Abstract
The United States is currently embroiled in a debate on how healthcare should be structured. The Republicans have sworn to repeal the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, more than 33 million people are not able to afford basic healthcare services, do not have medical covers, and most of them do not have proper employment (Atun, De Andrade, Almeida, Cotlear, Dmytraczenko, Frenz, & De Paula, 2015). Additionally, most middle-income earners cannot afford proper health insurance or afford to pay health care costs off their pockets. Essentially, this is best demonstrated by the high number of bankruptcies filed due to medical costs; most of these bankruptcies are reported by people with a medical cover. The above factors are indicative of the rising cost of healthcare and the rising cost of medical insurance leaving many citizens uncovered and exposed to health problems. In light of this information, this research paper supports the view that the United States should have a universal health cover for all her citizens.
Problem Statement
Since Congress started deliberations on the current Affordable Care Act (ACA), the question of whether the United States should provide free healthcare for all has been in the air. The Republicans have opposed ACA while the Democrats have supported ACA and the provision of free health services for the United States citizens (Blumenthal, Abrams, & Nuzum, 2015). The debate has drawn interest from various policy makers and bodies including the nursing fraternity in the United States. With the handover of power to President Trump, the debate has received a new lease of life, especially when considered that Trump continuously trashed ACA during his campaign. In my contribution to the debate at hand, this research provides supportive arguments for the position that the US should not provide free healthcare for all as there is nothing like free healthcare. Rather, the US should continue providing affordable healthcare for all citizens of the United States by implementing and empowering the ACA and not by repealing it.
Introduction
The discourse on free health care has received a new lease of life with the inauguration of President Trump who, on several occasions, trashed Obamacare (ACA). It is in light of this that more debates are encouraged on the understanding of what free healthcare means and how different it is from the issue of entitlement that has been floated by various Democrats. Secondly, it is important to the discourse to focus not only on whether healthcare will be free or not but also on the changes that ought to be made to the current healthcare system in the United States. In the following few paragraphs, the discussion herein presented will draw evidence from various authoritative sources in support of the view that the United States should provide affordable healthcare for all citizens. Additionally, the discussion presented herein includes both the protagonist and antagonist views on the discourse.
Starting with the support of “free healthcare” as currently understood, it is important to demystify what the citizens have been terming as free healthcare. Free healthcare has been understood as a government policy in which the federal government pays for all health care expenses for all its citizens. In other words, it has been touted to mean that the citizenry does not contribute to the funds used by the government for healthcare purposes (Dye, Reeder, & Terry, 2013). However, facts of the case are the complete opposite view of this understanding in that under ACA, the federal government only subsidizes healthcare services in the United States and more particularly, to those citizens that cannot afford healthcare and are not holders of healthcare insurance. In fact, the government uses the tax revenue collected from the citizens, and it adds the contributions of registered citizens towards ACA in funding affordable healthcare to the United States (Blumenthal, Abrams, & Nuzum, 2015). Consequent to this understanding, it is important to note that the real debate is about making healthcare affordable by providing universal healthcare coverage and not about dishing out healthcare insurance to undeserving citizens the opponents accuse of entitlement.
Having demystified free healthcare, it is critical to note that under the articles authored by the forefathers of the United States, good health is an inalienable right of the citizens (Berwick & Hackbarth, 2012). The founding documents assert the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People suffering from cancer or other such ailments would not enjoy these rights unless they are given the opportunity for the preservation of their life. Cancer and other such non-communicable diseases continue to claim many lives in the United States simply because people cannot afford the expensive treatments required. Many of these people cannot afford healthcare insurance. For the few that can afford the insurance, the cover does not encompass terminal illnesses, such as cancer and even when covered, the insurance companies will either delay the payments or move to court arguing that these conditions could be pre-existing communities. If the lives of such persons are to be protected, then the United States must provide affordable healthcare or free healthcare as defined herein (Berwick & Hackbarth, 2012).
The second major reason is mentioned briefly in the above paragraph, and it links two major points. Firstly, the cost of healthcare in the United States continues to soar, and the best indicator for this is the continued success of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the NYSE. Related to this, is the cost of health insurance in the United States. The cost of insurance has by itself made it impossible for people in the United States to take health covers. Combining the two factors means that it is impossible for the common middle-income earner to pay healthcare costs out of their pocket and at the same time, they cannot afford insurance covers. The United States has become the country in which a citizen will die not because the hospitals do not have the skills and the means to treat the patient but because they cannot afford to raise the deposit required to have the treatment process begin (Shi & Singh, 2014). By providing affordable health care through universal coverage, the United States will be preserving the lives of the many citizens who can neither afford cash payments for healthcare and cannot afford health insurances as current structured.
Closely related to the factor of cost and unaffordable health care insurance is the issue of bankruptcies in the United States. Data indicates that in 2007, 62% of all bankruptcies reported in the country were as a result of medical expenses. Further, data indicates that 78% of those bankruptcies were filed by persons who had health insurance (Berwick & Hackbarth, 2012). Such statistics are a pointer to the fact that the uncertainties associated with the health of any individual can make it unaffordable for the family. Secondly, it reveals that it is not only the people who are not insured that suffer but also people that are insured. It would be expected that if people are insured, they should not experience the trouble of filing for bankruptcy out of swelling medical bills. However, the ills in the health insurance business leave many people suffering and losing their lives even after spending on expensive health insurance products. Consequently, providing free or affordable healthcare will be equal to saving the citizens from medical expenses that can lead them to bankruptcy (Hall, 2013).
