A Universal Health Care system is more efficient

Question

Is Universal Health Care better than the current system that we have now?

Answer 1

"At least half of the people in the world do not receive the health services they need" World Health Organization states. With having a Universal Health Coverage ALL people will have health services they need including, "health promotion to prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care" (WHO). In theory, the Universal Health Care is better than our current system, but it depends who you ask and what their intentions, perspective, and vision of the world is. 

https://www.who.int/health-topics/universal-health-coverage#tab=tab_1

Comments

Good supporting quote from a well reputed organization -- the World Health Organziation. You mention that a universal health care system being efficient depends on who you ask. Therefore, I'm not sure what the outcome is of your fact-check.  Going forward, if you add a rating to fact-checks (see the sidebar) it'll be more clear to readers, and of course make sure it is supported with evidence (URL links to sources).

Answer 2

When researching this claim, I came across the publication that the article talks about, and many statistics are very credibly sourced.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2200536119

The abstract highlights that US $105.6 billion in medical expenses associated with COVID-19 hospitalizations could have been avoided under a single-payer universal healthcare system. This figure is emphasized repeatedly throughout the article to underscore the immense financial inefficiency of the current U.S. healthcare model. The authors use this data to argue that fragmented insurance coverage and administrative waste contributed significantly to preventable costs during the pandemic. In a single-payer system, those funds could have been redirected toward preventive care, resource allocation, and pandemic preparedness, potentially saving both money and lives. The relevance of this information extends beyond COVID-19 itself, as it exposes the systemic issue of inefficiency within American healthcare. By counting these lost billions, the article effectively demonstrates that healthcare reform is not only important but also an economic necessity, highlighting how structural inefficiencies amplify financial and social strain during national health crises.

Answer 3

The above claim cannot be true or false because it is not a fact, but rather an opinion. You could find data on both sides arguing and disproving the claim because at the end of the day efficiency is not a concrete ideal but rather that of conceptual limits based on the individual's perception and situation. It could be financial or time or even both, therefore the claim has no concrete way to measure itself. The personal nature of the definition of "efficient" leaves this claim up to debate rather than a proofed and confirmed conclusion. 

Answer 4

The terminology of the claim is confusing because at no point in the article do they claim that universal health care would make everything faster. Rather I believe OP is referring to Universal health care being more cost efficent for American Citizens. This is true that Americans would not be expected to pay vast amounts of money for neccessary procedures or medicine required to live a healthy life. There is no certainty whether or not universal healthcare would make access faster at all because other places that do have it do not run at the same volume as the United States. We have a higher percentage of population with multiple different levels of access, with different care needs.