The U.S Government should provide free healthcare to its citizens

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.