HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND LIBERTY IN THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT .
The United State government initiated a new Health Care System to allow most majorities access to health insurance which was previously only affordable by the rich minorities. This essay argues that this new health system should be implemented and supported. The accessibility of health insurance enables the care provider to provide health care services to a majority of the people who struggle to access them. According to utilitarianism views, the new health care system will increase the number of recipients of health care and hence the overall benefits to society. The state has an obligation to provide affordable and accessible health care. This essay also argues that
…show more content…
Capitalism has left the majority of the working class in US poor and unable to access health care. The costs of technology, medical personnel and pharmacare are beyond the reach of many Americans who are uninsured. According to Marx, the working class are poor because they don’t benefit from their labour (Marx 1846, 47.) He argued that the working class is poor in a capitalist society because they do not own the means of production. This is supported by the study done by Forbes that shows that a minority of the people ( 1 percent) in US own and control the wealth (Forbes 2012). Thus, the new health care system is a response to the growing number of people who cannot afford it.
The new health care system is important because it would allow health care providers to fulfil the principle of morality, to do the right action in every situation. Kant adds that people are rational beings, governed by the law of reason and not by nature (Kant 2005, p.461). Reason tells the care providers that serving the majority of the people is better than serving just a few. Kant believes that people use reasoning to determine what is right and good for society (Kant 2005, p. 460). For Hegel, a person has the right to “listen to
…show more content…
It could be argued that the citizens deserve to be protected from disease. For Kant a state has to protect external freedom. People already have freedom but they just need to be protected . It is the state’s duty to protect people from disease. This is an extension of protection of freedom. The government has the obligation to protect its citizens from any threat to their freedom. Diseases are a threat to citizens. According to Kant, the four categories of state are 1) an anarchical state, characterized by freedom and law but no force; 2) a despotic state, characterized by law and force, but no freedom; 3) a barbaric state, characterized by force, but no freedom or law; and, 4) a republican state, characterized by force with freedom and law. For Kant, the rightful condition was achieved in the despotic state and the republican state (Kant 2005, p.416). Each state has a duty to perform for its citizens. According to Kant, duty could be characterised as strict, perfect or imperfect. Strict duties are comprised of justice and respect for other people’s right and protection of their dignity (Kant 2005,p.420) . As well, the state has to support those who cannot protect themselves. Hence, the new health care system must provide health care to the people who cannot normally afford it. For Kant proper institutions are necessary for the
As Americans we should all be afforded access to healthcare. Access to healthcare is an individual right according to the human rights amendment. The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all. The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions and a clean environment (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015). However there are strengths and weaknesses to every healthcare system and the U.S. Healthcare system is not exempt. I plan to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the U. S. Healthcare system (What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care, 2015).
The author states that if America is able to find the political will to provide universal healthcare coverage, the rest of the world can then show the way. This says to me that the United States must look within itself and make the moral determination as to whether healthcare should be considered a fundamental right granted to all its citizens as a theme of this book. Once addressed, the United States can join the other industrialized countries that have long since implemented universal healthcare systems such as: Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Canada; who have more cost effective systems which produce better health outcomes than the US.1
The healthcare system of the United States was established as a system of health and welfare programs created to provide affordable treatment to the citizens of the United States. Recently, the Affordable Health Care Act was passed changing the structure of the system (Mulvany, 2012). While in theory the new arrangement works, it has its flaws due to the resulting cost, slowness, and the government interfering with religious and personal beliefs. These problems have led many people to question the role of the government in the life of the individual.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If these words are true then why should we segregate one another by a precondition such as Universal Health care? A system that should allow residents of a specific region the opportunity to have healthcare coverage. This paper argues stipulations that all residents should be given the opportunities stated in the founding documents as well as the right to suitable healthcare, economic productivity and, a base for a just nation. In 2014 according to the US Census Bureau 33 million people in the United States which equates to 10.4% did not have health insurance. Thus, possibly assisting with the inability to provide residents with lifesaving treatments and accurate care for those in dire need but were unable to receive certain previsions due to not having health care.
One of the great hypocrisies of American culture is found in its health care system. The United States claims in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and that all of these men have the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet this is the same country that allows over 120 people to die each day because they are uninsured. How can this nation claim that all are created equal and have a right to life when they deny healthcare to those who cannot afford it? This issue has come on the scene relatively soon, having only truly been discussed beginning in the early 20th century. Since that time, a fear of socialism stemming from tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the century has placed a stigma on the concept of universal health care because it is similar to the Soviet’s socialized medicine. In recent years, President Obama made great strides toward universal health care by passing the Affordable Care Act, but some would argue that while America is on the right track, more can be done to care for the nation’s poor. Others argue that the economic impact of such policies could cause problems for America. Though creating a universal health care system has complex logistical and economic consequences, health care is an internationally acknowledged human right and should not be denied to the American people.
