98 1

98
Baer
Honors English IV
2/6/2014
The Failure of Universal Healthcare in the United States
Achieving Universal Healthcare in the United States for all citizens may prove
impossible, therefore funding it may support a futile agenda. Universal Healthcare is the idea that
everybody should have healthcare provided by the government. This is a great idea; however,
one must remember how large the population of the United States truly is compared to other
countries. Countries like Canada do not have to deal with this problem because their population
is so small, so they can provide very good healthcare to its citizens. On the down side, they still
have waiting lists patients to see doctors. This would be a huge problem for people in the United
States with its large population. Also, with this large population the United Sates would not be
able to provide exceptional healthcare to its citizens. Even if Universal Health Care was possible
in the United States, its citizens would have to pay a large amount of taxes to even makeup for its
large population. Although some believe Universal Healthcare is advantageous to continue to
funding Universal Healthcare, the United Sates government should consider the population, the
effects of Universal Healthcare on the Countries who use it, the monetary impact on individuals,
and the correlation between Universal Healthcare
Although some believe Universal Healthcare is advantageous to continue to funding, the
population of the United States may hinder the viability. The United States has a population of

98 2

317,247,000 people, whereas the population of Cuba is 11,236,000 (Valrie). Due to Cubas
small population they achieve very good healthcare with very low taxation, if the United States
had Universal Healthcare then there would be a heavy tax on its citizens, Cuba spends
6.3percent of its GDP on healthcare, and its 1997 per capita expense was $131 USD (Valrie),
but the United States formula does not look like this. It is agreeable that the United States has
over 45 million people without insurance; however, that is four times the population of Cuba. If
Cuba had 45 million people without insurance, then it would have to spend over 25% of its GDP
on Healthcare to have the quality of healthcare it has now. Also, compared to other countries the
United States is completely different in terms of government, population and how much money it
spends on Health care.
Compared to other countries the United States is completely different. One example is
Australia; Australias population size of 19 million people is roughly the same as that of Texas
(Valrie). The government funds 68% of health expenditures (45% federal and 23% state) and has
control over hospital benefits, pharmaceuticals, and medical services. States are charged with
operating public hospitals and regulating all hospitals, nursing homes, and community based
general services (Valrie). As its previously stated, the size of the United States is about
317,247,000 people, which is 16 time the population of Australia. The only government
healthcare the US government is able to provide Medicare for elderly and Medicaid for the poor.
Also just like Cuba, Australia is able to provide a great amount of health care to its citizens with
a low GDP. Basically, all of the countries that have low population are able to provide Universal
Healthcare for a very little cost. Many believe that the strongest argument against private health
care is emergency room costs.

98 3

Some believe that emergency room costs are a huge problem when it comes to private
healthcare. In the United States, however it is not the same case. Emergency room costs account
for only 2% of healthcare spending. A survey found that the total amount of money spent on
emergency care -- including physician and other emergency-room services -- was $47.3 billion
(Gillespie). That is slightly less than 2 percent of the same surveys $2.4 trillion estimate of total
health care expenditures that year (Gillespie). If emergency rooms cost only take up 2 percent of
all health care spending in the United States, then there is no point in switching to universal
healthcare. In this case, life with private health care is significantly better than universal health

98 4

care.

98 5

(Fig.1)
Unlike Universal Healthcare, life with private health care in the United State is
significantly better. For example, Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for
common cancers (Atlas). The United States also hold the top ten most important Medical
Innovations as seen in Figure 1. According to the chart, Americans have better access to
preventive cancer screening than Canadians which use Universal Health care. Canadian and
British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a doctor, to have
elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer (Atlas). This
basically shows that in some cases, universal healthcare is not always better because some put a
lot of money into healthcare, and have no better quality of life. Also, this is a good argument

