Personal Context: I am interested in this research question due to my desire to pursue a career in the field of medicine. I've been interested in the medical field ever since middle school, and took part in medical based classes in high school that involved learning about Universal Healthcare. We held a mock debate where half the class performed research on the pros of Universal Healthcare and half performed research on the cons and then argued about various points that my teacher deemed important. This research may affect me right now and may have further effects in the future if I become a physician. If Universal Healthcare decreases the wages of physicians, they may give lower quality health care in order to see all their patients and in order to maintain profits. If I become a physician, I will be making less than someone of the same occupation before Universal Healthcare and will have less time to focus on each individual patient and their needs. The only qualification I have to write about this subject is previous information gained from teachers in high school and friends who are currently physicians complaining about Universal Healthcare. 



According to Chua Kao-Ping, a lack of health care is a fundamentally moral issue, with 45 million Americans currently living without health insurance. A statistic she provides is that 80% of the 45 million are hardworking citizens who simply can't afford it, aren't eligible, and/or their job doesn't offer health insurance. Major points that Chua makes are that the uninsured are less likely to get preventative care, are more likely forced to delay medical services, receive poor care for chronic diseases, are more likely to not take the full prescription, and are 3 to 4 times less likely to report problems that need medical attention. The author is an individual named Kao-Ping Chua who is a part of AMSA, the oldest and largest independent association of physicians in training in the U.S. As for bias, Chua doesn't mention any possible downsides, heavily arguing for reasons to implement Universal Healthcare without giving any information for the opposing viewpoint.

Those that support universal health care claim that a right to health care would lower costs of health care overall in the United States due to piling resources and that it would increase overall health of the US by being able to treat everyone. Those against Universal Healthcare claim that a right to health care could increase US debt even further and the quality and wait time of medical services would worsen. Big topics of interests involving Universal Healthcare are whether or not the Declaration of Independence claims a right to healthcare or not, whether or not a right to health care would increase or decrease US debt, a claim it would save more lives versus a claim that it would increase wait time while decreasing quality of services, and whether or not it would create shortages of physicians. The ProCon organization has been referenced many a time by 24 international governments, 22 US federal entities, and 33 US state governments on separate occasions. There appears to be no bias, giving ample evidence supporting both sides of the argument, with many references to back up the claims that they make.


This source talks about how implementing a Universal Healthcare system would cause more problems that it would fix, specifically how laws that help citizens under Obamacare actually harm some citizens due to businesses cutting hours to avoid paying for their health insurance or laying off workers to be able to afford the cost of providing such a benefit to the remaining workers. The author, an author who works for the World Health Organization, is a well-respected and renowned organization founded in 1948 that has been a part of the forefront in medical research for decades.

Reflection on feasibility of research question: The research question is arguable due to the fact that there is no absolute so far that claims one side is the right outlook. Citizens are split down the middle, with a multitude of individuals completely for and completely against Universal Healthcare. Many medical physicians complain about Obama care and the like, how it cuts wages and places more stress on them due to more patients. On the other side of the argument individuals are happy to finally be able to receive healthcare in order to keep themselves and their families healthy. The different perspectives do not affect my own very much, due to having prior knowledge and bias. I may need to revise my research question to "How our Current Healthcare System is broken and needs to be fixed before implementing Universal Coverage".
