Healthcare reform and policy has been a long debated and divisive topic on both the state and federal level. There have been multiple attempts at reforming and improving our single-payer healthcare system, but the repercussions have proved to be unsuccessful in trying to make it affordable and accessible for every citizen. Healthcare has been transformed into an exclusive luxury reserved for those who are wealthy enough to afford it as well as a convoluted, inefficient system that continues to exacerbate its own inequity. California would benefit from implementing a universal healthcare system because its long-term effects would help decrease poverty levels, increase economic productivity, eliminate medical debts and bankruptcies, create more efficient hospitals, and improve the overall health of the population. Adopting a universal healthcare system would not only satisfy California’s economic and political needs, but it would allow citizens to exercise their basic human right to equal and adequate healthcare regardless of their race, ethnicity, and financial status.
Equal access to healthcare is an unrealistic goal under a single-payer system because of its ever rising costs, creating various disparities among minority groups. It is known that “although, socioeconomic status invariably either contributes to improved levels of healthcare or hinders such treatment, racial and/or ethnic minorities still receive subpar levels of healthcare” (Harris, 2010). There haven’t been any actions take to relieve these disparities and narrow the gap between the high-income, white population and “African Americans, Asian Americans American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Islanders, and Hispanics or Latinos, and the poor”, with less than one percent of minorities stating they have seen an improvement in their access to healthcare (Harris, 2010.) If California were to switch a universal, tax-payer system, minority groups would be relieved of the financial burden that comes with medical care. Middle class and low-income citizens would not have to choose between buying groceries or getting medicine. Furthermore, providing equal access to healthcare facilities would eliminate the biases among providers. Studies have shown that less than 10 percent of nursing, dental, and medical faculties are minorities, therefore creating an inevitable bias that white providers have against their patients (Harris, 2010). A universal healthcare system would not only have to be accessible for anyone seeking medical help, but those trying to be apart of the healthcare workforce as well. This upholds the idea that “a diverse workforce reflects a diverse population” that California quite obviously has (Harris, 2010). Access to these facilities would decrease poverty levels by eliminating the struggle to pay for these services and giving low-income groups the ability to utilize their money in more economically sound ways.
While the impoverished and minorities have been hit the hardest by the lack of accessibility in our current healthcare system, a universal system would relieve the majority of Americans of their medical debts or bankruptcies. Studies have shown that connects “the stress associated with carrying debt as the mechanism linking it to risky health behaviors or mental health” (Kalousova, Burgard, 2013). This correlation can also be traced to the overall health of California’s population as previously mentioned (Kalousova, Burgard, 2013). No debt resolves the tension and stress that is accompanied by a financial burden, such as paying for the rising costs of medicine for an easily curable ailment. Universal healthcare would help bridge the gap between the socioeconomic classes by allowing middle and lower-class populations to allocate their money properly and have the means to live comfortably. This is almost impossible to achieve through a single-payer system when those earning more than $71,000/yr are more likely to seek medical care immediately and lead healthier lives as opposed to those earning $29,000/yr who are more likely to forego medical care. (Kalousova, Burgard, 2013). With insurance premiums increasing by an average of 9.2% per year and wages are only increasing by 2.7%, medical debts have no doubt become a social norm in California (Clemmit, 2007). Free, universal healthcare would eradicate this disparity between wages and being able to afford medical services. Eliminating debts would boost personal financial growth and relieve federal government of their evergrowing debt as well.
Moving away from the topic of healthcare in terms of those receiving it, it’s also important to discuss that those giving these services will benefit from moving away from the single-payer system. As of right now, healthcare companies can be “state, private non-private, private independent, and corporate” owned, leading to a intricate and complex administration system that has become bogged down to something that is inefficient and entangled with red tape (Chernomas, Hudson, 2013). With a universal healthcare system, the provider would become the government at both state and national level; meaning less paperwork to process while constructing an easily understood method. Privatized healthcare has made the industry become “more corporatized” thus making it more difficult for the nationalization of healthcare (Chernomas, Hudson, 2013). Passing healthcare reform that releases insurance companies and facilities of corporate greed the paves way for more honest and sincere people wanting to work in the field, increasing the quality of care (Chernomas, Hudson, 2013). Many argue that countries with universal healthcare such as Canada are seen “rationing” there medical services since there is no large profits being made, but the majority of private companies in the U.S require “pre-approval” and “restrict access to suddenly needed care” (Chernomas, Hudson, 2013). Dismantling a complex system gives citizens accessible information, helps utilize facilities more efficiently, and filters out the corrupt.
Adopting a universal system would be a drastic change economically and politically speaking, however that doesn’t mean it would be a failure in any aspect. Interestingly, it would improve our current economy greatly. Evolution has given human being the ability to adapt to their environments, “gain experience and change their behaviors accordingly” (Rouse, Serban, 2014). From national government to the individual, it would only be a matter of time before humans adapted to a new system. The idea with universal healthcare is that it is managed by professionals in the field in order to return the system back to the consumer by giving them the most efficient for of service possible (Rouse, Serban, 2014). The economic boost would come from lack of medical debt and even though taxes would be increased, it is a small price to pay for a healthier community. Moreover, politicians and those working in government who are concerned about spending too much on healthcare, they would come to see that the revenue would come from the citizens themselves (Rouse, Serban, 2014) through taxes. Incentivizing the production of high-quality care, such as tax breaks, is essential in implementing universal healthcare, giving stockholders who aren’t directly observing patients, reasons to continue to providing quality service to citizens (Rouse, Serban, 2014).
As every person has equal access to education in this country, it should be no different for healthcare. Everyone would receive the medical attention they deserve and it would increase the overall health of the population. The problem of trying to make healthcare affordable is that “simply controlling costs of healthcare will not inherently yield a high quality, affordable healthcare system for everyone” (Rouse, Serban, 2014). Paying for healthcare through taxpayer dollars would remove financial disparities and give all Americans equal footing in terms of health. “The function of adults is, unfortunately, generally considered to be performance of work… and the desirable function of children is generally considered to be learning” (Barnes, McChrystal, 1998). If the working class, those less likely to have health insurance, are unable to get the medical attention they need when they’re sick, then the consistency of healthy employees decrease resulting in an unreliable and inefficient workforce (Epstein, 2002). The healthier the population, the more likely people would show up to work, earn money, and improve their overall financial state. Instead of “selling healthcare services” the government needs to “[economize] on care” and make sure that its population is getting proper care in order to eliminate the need of returning to healthcare facilities (Chernomas, Hudson, 2013). The less time people spend in hospital beds, clinics, and doctor offices, the more time they will have to participate in the workforce and live a more satisfying life.
Providing a universal healthcare system shouldn’t be seen in terms of numbers, taxes, graphs, or logistics. The government should see the right to healthcare from the eyes of its citizens. Besides the basic idea that any human deserves to be treated regardless of their background and how much money they earn, it is no secret that an overall healthier population would be very rewarding economically, politically, and socially. Policymakers and politicians have perceived healthcare as a privilege rather than a basic human necessity. A country is nothing without its people and if the people are unable to access the most basic healthcare facilities, then the United States will never be a prosperous nation.
