Who really has the right to determine how health care is provided to the public? The right to health care is a controversial topic in the society today. Many well thinking individuals cry for justice for those who cannot afford free health care, but there are those who put forward many meaningless counterarguments against this policy. However, if one stops and imagines a young baby who is terminally ill, and dies because his parents cannot afford health care. Automatically, one begins to question the compassion of the advocates against free health care. This begs the question, how can a nation sit in silence as they watch innocent children die because their parents cannot afford free health care? Have people become so callous or heartless, that they seek to rob a child of the right to life? The truth is that the world is facing a serious economic crisis. As a result everyone needs to play a part in the procreation of the human race, and not sit by and watch people die because monetary gains are more important than life. The fact that life is precious and sacred, leads to the moral truth that everyone has a right to free health care, whether it is in the constitution or not. Therefore, all American citizens should have the right to free health care because the Constitution of America dictates that everyone has a right to life.
The expression “Universal Health Care” sets of heated debates. Many individuals who are against the idea of free health care, have a closed mind to the repercussion associated with the lack of free health care. They cannot begin to understand that many of the less financially stable individuals in the society are willing to work, but cannot do so if they are sick, and unable to receive medical care. As a result, there are those who believe that the idea of free health care is practical and a fundamental human need. One may say that free health care results in a lazy society, as people no longer have to work for what they need to survive. However, the fact is eighty percent of those who are uninsured belong to the working-class. They have employers who are either too poor to afford health insurance for their workers or are too cheap to attempt to help these individuals to protect their health. Either way the government needs to step up and create new ways to help to protect the health and well-being of the citizens.
Sorrell (2012) notes that the issue of health care reforms brings about the issues of ethics as the communities, the individuals, and the government struggle to find ways to provide quality health care without sacrificing the basic rights of the minority. The counterarguments that free health care creates added expenses on the government are irresponsible and meaningless as the ethical reasoning behind health goes deeper than the economic strain on the government. By withholding health care from an individual who dies as a result, is similar to assisted murder. That is morally wrong. “The Cons of Universal Health Care in America” (n.d) states that nothing comes without a cost as tax payers pay for the “free” health care that everyone wants. Of course someone has to pay, but it cannot be those who are financially unable to pay. Why should people think that because that no one should pay for health care? That ridiculous idea should not even be aired. Free health should be free for everyone, and those who can afford to help to absorb the cost of this should do so with the knowledge that if there is a significant decline in the population, then the future looks dim.
One may say that with free health comes a decline in the quality of medical services, but this idea only serves to remind the society that the advocates against free health care have no rational arguments to support their misguided beliefs. The same doctors who provide health care for those who can pay for the services will be the same doctors who treat those without money. How then can the services be any different? The level of training for the doctors remain the same, and as they are bound by the Hippocratic Code, there is no doubt that free health care will have no impact on the quality services of the doctors. The only difference is that the government pays all doctors. Studies show that other industrialized countries have free health care and their economies do not suffer. The harsh reality is that the future generation will look back at the cruelty of this generation because they allow thousands of people to die because they cannot afford to pay for health care. The right to free health care is necessary to keep the population balanced. The government and the citizens in every country should take a stance and pay the taxes that will help those who need help medically. Many people fear that with free health care come higher taxes, but the truth taxes are a way of life. It represents how each country operates and earns money.
It is a moral obligation that people should pay their taxes in order to take care of each other. Why should there so many arguments against free health care? The fire department and the police force help to keep the country safe, yet the society do not pay for these services. Schools educate children and the society pay taxes to keep them running smoothly. It is only logically to say that one more service can be added to the list without the counterarguments that focus on taxes. Vladeck (2003) reinforces the idea that health care depends on the section of the society in which one lives. In addition, he notes that more money is spent on Americans who are sixty five years and older, and that the amount surpasses the amount spent by some countries for free health care for the entire country, (Vladeck, 2003).
Statistics from a research carried out by HRJ (2009) show that more than forty-six million people in the United States of Americans do not have health insurance. Similarly, over the past two years, approximately eighty-seven million lacked coverage at least momentarily and even more lack adequate insurance or access to the sustainability and service needed in cases of functional limitations. These inadequacies say a lot about one of the most powerful and economically sound governments in the world. The country is built on Christian rights and principles, yet there is limited assistance for those whose lives are at risk. The common trend of thought is that the instability in the economy of the country does not allow for free health care. The idea is ludicrous as doctors make millions annually and can work pro bono for those who are seriously in need of medical help.
Many people fail to look at the truth behind granting free health care to everyone in the country. The fact is that people who are rich can suffer drastic economic failure and as such need emergency medical care. Without free health care, would they not die or suffer unwarranted excruciating pain? The rich can always lend a financial hand so that the government does not have to absorb the total cost of free health care. No one knows what lies ahead of them. One can only pave the way for any unforeseen hardships, and that includes the start and maintenance of free health care for everyone in the society. When one looks at the issue of free health care, one can honestly say that the issue is not debatable. The debate comes about from the emotional and intellectual ideas that people have about health care. It is true that the cost of health care is very high, but the facts are that if everyone in the country had healthcare, then the cost of providing health care would fall significantly. With free health care, comes the undeniable fact people would be healthier, production level would increase, and people in general would be more active in the society.
