Is Helthcare a Right or a Privilage? - Essay Sample

Introduction

Three of the most important reasons why citizens in the United States don't access universal health care have attracted debate in most forums with an aim of looking for the solution. One of the reasons why citizens don't have access to universal health is political culture. This began in the entire nation in the minds of the immigrants who had an entrepreneurial mind but they lacked feudal systems that would help then to ingrain a strong social structure. In this case, Americans can be said to be more individualistic. This paer therefore attempt to creat a logical argument that healthcare to all is a privilege not a right despite the fact the two are related and can be used interchangeably.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The second reason is associated with the interest groups. As the culture in America helps in the explanation of the healthcare debate, it is very far to be the only reason why America lacks universal health care. The role of the interest groups have influenced the political process and have limited the debate on the national health insurance. The ACA legislative battle, for example, resulted in a generation of US $1.2 Billion in lobbying back in 2009 alone (Savedoff, Ferranti, Smith, & Fan, 2012). The key players in this process were the insurance industry that used more than $100 million to shape the ACA and protect the insurers contrary to the national government which is a key cog in the American health care. There have been recent reports that have revealed that there is a preparation by the lobbyist to fight the public opinion on the ACA. The lobbyists would mobilize the implementation of comprehensive national health insurance should there be an attempt.

The third reason and which have been avoided by the 2016 candidates is that the institutions in America have made it difficult for the enactment of the massive entitlement programs. This has been identified by the policy experts in the study of the health systems in the united state (Gwatkin & Ergo 2011). The absence of a comprehensive health insurance system is facilitated by the political institutions in America that are biased against this comprehensive reform. These systems are prone to inertia and as such, any attempt to carry out the implementation must face the barrier of the congress committee, conference committee, the budget estimates as well as potential veto where the opponents publicly bash the bill.

I think when people try to compare health care and say whether it is a right or ought to be a right for everyone, they don't do this with a common mind. My point is we should unanimously agree that no one should be denied this fundamental service of healthcare regardless of their cultural orientation, their race, sexual orientation or religious orientation. Well, I know that not everyone who agrees with this opinion but it is not all about what people dispute against. The question that is my concern is whether an individual may get proper healthcare without money to pay for the services. The question is not clear. This is because it doesn't mean that you have a right to get the healthcare services even though you can't pay for it. That is the current situation, you can go to the emergency wing and get attended to but get a bill of $20, 000 a month later. As such healthcare is a right not a privilege.

As a nation, we must have a debate that will yield positive results on whether healthcare collectiveness and a service that is paid for by human beings is a right or a privilege. If the United States healthcare was a right entitled to all human beings then it attracts the enactment of the rules to guide on sho gets which service and when. The question of how often as well as who pays for the services should be appropriately documented to prove its need. The government has been known over the years to grapple with the philosophical questions and this is certainly in details at all the times. There will however exist no risk in terms of cost and more people will make use of the service when the theoretical unlimited access is given.

Regardless of my opinion in all the nations across the world that have a centralized system of government, it can be seen as a common issue of common sense for the government to give to its citizens appropriate healthcare in order for the government to promote and improve its economy. A population that is not healthy, sick or a population that is injured cannot work or be reproductive in any way. The government that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens will definitely incur more cost. if this doesn't happen directly, the government will incur the cost indirectly through cases of premature deaths, an increase in the rate of crime, low productivity among other ways. For example, when the US is measured either through Gross Domestic Products (GDP) or in terms of per capita it has the greatest expenditure in a large margin. This doesn't mean that there are no challenges associated with the health care systems in the countries that offer free health care to its citizens but the citizens in those countries are fortunate to have a system that works well frequently for a good number of people.

References

Gwatkin, D. R., & Ergo, A. (2011). Universal health coverage: friend or foe of health equity?. The Lancet, 377(9784), 2160-2161.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62058-2/abstract

Koda-Kimble, M. A. (2012). Koda-Kimble and Young's applied therapeutics: the clinical use of drugs. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

http://epubseago.info/mary-anne-koda-kimble-applied-therapeutics-the-clinical-use-of-drugs-epub-sea-full-lib.pdf

Savedoff, W. D., de Ferranti, D., Smith, A. L., & Fan, V. (2012). Political and economic aspects of the transition to universal health coverage. The Lancet, 380(9845), 924-932.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612610836