Health care has always been a basic human need and a part of the heritage of people. As a result, health care can be considered as a product of the collective efforts of the previous generations. Moreover, taking into account the fact that every human being represents the human race, he or she has an undeniable claim upon medical aid. However, despite the fact that providing health care is the state’s obligation, its fulfillment encounters numerous problems in the US. American health care has gone through significant historical changes that have led to the recognition of the health care being a commodity in the modern world. However, such misunderstanding can lead to a collapse of the whole system because there are no consumer goods with an unlimited demand that can satisfy the human needs in an efficient way. Unless health care is regarded as a societal and governmental obligation but not merely as a consumer good in the marketplace, there would not be a possibility to provide people with free universal health care.
The US should provide its people with free access to healthcare because it is a basic human right, and human beings cannot be denied reasonable health benefits if they cannot afford them. According to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of human Rights (1948), “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of sickness, disability, old age.” It is vitally important to provide people with free access to health care because it would guarantee their ability to be full members of society and participate in its political and economic life. In addition, if to consider the nature of health care, it should be free and universal because medicine is a moral activity aimed at helping people who are in need due to distress or illness. Medicine offers its services for needy patients because health policy is a principal concern of all human beings. As a result, health care is a basic necessity of people, and the society as the whole should finance the medical services required, not individuals themselves.
Threats to health can be compared to the threats caused by fire, environment or crimes and should be protected by society in the same way. It means that society guarantees freedom from assault by establishing police offices with necessary staff, facilities, equipment, and other legal support. Therefore, society should provide people with free medical assistance due to the fact that this is also the case of collective responsibility. Indeed, there are several programs, including water sanitation and air filters. Nevertheless, this is not enough to protect people from illnesses, and society should do it due to the fact of general human vulnerability. Moreover, as human beings, people have a right to natural resources, including plants, minerals, etc. In fact, a lot of drugs are produced from such natural resources owned by society. This does not mean that people who invest in the production of these drugs should not have profit, but they should not have an absolute right to establish the high price for these drugs. Moreover, American health care system promotes cost escalation and inefficient use of resources by encouraging spending money on nonessential tests and ineffective treatment that drives up health care cost.
The US should provide at least free access to primary care because a national health insurance has not demonstrated positive results. Its existence could have been justified by the fact that the poor and needy received timely and appropriate health care. However, this is not so in reality, and other citizens consider health insurance as a terrible burden that should be eliminated. In fact, primary care is free in many highly developed countries, including Japan, Canada, Western Europe, etc. These countries have lower rates of infant mortality as well as a longer life expectancy (Lavastida, 2000). All American people should have free access to health care services because no one should experience suffering and health - related pain because of their inability to pay for costly medical care. The US provides access to public education, and public funds ensure the availability of schools for children. However, no similar commitment to health care has been demonstrated.
Free access to health care can be achieved by focusing on care itself rather than on administration. As a matter of fact, administration of health care can no longer be called an effective tool used to make the best health care available to every citizen. Excessive waste of money on administration proves the fact that in the US people do not care about health but profit. It has already been mentioned that the United States spends more on health care than any other highly developed country in the world, but very high administrative expenditures prevent health care system from effective delivering of services to citizens. “It is estimated that 22% of the health care dollars is spent on billing and other administrative tasks” (Lavastida, 2000). By optimizing this expenditure item, society could curb administrative waste and challenge the expensive health care system.
Health care does not belong to market commodities; however, people have to pay for it. In fact, Americans feel the lack of appropriate health care due to the exaggerated notion of personal responsibility and social unresponsiveness to the needs of other individuals. Therefore, concrete changes should be initiated to provide citizens with free health care. Private and business insurers are more interested in making high profits but keeping the expenses low. However, there are many explanations of why health care is treated as a market commodity. Some people argue that it is vitally important to use financial incentives to develop new drugs and equipment. However, “At any time there is talk about any kind of national insurance, private insurance companies scarce the whole population by talking about how much their freedom of choice will be restricted, and end up paying millions of dollars in advertisement campaigns” (Lavastida, 2000). Therefore, people have less trust in the medical profession, and the most vulnerable members of society do not receive adequate health care. Besides, for some individuals, the whole process of requesting necessary treatments has turned into a constant battle with health care providers. Thus, when private insurers try to save their money with a disregard of patients, it cannot be stated that people receive necessary and optimal health care.
