's health is involved, people tend to listen. Worrying about the cost of such issues is also an important factor to consider, and ensuring that everyone has equal access to health care many times sounds like a panacea, but the available literature presents two sides to the story.

One recent article shows that universal health care may not be that panacea. The article states, "Strikingly, that literature shows that universal coverage medical systems do not eliminate the general association found between socioeconomic status (SES) and health -- that the richer you are, the longer and healthier your life will be" (Daniels, 2007, pg. 3).

In the same Hastings Center Report as the above quoted article, another article reiterates, "One widely accepted way of justifying universal access to health care is to argue that access to health care is necessary to ensure health, which is necessary to provide equality of opportunity, but the evidence on the social determinants of hearth undermines this argument" (Sreenivasan, 2007, pg. 21).

Though the literature offers sound reasons why a move to universal health care is not a welcome one according to many experts, it seems likely that some form of health care reform will take place. This is especially true when observing the number of states that are moving towards implementing such a system. One writer provides the following information; "When I first heard of the Massachusetts state legislation, two things came to mind.

One of them was a piece of Canadian history little known to Americans: universal care in that country began with the Canadian provinces, gradually spreading to its federal government" (Callahan, 2006, pg. 28). Canada's provinces established one-payer systems long before Canada's central government did so, and many states in the U.S. have followed suit. Massachusetts was the first state to pass a system into law, California followed suit and there are a number of states that are in the process of doing so as well.

"A proposal to begin a statewide single-payer health care system in Oregon was put on the ballot but.