Hazza Alhajri
ENGL 191
12-10-2013
Introduction
Over the past few decades, America has
experienced skyrocketing costs of healthcare. Health insurance premiums have
continued to increase on average by double-digit points in the past five years
alone; this rate of increase is three times the rate of inflation. Following
such out-of-control costs of healthcare, there has been a steep increase in the
number of uninsured US citizens. Apparently, it is estimated that fifty million
Americans lack any form of healthcare insurance and million more remain
uninsured; they have insurance but do not have sufficient financial security
from healthcare costs. Even though this issue was initially limited to low
income Americans, more middle class Americans are now directly affected by the
issue. In the wake of increasing costs of healthcare, fewer employers are willing
or have the ability to offer their employees with health insurance. Therefore,
the percentage of employers providing health insurance has dropped
significantly from 70% in 2005 to 60% in 2012 (Mercado, 2012). Even if business
owners are able to offer health insurance benefits, the trend is towards
offering high deductible insurance, which covers an increasingly shrinking
portion of healthcare costs.
The net outcome is that more employed
middle class citizens have found themselves with no access to or low quality
healthcare. The employer-based coverage has been eroded, partially offset by a
rise in enrolment in Medicaid that was meant to offer a safety net for low
income Americans. Nevertheless, recently, Medicaid has been subject of
relentless funding cuts by congressional representatives and cash-strapped
states who are ideologically opposed to welfare initiatives. With the slashing
of the program, it is certain that Medicaid cannot offset the losses in
employer-based insurance. This will result in more uninsured individuals.
Health insecurity has reached at an all-time high point. At a time when
thousands of individuals are losing their health insurance daily, when
healthcare has become elusive to even high-income Americans and when any
individual is just a minute away from becoming uninsured, it cannot be
overstated that free healthcare to all citizens is not just imperative to
accomplish, but important. This will be the focus of this paper.
Proponents of the notion “the U.S
government should provide free healthcare to its citizens tend to cite a number
of factors in support to this notion. Social economic disparity between the
rich and the poor is a primary factor that defines the healthcare provision in
this nation. The poor and the middle class families often access limited or low
quality healthcare because of their inability to meet the high cost of quality
healthcare (Dautrich & Yalof, 2010). This factor seems to remove healthcare
provision from the basic human needs to the luxury needs. Arguably, when
healthcare provision ceases to be a primary need, the poor and the middle class
community is likely to suffer the brunt of this condition.
The differences in wage bracket between
the social classes seem to explain the need to create affordable healthcare to
U.S citizens. Civil liberty grants U.S citizen the protection of the U.S
government to its citizen (Mercado, 2012). This protection extends to life as
well as property. If this were the case, the government soul responsibility is
to define the lives of its citizens by creating policies as well basic care to
its citizens that are not in a position to ac quire such services. Moreover,
the millennium healthcare goal requires every government should create an
environment that promote millennium healthcare goal. Arguing from this view,
the government is the principal player in influencing the achievement of the
millennium goal. For instance, when the government reduces the cost of
healthcare, many people will afford this care; consequently, they will mortality
rate would decline hence achievement of the millennium goals healthcare to its
citizens. .
The moral view of the notion settles
that human beings should aid those that are suffering by alleviating them from
their conditions. A large population in the United State today is jobless or
unable to sustain their own lives. Nearly 14% of the population is unemployed,
yet the society expects them to purchase healthcare services (Dautrich &
Yalof 2012). In an event when this community fails to acquire these services
due to incapability to afford the same, the moral concept of humanity should
come in. The United State offer aid to the world in areas humanity. The same
should apply to the citizens that are not in a position to acquire the same. The
need that the poor world has is not different from the need that poor Americans
have. If the government can aid the world using the money received from the
public coffers, then it can in the same manner, aid its population. Further,
moral principles defining humanity provides that help or aid should begin at
home. Thus, the U.S government should begin by providing the care to its citizens
then extending the same to the rest of the world.
The guaranteed healthcare would improve
the living standards of the U.S. citizens. Evidently, the cost of treating
lethal diseases such as AIDS or cancer is unbearable to both middle class
community and the rich (White, 2008). This means that if the government does
not intervene to provide healthcare services to its citizens, then it would lose
a large population. Further, if the citizens were to meet the cost of such
diseases without the intervention of the government, many of them would become
bankrupt or end poor. The consequences of sacrifices that relatives of the sick
make are not only poverty and psychological drain, but also poor standards of
living. Some of these communities might not meet other costs such as cost of
higher education or housing. Poverty stems from the inability of the community
to meet the cost of essential goods and services. Largely, the intervention of
the government towards protecting its citizens should aim at addressing these
concerns.
Some special treatments are quite
expensive to meet and may require comprehensive policies that would include the
needs of the poor. The cost of buying the drugs is quite changing to those in
the lower economic ladder in the society. Largely, these people have to meet
the needs of their communities. Since the social gap between the poor is quite
large, the poor would prefer services that are according to their standards. It
would be difficult for an individual in the lower ladder to take first class
medical service. It could be understood from the argument of sociologists that
poverty has an impact on human health in a number of ways. It causes stress,
which is responsible to human health. Stress free life dictates the health
conditions of an individual. Many stressed people are likely to face challenges
of health. According to Mooney, & Knox & Schacht, (2010), inability to
obtain essential things in life such as diets, standards and service and
amenities among others contributes to poverty. Standard service in health is
essential, yet conditions or regulations make it difficult for the common poor
to receive the intended services
The opponents of the free healthcare
often argue that the free healthcare would makes some U.S citizens be parasites
to the state (Macionis & Gerber,
2010). While there is need to offer free healthcare to the less
privileged, the question about the source of finance that would meet this cost
often ring in the minds of the critics. To a given extent, the financier of the
free healthcare would be the taxpayer. Moreover, to meet the free healthcare
services, the government would have to increase the amount of tax it levies
from its citizens in order to meet this high cost (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Arguably, with the present taxation
system where the government tends to tax the rich more than the poor, free
healthcare bill would suggest that the government has to increase its taxation
disparities even much wider. This disparity will favor the poor of the rich and
might make some of the less privilege or the unemployed lose the urge to search
for employment.
