These situations have many decision and opportunity costs that are difficult to consider. When it comes to universal health care specifically, one must consider the pros and cons of potentially adopting a plan of this magnitude. On the plus side, everyone in the United States would have guaranteed health care. Regardless of the amount of wealth or immigration status, everyone is covered by the U.S. government under a single-payer system. Americans would be entitled to any medical necessity such as emergencies, check-ups, screenings, treatment, rehabilitation and medication (“Bernie Sanders on healthcare”). Now, at what cost one might ask? Surely the cost would increase, right? In fact, medical costs would become cheaper overall for a person to pay under a proposed plan. As more Americans pay, less will have to be paid per person to cover expenses (“Bernie Sanders on health care”). Additionally, with more Americans insured, overall public health will improve and lead to more eligible American workers. In the long term, this plan will contribute to growth and spur the economic growth that the United States so desperately seeks. To contribute to economic growth, this proposed plan will create jobs in the medical field and ease the financial burden on businesses. This means that companies would no longer be required to pay health benefits to their employees. Instead, businesses can focus on investing in their business growth and infrastructure (“Healthcare for All”). Finally, by adopting a universal health care system, Americans would no longer have to deal with medical bankruptcies. All expenses and bills would be covered by the US government (“Right to Health Care ProCon.org”). This would leave the American people to focus on paying other essential expenses and meeting living expenses. Now, why hasn't the United States adopted a similar plan? First of all, one must consider the potential flaws of a