The last factor emphasized in this discussion is the fact that healthcare is a globally recognized right. Good health is the foundation of strong societies. Moreover, economic health cannot be available if the public and working communities are not healthy (Byrd & Clayton, 2015). The government of the United States has actively commented on the need to provide medical supplies to people in warring nations where health among other human rights has been violated. Consequently, it would be considered hypocritical for the United States to contribute billions of dollars towards health course in nations where there are wars, yet it does not respect the health rights of her citizens. In Kantian ethic's perspective, providing free and affordable healthcare for the United States citizens is the right thing to do.
It is important to focus briefly on the reasons provided by opponents to the provision of free and affordable healthcare in the United States. One of the reasons provides is the view that it brings forward the feeling of entitlement or rather, many people in the United States already feel entitled to free healthcare after being covered under Medicare and Medicaid. By feeling entitled, these people do not work and do not care about their health simply because the government provides for that. The opponents indicate that the United States should neither pay for healthcare just because it is the richest nation on earth nor provide universal healthcare just because other nations in the OECD provide universal healthcare.
In response to these assertions of entitlement, it is important for the opponents of universal care to consider the percentage of the United States population that is not employed and; thus, cannot afford the rising costs of healthcare. Secondly, the opponents should consider the large populations that are underemployed; hence, their earning cannot afford decent housing, leave alone health insurance. Thirdly, it is important for the opponents to consider statistical data which indicates that many middle-income earners cannot afford health insurance in the United States. This is the reason why so many of them have filed for bankruptcy after being unable to afford the cost of treatment (Tulenko, Mgedal, Afzal, Frymus, Oshin, Pate, & Zodpey, 2013). Notably, the committee of means has a lot of data that explains the movements in the United States’ healthcare industry.
The other argument provided by those opposed to universal healthcare in the United States is the view that providing universal healthcare negatively affects the business for insurance companies dealing with medical and other health products (Sommers, Gunja, Finegold, & Musco, 2015). It is true that many insurance companies have lost their value and that their business was affected since the ACA came into effect. However, it is always important to understand that any such policy is bound to affect some negatively and that the overall good should be the main reason for the focus on the provision of universal healthcare. Notably, losses reported by the insurance companies are losses to the top 1% of the US population that owns 99% of the wealth in the United States. On the other hand, universal healthcare benefits the 99% of the population that earns only 1% of the wealth in the United States (De Moor, Mariotto, Parry, Alfano, Padgett, Kent, & Rowland, 2013). Such facts should be the basis for the determination of whether or not the United States should provide universal healthcare.
The last major consideration is the funding of the universal healthcare program with many opponents raising the concern that universal healthcare will lead to higher debt levels in the United States. It will lead to higher levels of taxation as the government strives to cover the debts and the costs of the program. While it is true that the government may be required to consider raising more funds to cover the costs of universal care, it is also true that the improvement in public health also results in growth in the productivity of the nation. The additional national income can be employed better in the provision of universal healthcare in the United States. Additionally, the involvement of the government in the provision of universal healthcare brings more sanity to the health care system meaning that only the efficient facilities and facilities committed to the improvement of humanity will remain (Decker, Kostova, Kenney, & Long, 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper presents a discussion asserting that the United States should provide universal healthcare in the context of affordable healthcare for all citizens in the United States. Universal healthcare is inferred in the founding documents of the United States, and at the same time, it is a globally recognized human right. Universal health is not free in the context of what people understand of free. Rather, universal healthcare is the healthcare services that the United States citizens pay for through the taxes and the contributions to economic growth of the nation. The country must endeavor to protect the interests of the many Americans that cannot afford to pay for their healthcare and cannot afford to pay for medical insurance.
References
Atun, R., De Andrade, L. O. M., Almeida, G., Cotlear, D., Dmytraczenko, T., Frenz, P., & De Paula, J. B. (2015). Health-system reform and universal health coverage in Latin America. The Lancet, 385(9974), 1230-1247.
Berwick, D. M., & Hackbarth, A. D. (2012). Eliminating waste in US health care. Jama, 307(14), 1513-1516.
Blumenthal, D., Abrams, M., & Nuzum, R. (2015). The affordable care act at 5 years.
Byrd, W. M., & Clayton, L. A. (2015). An American health dilemma: Race, medicine, and health care in the United States 1900-2000 (Vol. 2). Routledge.
De Moor, J. S., Mariotto, A. B., Parry, C., Alfano, C. M., Padgett, L., Kent, E. E., & Rowland, J. H. (2013). Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, 22(4), 561-570.
Decker, S. L., Kostova, D., Kenney, G. M., & Long, S. K. (2013). Health status, risk factors, and medical conditions among persons enrolled in Medicaid vs uninsured low-income adults potentially eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Jama, 309(24), 2579-2586.
Dye, C., Reeder, J. C., & Terry, R. F. (2013). Research for universal health coverage.
Hall, M. A. (2013). Evaluating the Affordable Care Act: The Eye of the Beholder. Hous. L. Rev., 51, 1029.
Shi, L., & Singh, D. A. (2014). Delivering health care in America. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Sommers, B. D., Gunja, M. Z., Finegold, K., & Musco, T. (2015). Changes in self-reported insurance coverage, access to care, and health under the Affordable Care Act. Jama, 314(4), 366-374.
Tulenko, K., Mgedal, S., Afzal, M. M., Frymus, D., Oshin, A., Pate, M., & Zodpey, S. (2013). Community health workers for universal health-care coverage: from fragmentation to synergy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91(11), 847-852.
