Universal+Health+Care+Pro+Con

Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons **PROs** Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically. About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers. A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending. Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal healthcare system over the current U.S.  system Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced. America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund. By reducing paperwork a universal system would allow doctors to spend more time with patients, thereby increasing physician productivity. Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a  reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of  health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds  between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made  in the U.S.A.) The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored. According to an estimate by Dr. __Marcia Angel]__ roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediaries. CONs

** Universal heath care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths. Poorer quality of care. Care can only be funded through taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to property. "The only way the government can give one American one dollar is to confiscate it first, under intimidation, threats, and coercion, from another American." Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems. Universal health care would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits. Advocates of this argument claim that the performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical __centralization__ and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors. By law, uninsured citizens receive emergency care regardless of ability to pay. The health care safety net, which includes free medical clinics, charity care, __nonprofits__ and government-run community hospitals, provides necessary care to the uninsured. Universal health care would eliminate the right, to privacy between doctors and patients. Empirical evidence on single payer-insurance programs demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates. Canada is only able to provide its system, which is often used as an example for America to emulate, because of a trade surplus with the United States. Such a System is not feasible in America.