98 6

because Canada is one of the supports of universal health care. In doing so, shows that their
population is not getting the care that they could have potentially needed. There is a difference
between Universal Health Care and the Affordable Care Act, which begs clarification.
There is a distinction between universal health care and the affordable care act. The
Affordable care act is not universal health care; it is still private health because it is only
enforcing its citizens to buy health care. It still utilizes the private sector to provide health
insurance, whereas universal healthcare utilizes a centralized, public care system. Even though
the affordable care act is not universal health care, it does show a major loophole when it comes
to universal health. Many democratic countries have modeled their governments around the
United States central government, thus making them vastly similar, so in the United States
Supreme Court case Nat. Fed. Of Indep. Business v. Sebelius they point out that Congress allows
for a "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common [Defense] and general Welfare of the United States (Nat. Fedn. Of Indep. Business v.
Sebelius). This basically means that the government can disguise universal health care as a form
of tax, and the tax really depends on the vast majority of the population that have health care
under the Affordable Care Act. Also, the Supreme Court also pointed that Congress can, of
course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for
purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (Nat. Fedn. Of Indep. Business v. Sebelius). The AntiInjunction Act is a United States federal statute that prohibits any federal court from issuing an
injunction against proceedings in any state court, except within three specifically defined
exceptions. This means that under the Affordable care act if one does not have health care, then
they penalized with a tax. Even in this sense, it also needs to be pointed out that the Affordable
Care act is not a good representation of Universal Healthcare because no one does not know the

98 7

external costs, which basically means one does not know the impact it will have on the citizens
health since it has only been enacted for a month. In the end, people need to realize that the
purpose of the affordable care is to promote a healthy lifestyle and make that everybody gets the
care they need when the time comes. There seems to be a correlation between Universal
Healthcare and the Unemployment rate.
With Universal Healthcare there seems to be a correlation with high unemployment rates.
Like Spain for example, The number of unemployed people in Spain rose to a record four
million in the first quarter as the economy continued to shed jobs created over the last decade by
inexpensive credit and a real estate bubble (Burnett). The Spanish unemployment rate climbed
to 17.4%, from 13.9% in the final quarter of 2008, or more than twice the European Union
average (Burnett). The reason is that countries with Universal Health Care have higher tax rates
which a lot of people can not afford, in order to have a great quality of Health Care. Also, this is
a great example of how people take advantage of their government because if everybody got all
of these government benefits then there no need to work. Another great example of people taking
advantage of their government is social welfare; social welfare is the governmental provision of
economic assistance to persons in need. One way that social welfare is used is through food
stamps, and with this many people make this their way of life, even though the policy was meant
to provide people with the aid for only several months until people find a job.
In conclusion, Universal Healthcare would fail in the United States because of its huge
population. Even though that United Sates has private healthcare, it is still better in some ways.
Some examples of countries with poor results of Universal Health Care are breast cancer
mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the
United Kingdom (Atlas). Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457

98 8

percent higher in Norway (Atlas). This shows that people in other countries do not have that
good of insurance considering that their governments spend a lot of money funding health care.
Also, when talking about Universal Healthcare, one must remember that Universal Health care is
completely different form the Affordable care act, and that the United States holds the top 10
most important medical in the world.

Works Citied
Atlas, Scott. "10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care." NCPA. National Center for
Policy Analysis, 24 Mar 2009. Web. 23 Jan 2014.
Burnett, Victoria. "Unemployment in Spain Hits 17.4%." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 24 Apr. 2009. Web. 3 Feb. 2014.
Gillespie, Nick. "Emergency rooms account for "2 percent of all health care spending." ." 22 10
2013.

98 9

Ireland, Kay. Livestrong. 30 October 2009. 18 November 2013.

Nat. Fedn. of Indep. Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 567 U.S. 1, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012).
"Universal Health Care." HealthPacOnline. HealthPacOnline, 2014. Web. 3 Feb. 2014.
Valrie, Jeanine. PNPH. February 2004. 13 11 2013.