The American healthcare system relies on a large swath of the population to maintain employment. However, with unemployment numbers hitting highs unseen since The Great Depression, calls for public, government-funded healthcare are getting louder.
The argument
Currently, a majority of Americans receive health insurance through their employers. This model—which has worked well for years, albeit leaving 78 million people in America without access to adequate healthcare—cannot survive during a global pandemic. With unemployment rates hitting upwards of 14 % at the peak of the pandemic, healthcare can no longer be tied to employment in the United States. Universal healthcare in the States would not only make it more feasible for people to get tested, treated, and take preventative measures to protect themselves against COVID-19, but it would also make it more economically feasible for states and the federal government to control the pandemic. While the Families First Coronavirus Response Act approved by Congress in March stipulates that COVID-19 diagnostic testing is basically free for everyone, treatment is not covered, forcing many Americans to make a difficult choice: seek medical attention and go into debt, or risk the personal health of themselves and their loved ones. The healthcare system in America has its flaws. But those flaws are now more prevalent than ever, and it's time for universal healthcare in America.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Michael A. Diamond, a professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, writes that single-payer healthcare might not have the positive effects that others suggest. Government bureaus, he writes, have a tendency to become large and bloated and are often not swift, sleek, or well-oiled. Further, he says that just because the government offers healthcare to everyone, does not mean everyone would take advantage of the system to treat their illnesses or pains. People would still have to take time out of their day to find time to go see a doctor or get a prescription, something not everyone can afford to do. Further, he makes the argument that single-payer healthcare would not be as inexpensive as some believe, and could end up costing states money in lost tax revenue taken from private insurance premiums and revenues.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Employment-linked coverage did not collapse in the way the premise assumes. Losses during the unemployment spike were cushioned by continuation rules, Medicaid and subsidised marketplace plans, and the peak unemployment rate fell back within months. Severe strain on a model is not the same as its unsurvivability. [Rejecting P2] Universality settles who is insured, not how care is paid for — universal systems can and often do keep fee-for-service payment to providers. The premise's own examples, access to testing and treatment, argue for expanding coverage, which existing programmes could deliver without replacing the payment model the title names. [Rejecting P3] That Congress covered testing but not treatment shows incremental legislating under time pressure, which is evidence that targeted patches are the available route rather than that wholesale replacement follows. The premise identifies a real gap without showing which of the competing fixes closes it.