Sharpe 1

Wriley Sharpe

Professor Moore

ENGL 1301

31 October 2018

A Potential Global Health Transition

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a health care system that seeks to provide free and

accessible coverage to everyone in a group or population. The goal of UHC is protection from

financial risk while providing care to all. A primary focus of UHC is equality, this means

everyone that is a part of the respective health care system should receive equal service. The

application of UHC comes at a large cost, this normally comes in the form of higher taxes on

individuals of a respective country. Universal health coverage has become prominent because of

a politically and economically heated environment that has strong feelings on either side of

universal health coverage, that being for it or against it.

The proponents of universal health coverage are interested in preserving human health

and lives. In September 2015 the United Nations selected UHC as a health target in the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) where they stated, "To ensure healthy lives and promote

well-being at all ages" (Chapman, Audrey R) is the purpose of UHC. This is essentially high

praise from the United Nations and as such, it should not be taken lightly. The individuals who

support UHC often are looking to benefit human lives.

Inability to afford a medical service is a common problem amongst Americans and people all

over the world, UHC would seek to eliminate this problem by instituting free and equal medical

services for all. Many Americans cannot currently afford health insurance, thus leaving them

more susceptible bodily harm and mortality. In fact, 58% of surveyed Americans reported to
 Sharpe 2

delaying or refusing to seek medical help due to the expenses of medical care (ProCon.org).

Bringing UHC in to play would drastically reduce this problem as UHC proposes a system where

health care is free. When healthcare is free people tend to seek medical attention more

frequently, rather than avoiding it all together. This in part why the UHC debate is so

economically heated, maintaining a system where healthcare is free means that the money must

come from elsewhere.

A common stance of those who support UHC is that health care is a human right granted

to Americans by the constitution and that the health of a countries people is, in fact, the health of

the country. When stating Americans have the right to health care often it is cited that the

constitution grants unalienable rights in the form of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Focusing on the "life" portion of the constitution would lead to the realization that preserving life

is a human right, taken a step further it can be assumed that health care is the preservation of

human life. Supporters of UHC believe that as an unalienable right free healthcare should be

provided by the government, often aligning this issue as a social policy.

Opponents of UHC are satisfied with the current health care system and do not believe

there would be positive change by switching to UHC. The current American health care system

has its strengths comparative to renditions of UHC already present in several countries across the

world. In the current system, there are protections that differ from UHC but are protections none

the less, "People get rapid access to technology, and can sue if they're not happy." (Cain, Richard

E., and Miles J. Zaremski). This is unlike UHC in the sense that bad care can be discouraged,

and good care exalted. The current American system in a sense rewards the doctors who do well

rather than health care being a government regulated task. Opposers of UHC believe the current
 Sharpe 3

system is a better representative of the American people than UHC would be, economically and

socially.

Economically speaking the opposers of UHC do not want to see American debt rise and

taxes increase, UHC would be likely to do both. Opposers of UHC cite the taxation of European

countries that have already implemented UHC to estimate what may change if UHC were

implemented in the United States. In European countries, payroll taxes average around 37%

comparative to the average American worker with a 15.3% payroll tax (ProCon.org). By this

estimate opposers of UHC believe they have a good reason to fear that their taxes and debt

would increase. It has also been stated that because spending on health care would overall

decrease that medical professionals' wages would also decrease, this would likely decrease the

number of individuals who are training to become medical professionals and those who actively

sought out a career in the medical field. This would be problematic as economic theory is based

on a supply and demand model, opposer of UHC claim that UHC would increase the demand for

medical professionals but decrease the supply. This would mean longer wait times and

potentially lesser care. UHC opposers have a hard time believing that there would be an

economic benefit to transitioning to UHC.

A common stance of those who oppose UHC is that health care is a service that

Americans can pursue under the constitution, however, this would lean on the argument that

health care is not a human right. Opposers of UHC argue that when the constitution was created

that UHC was not an active idea, and that would mean UHC cannot be a right granted to

Americans by the constitution. This argument implies that when the constitution was created

privatized healthcare systems were already in play and that the creators of the constitution

approved of the current American system. Politically, opposers of UHC align with the idea that
 Sharpe 4

UHC cannot be a fundamental human right and that it would have been stated in the constitution

directly if so.

Proponents and opponents of Universal Health Coverage both have solid grounds to

push their respective agendas. Proponents of UHC believe that free and accessible health care is

a fundamental human right, that UHC has economic benefits, and that better care can be

provided with UHC. Opponents of UHC believe that the current American health care is efficient

and successful, that there are little to no economic benefits regarding UHC, and health care is a

commodity, not a right. Both systems have successful examples across the world, whether UHC

is implemented in the United States global healthcare is changing.

 Sharpe 5

Works Cited

Cain, Richard E., and Miles J. Zaremski. "No free ride on health care." Family Practice News, 1

Oct. 2008, p. 8. Health Reference Center

Academic, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A187693807/HRCA?u=txshracd2480&sid

=HRCA&xid=2a00e791. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

Chapman, Audrey R. "Assessing the universal health coverage target in the sustainable

development goals from a human rights perspective." BMC International Health and

Human Rights, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016. Health Reference Center

Academic, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A474061542/HRCA?u=txshracd2480&sid

=HRCA&xid=c36efb81. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.

ProCon.org. “Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?” Procon.org, 22

Oct. 2018, https://healthcare.procon.org/#arguments. Accessed 31 Oct. 2018.