Health care spending in the United States of America as a percentage of the economy has reached astonishing heights, equating to 17.7 percent. This number is shocking when compared to other counties; in Australia health care is 8.9 percent, in United Kingdom 9.4 percent, in Canada 11.2 percent. If the American health care system were to hypothetically become its own economy, it would be the fifth-largest in the world. While these statistics sound troubling, they lead us to look for answers about the problems surrounding our system. The first health insurance company was created in the 1930s to give all American families an equal opportunity for hospital care and eventually led to a nationwide economic and social controversy that erupted in the 1990s and continued to be shaped by the government, insurance companies, doctors, and American citizens. In this paper, I will go in to detail about the various opinions regarding the controversy, the history behind health insurance companies, and the main dilemmas brought out by the health care crisis. Greedy insurance companies combined with high costs of doctor visits and pharmaceutical drugs or the inefficient hospitals all over America can only describe the beginning to this in depth crisis. Recently, the United States health care industry has become know for the outrageous costs of insurance models, developments of various social and health services programs, and the frequent changes in medicinal technology.
The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.”( Creech, Mark H. “Universal Health Care Is Unbiblical. ) Is access to health care a human right, or a valued social good, or neither? In 2003 the Institute of Medicine published a report, Insuring America's Health, which contained five principles for evaluating various strategies for health care reform. The first principle, "the most basic and important," was that health care coverage should be universal. The idea that access to health care should be universal, however, has become one of the most hotly debated issues in the ongoing discussion of how to reform the U.S. healthcare system. In Opposing Viewpoints: Universal Health Care, authors explores the
A national health care system in the United States has been a contentious topic of debate for over a century. Social reformists have been fighting for universal health care for all Americans, while the opposition claims that a “social” heath care system has no place in the ‘Land of the Free’.
The availability of healthcare is an extremely important issue in the United States. There are millions of Americans that are uninsured in the U.S. A high amount of uninsured people are from minority groups such as Hispanics and African-Americans. High deductible payments, the cost of prescription drugs, and lack of health insurance coverage cause many Americans to choose to live without insurance to save money for everyday expenses beside healthcare. Without health insurance, people do not have access to quality healthcare. Most citizens are aware of the issues in the healthcare system, but the disagreement comes when discussing how the best approach on ameliorating the system. Some believe that a more public and universal healthcare system is the best approach. Others believe that America works best through free enterprise and private institutions, and believe health insurance should be more privatized. However, health care has been shown to work best and be more available through proper public government control as it will allow for all Americans to have access to equal healthcare, in which money does not dictate health.
In 2007, more than 45 million Americans did not have health care insurance. The United States is the only industrialized major nation in the world without health care, and the debate about changing that has become a popular issue recently. The sharp difference between the two sides is a difference in ethical values; those for universal health care desire to see the government help others, mainly the lower class, and those who do not, wish that private companies be allowed to continue taking advantage of the status quo for profit. In this paper, I will argue why the Government should put in place The Universal Healthcare Systems.[1]
Currently the United States has the most expensive health care system in the world and some 45 million Americans are uninsured under the current health system, these numbers continues to grow. Using the theory of an Utilitarianism perspective and developing a single-payer system such as universal health care all Americans could enjoy equal access to quality health care. The single-payer system will provide tools to manage health spending more effectively and ensure health care for everyone. If the United States would follow the blueprint of other developed nations who have successfully implemented universal health care coverage it would protect citizens from high medical premiums, co-payments and give everyone access to equal health care. In the United States people go without health coverage, it is a problem that needs to be resolved, yet we remain one of the last developed countries to implement universal health care coverage. Despite efforts to enact polices for
According to Squires and Chloe, the United States of America is considered as the greatest country in the world, with the largest economy, military powers, freedom of religion and speech, and one of the most successful democrats (2). However, the United States in the only western modernized nation that does not offer free healthcare services to all its citizens. Apparently, the costs of the healthcare services to the uninsured individuals in the US are prohibitive, where the insurance companies are interested in making higher profit margins than providing adequate health care to the insured (Squires and Chloe 4). These conditions are unexpectable and incompatible with the United States
Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.
The health care system in the United States is one of the greatest concerns facing Americans today and is an issue both moral and economic in nature. Some think the system should stay, for all intents and purposes, the same. They believe that the right to healthcare is a stepping stone toward socialism, and that it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain health care. These are usually the more ideologically conservative citizens and politicians who believe that medicine should remain a free enterprise, not to be constrained by government interference. Then there are those who believe that healthcare is a right, and the federal government has a responsibility to make sure it is available to all citizens, not just those who can afford
Should the U.S. government provide free health care for all citizens? Free health care for all citizens, is a very controversial topic that has been debated for years. This debate concerns many pros and cons, such as “CNN reporting that 45,000 Americans are dying per year because they do not have access to health care because of costs.” According to research and statistics, majority of the people say that they agree with having free health care. Most people agreed because they believe it is the government’s job to help the ones that are in need. This paper will discuss why free health care is needed, what problems are caused by not providing free healthcare for all citizens, and the solutions that will benefit everyone.