Social theorists assert that people will
struggle to meet certain goals when there is need (White, 2008). Similarly,
when the free healthcare bill forms the order the day, the poor might and the
less privilege might lose the sense to struggle for better healthcare
provision. Another perspective to view the free healthcare bill is fact that
free healthcare limits the principles of free markets. According this
principle, healthcare service is similar to a business product brought into the
market. If the government lives the providers to trade their products without
interference, the result would quality product, which meets the value for
money. Nevertheless, this perspective tends to ignore the fact that healthcare
service is basic requirement to humanity and that its provision should not
solely lie in the hands of businesspersons. Trading the healthcare products
without the intervention of the government could further dent the society
ability to acquire quality healthcare.
Social factors contribute to health
inequality in American society. Emotional, physical, spiritual, and mental
dimensions of health of the American poor and the middle class indicate that
social determinants contribute to inequality in health. Social determinants
that influence health fall under the following categories distal (e.g.
political, historical, economical and social context), proximal (e.g. social
and physical environment, health behaviors), and intermediate (e.g. resources,
community infrastructure, capacities and systems). Social determinants affect
health behaviors, health vulnerability and capacity, and health management
(White, 2008). Further, social determinants would influence circumstances that
contribute to alleviation of health problems. For example, the unemployed
Americans who lead a low-income life experience diseases and illnesses. This in
turn reflects to the social status, which is linked to inadequate opportunities
to raise income to sustain good health. Inadequate employment opportunity
influence income of an individual, which further contributes to poverty level
in the society.
While the liberals believe that
government should use the public resources to finance the healthcare
requirements of its citizens, the conservatives tend to hold the idea that the
government should moderate people’s behavior, but stay out of the way of
corporations and institutions that provide healthcare services so that they can
make profit as well as keeping people employed. The free healthcare bill is
against the corporation’s idea of healthcare business. According to
conservatives, people are responsible for the healthcare conditions that they
face (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2010). A person’s inability to make right
social and health choices leads to some of the lethal illness. It follows that
if people were to follow best life choices meeting healthcare needs for some of
these illnesses would burden the government,
The idea of free healthcare to the
Americans sounds good to the ears of many, but when one takes a critical look
at the issue, it look awful. The current government debts would definitely
increase when the U.S governments ascends to free healthcare bill. Presently, a
number of issues including the growing cost of living, the growing population,
as well as the cost of running the government tend to predispose the government
to look for alternative funding to meet these needs (White, 2008). Introducing
free healthcare bill in this bracket will further constraint the government
ability to offer quality services to the citizens. When government grapples to
achieve or meet the budget of its citizens, it fails in one way or the other.
Arguably, introduction of the free healthcare bill would not only compromise
the quality of service that citizens would get, but create a tax burden to
corporations. The generalization of healthcare provisions often makes the
government health institutions to meet overwhelming number of patients.
Although, these patients meet the attention of the healthcare workers, they
receive substandard services. This would mean that the government would be
footing bills for healthcare services to its citizens, yet the services
acquired are not up to the required standards.
Some opponents of the free healthcare
bill assert that it would water the ability of the government institutions to
offer quality healthcare to its citizens. From the economic sense, overwhelming
number of people would visit healthcare units because of the cheap cost
associated with them. However, these facilities have limited capacity of people
that they can handle effectively. Arguably, since the law mandates the
institutions to offer free healthcare, no institution would turn down a
patient, but the patient might achieve the right quality. Some elements of cost
paid by the patients would affect the environment of service delivery as well
as the quality of service that the patient would receive. The conservatives
believe that free healthcare bill is a death sentence to quality healthcare.
The argument peddled cites the challenges of the Canadian healthcare system as
outcome of free healthcare. Some of the challenges cited include physical
shortages of healthcare professionals and limited innovation in the healthcare
system under the guise of cost control (Mercado, 2012). The U.K and Australia
have subsidized healthcare for their citizens. This healthcare insurance
approach enables these two countries to offer quality healthcare to their
citizens.
conclusion
In conclusion, proposal to offer free
healthcare service to citizens of United States has benefits as well challenges
in the same measure. The proponents of the idea cite factors such as moral
obligation, social inequality, lack of employment, as well as government
obligation to protect the civil liberty of its citizens as some of the factors
that makes them believe that the government should offer free healthcare services
to its citizens. The conservatives or the opponent of free healthcare notion
believe that the tax burden would increase, the idea would compromise the
quality of healthcare services offered to the citizens, and government would
incur more debts as some of the factors that illustrate the view. Settling for
a free healthcare service might require well thought policies in order to meet
the merits cited in this notion.
References
Macionis, J. J. & Gerber, M. L. (2010). Sociology. Boston: Pearson Education.
Mooney,
A. L. & Knox, D. & Schacht, C. (2010). Understanding Social Problems. New York: Cengage Learning.
White,
E. J. (2008). Contemporary Moral Problems.
New York: Cengege Learning.
Dautrich,
K. & Yalof, A. D. (2010). American
Government: Historical. Popular and Global Perspectives, Brief Edition. New
York: Cengege Learning.
Mercado,
B. L. (2012). Critical Thinking 101: Key
Concepts for the American Voter. New York: AuthorHouse.