Most of the problems in the society today, stems from the reality that people are uninsured and cannot afford the high cost of health care. People of a lower socio-economic status die more frequently and are less able to work. These factors undoubtedly slow down the production in the society and reduce the finance gains of the country. All Americans should have free health care as with free health care, no one would have to worry about the cost of health along with surviving their medical conditions. The Constitution dictates that everyone has a right to life, but if everyone cannot afford health care and dies as a result of this, then the government would fail in its duty to honor the Constitutional rights of an individual. It is the government’s duty to promote the overall welfare of its citizens, and it is the duty of the government to honor this duty. In addition, the government should ensure that those who cannot afford enjoy or access the same high standard of medical services as those who are financially able to do so. However, this is not possible without free health care.
The print and electronic media broadcast the many cases of those who die or suffer as a result of not receiving medical care because of financial resources. Others lose everything they have worked for, just so that they can afford health care. Kelly (n.d) argues that the need of people should take precedence over the rights of medical practitioners, insurance companies, drug companies and the taxpayers who have to pay for the free health care services. Williams & Torrens (2007) indicate that the radical changes in the practice of scientific medicine, government policy, and health care cost control inspired much of the controversy that surrounds the right to free health care. Conversely, those who have the authority to provide health care for the public are obliged to do, and those who are in need of medical care have a right to demand the medical care. With this said, the debate against free health care is pointless.
Dreachslin, Janice L., M. Jean Gilbert, and Beverly Malone (2012) points out that major change occur in the health care system, as there are considerable disparities in health status across population groups. These disparities influence the way people look at free health care. Free health care should be given to everyone regardless of their socioeconomic or racial background. Obama, (2008) as cited at ProCon.org states that quality health care should not depend on one’s financial background, or the type of job one has, or the medical condition of an individual. As such, the President defends his policy to implement a system that can help everyone to access quality medical care. However, this has met with much criticism and the debate of whether or not the country can afford this continues. During the various debates, there is little or no emphasis place on the value of life, and what happens if people are not alive to pay for the health care. More emphasis is placed on the cost to offer free health care. Consequently, Tanner & Cannon (2012) note that free market system is the only way to make health care better, more secure, and more affordable. The reality is that if the government put the proper measures in place then free health care can work. If health care is withheld and the individual dies, how can the country grow economically if there is no one to work and provide taxes?
In concluding, free health care will always be a controversial topic in the society as there is a mixture of the hardworking people who still cannot afford the current health care policies, and there are the individuals who can afford health care and do not care about what happens to the ordinary citizen. Advocates against free health care argue that in providing free health care for the citizens, the government leaves itself open to high expenditure. However, this idea is absurd. People who are in good health can work to pay taxes, and take care of their daily expenditures. With the concerns of the high cost of health care, individuals incur added burdens on their minds. The facts are that the country spends far more on health care for people over sixty – five years than other developing countries spend in a year on free health care. The truth is that no one can predict the future. No one can predict the results of implementing policies that give free health care before it is tried. Therefore the country should give free health care a chance and educate the public on their in honoring the Constitutional right to life and liberty. Bodenheimer & Grumbach (2012) note that in order for the country to move forward everyone must develop a clearer, more logical way of looking at health care in the United States. The most logical idea then is to implement a general, all-inclusive, public healthcare system that includes all the necessities for medical care for everyone.
Works Cited
Bodenheimer, Thomas, and Grumbach, Kevin. Understanding Health Policy, Sixth Edition
Publication Date: February 15, 2012 | ISBN-10: 0071770526 | ISBN-13: 978-0071770521 | Edition: 6. Print.
Dreachslin, Janice L., M. Jean Gilbert, and Beverly Malone Diversity and Cultural Competence
in Health Care: A Systems Approach Publication Date: December 10, 2012 | ISBN-
10: 1118065603 | ISBN-13: 978-1118065600 | Edition: 1. Print.
HRJ, Health Care as a Basic Human Right: Moving From Lip Service to Reality, September 28,
2009, Harvard Online Journal. Web. June 9, 2014
Kelley, David, (n.d.) Is There a Right to Health Care? n. pag. Web.
ProCon.org. Should All Americans Have the Right (Be Entitled) to Health Care” October 8,
2008. Web. June 9, 2014
Sorrell, J., (November 9, 2012) Ethics: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
Ethical Perspectives in 21st Century Health Care” OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in
Nursing Vol. 18 No. 1 DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol18No2EthCol01
The Cons of Universal Health Care in America (n.a.) (n.d.) Web.
Vladeck, Bruce, (2003) Universal Health Insurance in the United States: Reflections on the Past,
the Present, and the Future. AMJ Public Health. 2003 January 93 (1): 16 – 19. PMCID:PMC1447684
Williams, Stephen J., and Paul R, Torrens, Introduction to Health Services, 7th
Edition. Publication Date: September 21, 2007 | ISBN-10: 1418012890 | ISBN-13: 978-
1418012892 | Edition: 7th. Print
Tanner, Michael D., and Cannon, Michael F., Replacing Obmacare: The Cato Institute on
Health Care Reform Publication Date: July 25, 2012. Kindle (Ebook)
