[Subject/Course]
[Submission Date]
Introduction
The United States of America is the world’s major armed and economic power. However, the country’s health care delivery system is not managed under administrative control. In simple words, no governmental department or department is responsible for providing health care facilities to the citizens in United States of America. Moreover, it does not even propose any national health care program like many other developed countries. Therefore, Americans do not enjoy the accessibility to a distinct health care facilities’ set. Instead, the United States government offers a private health care funding and deliverance system (Shi & Singh). For this reason, the issue of provision of health care facilities by the government has emerged as a hot topic in the recent years. According to health care rights’ proponents, it is not acceptable of the world’s richest nation to deprive its citizens of health care facilities. Their argument is based on the notion that granting of health care rights would naturally put a stop on medical bankruptcies. They also argue that provision of heath care would result in the improvement of public health and the reduction of total expenditure on health care. Moreover, it can also facilitate the flourishing and growth of small businesses. In short, health care provision is considered by its advocates to be an indispensable government service (Korobkin). According to the supporters of health care rights, a proper government-controlled system for healthcare provision is essential. This is because the present system is a fragmented one. It does not have proper services, features, and levels. A system that provides different services through different means to different people cannot perform effectively. In simple words, the provision of health care to all citizens is the responsibility of the government as the present system is not equality-based. Moreover, the non-standardization of health care system in America has caused functional fragmentation. Such factors have deteriorated the overall healthcare system as there are no comprehensive planners and managers from the government (Shi & Singh).
They also believe in a government-based healthcare system as it could reduce the health care cost in the country. Moreover, health care rights to citizens could save many lives. This is extremely important as the lack of well-timed and efficient health care in the United States has placed it among the sixteen richest countries in the world that could prevent mortality rates.
It can be proved by the fact that countries that have given right to health care to its people have higher life expectancy as compared to United States. Those countries include Australia, France, Italy, Israel, Norway, and Spain. It is also asserted that the mentioned right is a human right that is recognized internationally. In addition, if the government provides health care facilities to all, this step could make it easy for every citizen to afford medical services. It is important to mention that one of the major problems faced by households in United States is paying for health facilities.
The government is also expected to be responsible for health care provision for all as it can bring benefits to economic productivity. It is a fact that health care is accessible to people, they live with sound health. Such accessibility makes them miss less work and allows them to act as economic contributors. Therefore, government is considered liable to provide health care for facilitating economic growth.
On the other hand, the opponents of the issue present their argument that health care rights add up to socialism in the society. They believe that it is the responsibility of an individual to secure his health. According to them, the government is not responsible for providing health care to each and every citizen of the country. Their argument is based on the consideration that the provision of health care by the government would automatically result in the decrease of health care quality. They also assume that such provisions would also reduce the availability of health care to all the citizens. In addition, they believe that such health care rights may become the cause of increased debt and deficits for the United States government.
People who do not support the right to health care believe so as such rights have the propensity of increasing the wait time for health care requirements. It is a fact that Countries where health care is granted to citizens as a universal right have longer times for waiting as compared to the United States of America. Similarly, the opposition to government-funded health care is based on the notion that this right can increase the shortage of doctors in the country.
The patient influx may cause a shortfall of required doctors ultimately failing the entire health care system. In the similar manner, the idea of health care provision as a right could cause overusing of health care resources by people. The provision of universal health care may make people exploit the health resources in unnecessary ways. As mentioned, it is believed by many Americans that it is not the government that must be responsible for paying for medical services to every citizen. Health care must not be considered a right. It is a service that should be paid by the individual himself (Korobkin).
In my opinion, the US government should not be coerced into providing health care. As much as it may be assumed that the US government has a lot of money at its disposal, there are numerous other issues that it needs to deal with such as education, security, infrastructure development, trade, industrial issues, agriculture, energy, and environmental issues among many others. All these issues require a lot of resources, manpower, and attention from the government. It would be unrealistic to expect the US government to provide health care when people can take care of their own health. The government should be left to provide services which people cannot handle by themselves such as security from terrorists (Swartz 12). Services such as health which people can deal with own their own should not be the government’s prerogative.
