Are Individuals Entitled to Healthcare, Essay Example

It is estimated that some 47 million residents of the USA are without health insurance.  As employees continue to try and shift the burden to individuals, the trend is set to increase.  As such, this creates a vicious circle where the average Americans continue to struggle with escalating health costs and adequate coverage.  The most successful of all the health care programs, i.e. Medicare is under increasing attack for lack about the service provision.  This particularly impacting the over 65 group that rely on Medicare for health support.  The question posed then is are  all individuals entitled to healthcare?

Reasons Against Automatic Entitlement

Universal healthcare systems fail, and both Canada and the UK are cited as examples.[1] For example:

• more than 1 million Canadians cannot find a family doctor;
• only 5% of surgery patients in the USA must wait for more than four months for a procedure, as compared to 36% in the UK;
• in mortality rates, the USA is the highest incidence of prostate cancer, but the lowest incidence of death.

Medicare has created health savings accounts, i.e. HSA’s and these have helped individuals to gain  a savings account for small medical expenses.

There also remains, the financial are nationalized health system.  The reality is, there is no free national health care system.  You would need to be paid for by increased taxation or spending cuts in other key areas i.e. defence education etc. as such government intervention in a national health system would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.  Equally, the government mandated procedures may result in a reduction of Dr. flexibility, and therefore reduce patient care.  Government maintained central health care records may also lead to a breach of patient confidentiality.  Both Canada and the UK, demonstrate a poor track record in central health care administration.

There may also be an escalation in the practice of  lawsuits, as universal healthcare, may expose the government to legal liability costs.  This in turn would have to be paid for by either increased taxes or cuts in expenditure; hence the vicious circle.  Also, patients are likely to be less responsible with their drug costs, if you’re free on a nationalized health service.  The results of this would cause costs to escalate several times higher than current levels.  Finally, like any Social Security, if healthcare is free.  It will be taken as a social right, and once instigated.  It will be almost impossible to review, should it get out of control.

Reasons Against Automatic Entitlement

The number of uninsured American citizens has increased to over 45 million people.  The escalating costs of health coverage is made health care become unaffordable for both individuals and businesses in the USA.  Companies already facing tough economic conditions are pushing back by transferring the cost from the companies to individuals.  It is considered that a centralized medical database would be easier for doctors and nurses to administer.  By the introduction of free medical services.  Patients are more likely to practice preventative medicine and inquire about potential problems more expensive medical tree becomes a necessity.  Also, those patients with pre-existing conditions should be able to get health coverage.

The USA is the only industrialized nation that is not guaranteeing health care is an automatic entitlement of its citizenship.  United States spends at least 40% more per capita on healthcare than any other country with universal healthcare system.  It has been estimated that a single payer universal health care system would save between hundred to $200 billion in one year alone.  These figures, even after factoring in all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.  The cost of health care in Canada as a percent of GNP has reduced since 1971, when the system was first implemented.  In the US costs of increased despite having a stronger economy in Canada.

America cannot afford to have its working populace unable to afford adequate health coverage.  America already has the highest levels of obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease in the world.  As such, the American people paid the price for this with sickness, time off work, lost income and loss leisure time with family and friends.  As such universal healthcare is the only viable means of ensuring everybody is treated in an equitable manner and afforded human rights proper medical coverage.  Those countries with universal health coverage have demonstrated more concerned about human welfare and conservative citizens.

It is considered that there is a moral obligation to provide a citizen with universal health coverage.  The single universal health care system is the health care payment system and not be considered a free care system.  Polls in the USA have indicated that between 60 to 75% of Americans like to see a universal healthcare system adopted.  The current situation of the US healthcare system is ranked as the lowest of any industrialized nation.

Obtaining the Right Balance

There are many  different representational points of view as to whether individuals are automatically entitled to healthcare.  On the one hand, many consider that healthcare is a human right and should be provided to all citizens regardless of race, creed or monetary status.  The other viewpoint is that health care is a privilege and should be earnt by responsible citizens through contribution to society.  This has been defined as those people who are employed and pay taxes or contribute financially to society in some other form.  In the United Kingdom and Canada the concept of a universal health system was decided by the electorate.  Perhaps ultimately in the United States, a similar situation will take place i.e., the people will decide on the most suitable system to be adopted moving forward.

The arguments against adoption of the Universal healthcare system are equally convincing.  The concept of government intervention and running a state health system as opposed to the more entrepreneurial approach of the private sector is a persuasive argument.  In the United Kingdom, the national health service — NHS, has been the subject of considerable criticism in terms of sustaining good medical practice and retention of key staff i.e., consultants, doctors and nurses many of which departed to the private sector of the US healthcare system, where they received higher remuneration and improved medical facilities.  The NHS has also been the victim of financial cuts from UK government spending policies.  It is this argument that the anti-lobby put forward in terms of nationalizing the US healthcare system.  That is to say it is feared a government controlled nationalized health system would be greatly inferior to that of a private sector run system that is considered to be much more accountable from a business perspective.  The obvious big disadvantage of this is that the private system is only available to those people with the income that can afford it.  Hence all the disadvantaged, and poorer elements of society are not provided with adequate health coverage.  This has become a considerable problem in the United States because of the amount of illegal immigrants that have moved into the US.  As such, we have a large number of people who are not US citizens and exist outside of the Medicare system.  The question of whether free health care to all is an automatic entitlement or human right is very much a matter of individual opinion.  The main argument in the lobby that supports a nationalized health system is that of referral to those other countries, other than the USA, where they perceive this to work.  Perhaps the biggest single argument is the financial burden that this imposes upon companies.  If the companies are made to bear the burden of the cost  it will ultimately contribute to their demise and as such increase unemployment.  At the same time.  It is not logical to expect individuals to bear the brunt of the cost of an expensive health care system without the remuneration of financial means to support same.

Given the situation with escalating healthcare costs, and the inability of corporate America to pay for these costs; then logic would dictate that there is very little alternative to government intervention and the subsequent support of the national health system.  The alternative would appear to be a further continued deterioration of the existing state and subsequently health system that can only be afforded by the affluent members of society.  Should that direction be adopted, the outlook for future generations is indeed bleak.

What is most significant is the fact that 60 to 75% of Americans polled support the concept of the US having national health care coverage.

[1] David Gratzer of the Manhattan Inst.