In addition to free health care, medical schools should also become tuition free. Doctors are quite richly rewarded, but they have to pay a high medical school debt. When graduating from a medical school, doctors turn to highly paid specialties, where they are encouraged to provide expensive treatment. All these factors represent the essential drivers of high health care cost as well. Therefore, making medical schools free of charge would allow doctors shift toward primary care and attract really talented people to become doctors who are currently not in a position to study due to the costly tuition fees. Besides, free tuition would lead to a real competition of applicants, and only the best ones would have a chance to receive the medical education.
Although free universal health care initiative is quite realistic, it cannot be implemented until the American health care system promotes illness. In fact, in the US, health care providers focus on treating health problems rather than preventing them. Health insurance plans cost less due to the fact of not providing the sick with access to necessary treatment rather than increasing quality of health care in general. Moreover, hospitals get more money when their beds are full of injured and sick patients. Thus, the American health care system does not reward health personnel for preventing illnesses but for diagnosing and treating patients. Significantly, health promotion activities, including health education, immunizations, comprehensive infant and maternal care are not covered by most private insurers. These illness-oriented incentives devalue wellness care and general health of the whole nation. Health promotion must not be a second-ranked priority because more resources are spent on treatment and rehabilitation than on prevention of diseases.
Despite the fact that Medicare covers seniors and other people unable to pay high costs for health care, the US should develop a comprehensive national plan that ensures free universal coverage of all people by expanding this health program. Significantly, health care is still a huge burden for people, especially for seniors and women. Nowadays, women consume the most part of health care services, but they have to struggle with expensive medical bills. “The story is even worse for low-income women, who are more likely to forgo treatment because of its cost. About 4 million low-income women can cover only themselves and are unable to receive financial support to purchase insurance for their families” (Das, 2014). A lot of minority women are also unable to obtain coverage and do not have access to comprehensive medical care. It is difficult to understand that one of the richest countries in the world does not provide its citizens with free and universal health care. By expanding Medicare to everyone, the coverage would become more secure and efficient. All Americans would get free access to health care from any physician, and the government would reimburse for that care. Undoubtedly, free universal coverage would allow people become healthier and bring better health outcomes for the whole country.
Free access to health care can be viewed as a basic human right, and free health care services must also become a natural right rather than a privilege of some wealthy individuals. This principle of social justice must be applied legally on the national level to promote this assertion. However, there are still many counter arguments, and many people oppose funding health care because free access to health care would impose an unbearable burden on both average citizens and states institutions. Besides, it is unsustainable and costly to fund care for all people in the US, and it would significantly reduce the quality of health care. Nevertheless, free health care is an ethical obligation of society, and the US has failed to provide it because it values individualism over collectivism. Nowadays, individual resources determine the quality of health care and its distribution while government enjoys little responsibility and obligation. Health care is funded by insurance and a third party payer who dictates rules and decides who will have access and who will not. Significantly, there are thousands of uninsured individuals in the US, but it does not mean that they are lazy or unemployed. The majority of such people fall between being able to afford insurance financed by their employers and qualifying for Medicaid. Besides, they may have led education, working in small businesses, or having a part-time job. All these factors and absence of insurance are financially devastating for every individual, and a society’s obligation is to provide people with free access to health care.
References
Das, V. (2014). Expand Medicare for all Americans. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/opinion/das-medicare-health-care-for-all/index.html
Lavastida, J. I. (2000). Health care and the common good: a Catholic theory of justice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
