Before anyone can talk about the United States having universal health care for all residents, there must be a logical reason. The pro arguments are “It’s a right” or “Too many people can’t afford health care”. The con arguments are “It’s unconstitutional” or “It’s socialism and socialism is a failure” or “It would be government run and the government bureaucrats can’t do anything right”. All these arguments must be analyzed or addressed. Which, if any, are true and which are relevant.

First, it is not a right and it is not stated as such in the Constitution or any legislation. Neither is it unconstitutional because the Constitution states that one of its purposes is to “promote the general welfare” and universal health care promotes the “general welfare”.

At this point, separate “Socialism” from “social programs”. Socialism means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.   A social program is program administered by the federal, state, or local government using government funding. The highway system is a social program. Law enforcement is a social program. We are not practicing socialism because we have social programs that promote the “general welfare”. It is important to note that these are not big government bureaucrat run programs.

Surprisingly the Republican Party and the business community should be the biggest supporters of universal healthcare because the economy that they claim to support is the biggest benefactor. Providing healthcare to employees is a major obstacle for companies and businesses in hiring needed help. Employees failure to get preventive care results in absenteeism and poor job performance. Loss of healthcare is biggest fear that entrepreneurs have of starting a business and hiring initial help. And finally, the onslaught of artificial intelligence will reduce a number of jobs and probably lead to a “part time” job market where someone will work for several employers rather than a single employer. As company pensions have disappeared since the 1960’s so will company paid healthcare. These are economic benefits yet the Republican Party refuses to recognize them and support a universal healthcare system.

The social argument that “Too many people can’t afford health care” is valid and addresses a subsequent issue of people without health insurance being charged up to five times as much as insurance companies pay for the same service.

The United States pays about 18% of its GDP for healthcare that covers a fraction of the population while other countries pay a maximum of 12% of their GDP to cover 100% of the population. Further, the United States rates far below these countries in wellness. Opponents claim that the wellness grades are a result of lifestyle, but don’t have any data to support the argument.

Clearly universal health care is justified. There should also be a cost goal of 12% GDP or less. The real problems are how to deliver it, how to pay for it, how to administer it, how to allow free enterprise to exist within the system.