Requiring the government to provide health care to the people has the possibility of increasing its debt and deficit. Even the US House Budget Committee agrees that government health care programs are too expensive for the country to sustain and they are increasing the country’s spending and debt. For this reason, if it is becomes compulsory for the government to provide health care services, its expenditure, debt, and deficit would surely increase. This is not good for the country if people can take care of their own health (Schaeffer 1557).
Forcing the government to provide health care service would also compromise the quality of health care services given to the people. People would have to wait for longer to receive health care services. To prove this, the Medicaid system which provides health care services to low-income citizens is a good case in point. The beneficiaries of this program usually complain of long wait times to receive health care services. The average time it has been taking them to see a medical specialist has been longer than warranted because of the strain that comes with such services (McWilliams 2887). For this reason, even the quality of health care is surely compromised.
Another reason why I am against the government providing health care services is because it could lead to socialism. Socialism may be described as the control by the government of the distribution of services and goods. If the government is forced to provide health care services, it will definitely control the distribution of these services because it will be the one paying for the services. In a way, socialism invades the freedom and independence of people. Health care services should be left to a free market to determine the cost and availability the services. This promotes positive competition, thereby improving quality of health care services.
If US people enjoy the right to health care by the government, the possibility of paying higher taxes is also much higher. The higher taxes would be justified because the government will need more income to pay for the health care services that would be provided to every single person in the US. To prove this, the cost of providing health care services forces people to pay higher taxes in European countries that provide health care services to their citizens. For example, in the United Kingdom, people pay taxes of 37% of their earnings so as to sustain such programs such as provision of health care. This is much higher compared to the 15.3% paid in the US (Mongan and Thomas 1260).
All in all, if the US government is forced to provide health care services to its people, the demerits outweigh the benefits of doing so. There is the possibility of having a shortage of doctors and other health care service providers because they will be strained and overworked by people who may choose to misuse the free health care services. The doctors may also be forced to contend with lover earnings if the government is in control of the provision of health care services. The government can also control or ration medical services to the people by controlling budgeting, distribution, service restrictions, and price setting among others.
Conclusion
As far as my opinion is concerned, I believe that health care must be considered a service. It must not be seen as a right. It needs to be realized that a need and a right are two extremely different concepts. Health care is a fundamental human need and every citizen must be free in pursuing it. It also means that the government does not enjoy the right of infringing peoples’ right to attain health care. In other words, the government does not owe people any health care provision. This is because health care is also a commodity such as clothing, food, and shelter (Barlow 321).
Health care right would surely reduce the overall quality of health care that is already not perfect in the country. I also believe that the inefficiency of government agencies must be considered while voicing opinions in favor of health care rights. Bureaucracy has made governmental system a hollow one. Therefore, expecting the government to provide for health care is too much to ask considering the fact that it cannot function with fairness and equality (Hardman & Drew 145).
It must also be kept in mind that a number of countries that have made universal health care available to their citizens are still suffering disparities in their health systems. They have not been able to eliminate a lot of diseases that have been eliminated in the United States. It is also important to state that “healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, and so on” (Hardman & Drew 145). All in all, I believe that the government must not be made responsible to pay for the health care for every citizen.
Works Cited
Barlow, P. "Health Care Is Not a Human Right." BMJ (1999): 321. Print.
Hardman, Michael L., and Clifford J. Drew.Human Exceptionality: School, Community, and Family. 10th ed. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Korobkin, Russell. "Health-Care Costs and the 'Moral Hazard' Problem." The Washington Post 10 Mar. 2014. Print.
McWilliams, J.M., “Health of Previously Uninsured Adults after Acquiring Medicare Coverage,” JAMA 2007, 298(24): 2886-2894.
Mongan, James J. and Thomas H. Lee, “Do We Really Want Broad Access to Health Care?” NEJM 352.12 (2005): 1260-1263.
Schaeffer, L.D., “The New Architects of Health Care Reform,” Health Affairs November/December 2007, 26(6): 1557-1559.
Shi, Leiyu, and Douglas A. Singh.Delivering Health Care in America: A Systems Approach. 3rd ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2004. Print.
Swartz, K. Reinsuring Health: Why More Middle-Class People Are Uninsured and What Government Can Do. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006. Print.
