Universal Healthcare is Needed to Compete in Life Expectancy
By: Andy Wyatt
It doesn't matter if you live in the city with plenty of healthcare access or in the rural pockets of America where there might be very little to no healthcare resources. Humans need healthcare to live.Access to healthcare in a modern country should not be an issue I have to cover in one of my blogs. It's not about being a radical leftie. We will get to data that nearly 30% of Republican voters and 80% of democratic voters support universal healthcare. Still, one issue that's not talked about enough is the price of getting sick when you are a working adult.
Many times when workers in rural parts of America get sick, they still put on their boots and go to work; rain, snow, and Ice aren't going to stop most hard-working Americans from punching that clock to get a check the following Friday. Marianne Williamson said it best via Twitter, "We don't' have a healthcare system, we have a sickness care system. Why are Americans so sick to begin with - with higher rates of chronic disease than in other wealthy countries? We have to treat the cause, not just the symptom. It starts with the food we eat."
Food is a big part of our healthcare system; many poor rural families can't afford healthy non-processed food, leading to many chronic ailments passed down from generations. Then when you add a for-profit healthcare system, you end up with America having a lower life expectancy disadvantage than most modern countries.
Norway citizens have an average life expectancy of 82.64 years.
Denmark citizens have an average life expectancy of 81.11 years.
You don't have to look far to see the results of universal healthcare; just to the north of the USA is Canada, where they have nationalized healthcare. As a result, they have a higher life expectancy than America. Canadians, on average, have a life expectancy of 82.66 years.
US citizens, on average, have a life expectancy was 77 in the year 2020 and has decreased 1.8 years from 2019.
The math is quite simple and straightforward. Universal healthcare results in an increased life expectancy, and the American status quo decreases life expectancy by 1.8 years in just 1 year alone.
Next, let's talk about the solution:
Medicare For All has broad American support from lefties and conservative voters often misrepresented in elected positions. There will be a MASSIVE difference of opinion between your conservative uncle from rural Texas and someone who might represent them like a Ted Cruz type of elected official.
About 28% of Republicans, according to a Morning Consult/ Politico poll, support Medicare for all as opposed to the status quo healthcare system today. While nearly 30% is not a majority, that's a much more significant number in comparison to the right-wing mainstream media gaslighting and the echo chamber of the elite GOP DC bubble seem to think.
Medicare for all, according to The Lancet, a respected healthcare journal, took Medicare for all costs and benefits into account. They found that a universal single-payer healthcare system would lead to a 13% savings in national healthcare spending. They also found that the system could be PAID for with less than what is currently being charged with today's status quo system, resulting from healthcare premiums and insurance co-pays. Overall The Lancet concluded that Medicare for all would save more than $450 billion annually and 68,500 lives instantly if switched from the status quo. Every year after that, 1.73 million lives per year would be saved annually after year 1 of implementation.
"As a nation, we continue paying far more per capita for healthcare than any other nation." ~ Sen. Bernie Sanders
Comments
Post a Comment