Right now, "healthcare" is typically understood as access to affordable or free pharmaceuticals, hospital care, and routine checkups. I want to suggest some ways of providing and benefits of universal healthcare that are not being seriously considered by our government, media, or doctors.

1. Universal healthcare could decrease litigation costs. In an episode of Friday Night Lights, a quarterback, made parapalegic by a bad tackle, and his family must sue his coach to receive money from his public school to pay for his rehabilitation. Not only is this emotionally painful, but the courts are probably the most inefficient manner of distributing healthcare dollers.
   
   In addition, injury liability decreases our public or social space and create undue costs. Businesses and residences must go out of there way to prevent accidents. Governments can be sued when someone trips over a sidewalk, further decreasing its ability to make repairs. Payouts to individuals are unnecessarily high, which ultimately burdens all of society by raising costs of goods and services. While some system must exist to hold people and businesses accountable for gross negligence, too much litigation is driven by the injured party's need to pay for healthcare resulting from an accident.
   
2. Government healtchare would not be profit driven, which would hopefully lead to a paradigm shift in our relationship with chemical medicine. First, even without a proper universal healtchare system in place, the government can begin to provide universal healthcare without stepping on anyone's toes. How? Provide free or incentivized fruits and vegetables, vitamins, and proteins. Provide free or incentivized gym memberships, or gym equipment and instructors to businesses. People eating healthier and exercising won't net anyone huge profits, but it will solve much of what ails us.
   
3. Provide free housing for the homeless and mentally disabled (in case you haven't noticed, we have a lot of vacancies). Providing healthcare to people on the street is absurdly expensive, especially when factoring ambulance and police costs (not to mention janitorial, and the costs incurred by businesses). Providing housing and some semblence of a routine is better, and obviously more humane, than patching up the homeless every time something nasty happens.
   
4. Shorten the work week. We dont' have, and probably don't need as many people working as much as they do. When needed, higher more people for the job. How does this relate to healthcare? Many jobs tax the body, ergonmically or because they are simply grueling. People don't exercise enough at desk jobs. In addition, not having significant leisure and family time creates stress. The question is, does the added GDP of a long week work compensate for the resulting healthcare cost (not to mention spiritual, but we won't go there). Don't forget time off for child rearing.
   
5. In the same spirit, subsidize travel as they do in Denmark (or at least local vacations).
   
6. Fund public transportation. Cars injur and kill people. This raises healthcare costs.

Many would consider the above proposals tantamount to socialism. The only question I'm interested is the most effective way to keep all people healthy at the lowest cost. Profit-driven medicine will only generate a particular set of policies, for better or worse. I don't imagine the most diehard right-winger could stand by while somebody, even a homeless person, died; of course a doctor should save a patient, even if that patient has no money. The problem, of course, is that for many, it's only ok to provide healthcare when a person is already sick or dying, not beforehand. Keeping a person from becoming sick (always cheaper than curing them), is a freebie, and will lead to... I dunno. Lots of bad things, apparently.  

My hope is that, if implimented, the above policies would shrink the healthcare industry. The less money in healthcare the better, so long as everyone is healthy. This, of course, is not what a healthcare-related business thinks.  

I'm sure there are many other innovative approaches to providing healthcare, proposals that have solid research backing them.Unfortunately, right now the debate centers on how we can provide emergency, end-of-life care, and expensive and often ineffective chemical drugs. No consideration is being given to what kind of healthcare we should be providing, just how we should be providing it.

I'm not a doctor or an economist, but I hope that, on a national level, we begin to discuss these alternatives to current system. Right now, the debate isn't even close to where it needs to be.