The Debate over Socialized Healthcare

Health care is not a privilege. In fact, a good level and quality on healthcare should be an inalienable right for all people. Social class, status or economic situation shouldn’t dictate who live and enjoy of good health or who doesn’t. Healthcare in America should be universal, continuous, and affordable to all individuals and families. Although some of the states in the US are taking unilateral measures not to focus exclusively on the poor, but seeks to guarantee health access to any uninsured people, achieving universal coverage will require federal leadership and support, regardless of which strategy is adopted to achieve this

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’.

While campaigning for the 2016 presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed that America should adopt a single-payer health care system. In Sanders’s plan, there would have been only one insurance program that would have covered everyone in the United States; in effect, other programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and especially private insurance would be discontinued (Holahan, 2016, p. 1). If Sanders’s proposal were to be carried out, it would be a drastic change from the current system which predominately comprises of private insurance and hospitals under limited government regulations. The debate reopened on whether or not a single-payer system would be an effective system health care system or economically viable. Due to the contrasting nature of current health care system in the United States, policymakers should approach proposals of single-payer health care systems with caution and an understanding of the benefits and the drawbacks by examining the successes and failures of real-world systems.

Every single life on the surface of this earth has an equal right to existence. The life of an affluent American should not be worthier in the right to existence than that of a poor American. Neither should is the life of a bishop be more important than that of a Muslim child. Every life is sacred and equal. Without a healthy citizenry, no nation of people could fight enough to either demand for their freedom nor maintain the freedom that has been already gained. It is within that context that I declare that the right to an affordable healthcare is as sacrosanct as the right to be

How many U.S. families are in thousands of dollars of debt due to the outrageous costs of healthcare? People are steering clear of medical attention that they know they need because they want to avoid this debt that they will inevitably get into. There is a solution for these people that need relief from their physical and financial problems. Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns and regulates all aspects of the healthcare industry, which gives the common people a chance to get the medical attention they need.

One of the most demonized terms in American political discourse is 'socialism.' When various healthcare reform proposals are being discussed, it is common to condemn them as 'socialized medicine' if they call for greater government intervention to enable universal coverage of all Americans. However, socialized medicine refers to a very specific system of providing healthcare and virtually no American politician has dared to propose what would constitute a truly 'socialized' system of medicine. Additionally, many nations exist which provide universal coverage for all citizens without deploying a single-payer system. It is important to understand truly what socialized medicine 'is' and what it is not, as well as its benefits and detriments, when debating healthcare policy in America.

“If Obamacare is so wonderful, why is it that its loudest advocates don 't want to be subject to it,” stated Senator Ted Cruz. As financial and social hardships began to become apparent in the United States, one major problem facing the citizens and governing body is Health Care for all. Socialized medicine is a health care system where the government funds and runs health care facilities and employs the health care professionals, also paying for all health care amenities. This idea of giving high quality care to citizens previously unable to afford healthcare has caused problems in the United States, and this idea of “socialized medicine” has proven to create hardships in other countries in the past. Obamacare has introduced socialized medicine in the United States which has caused negative effects both financially and ethically.

Health care debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States (Factcheck.org). Our privatized system has failed the chronically ill population of our country. The political climate that we currently have for these issues is not addressing these issues at an appropriate pace. Health care in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and health care inflation is increasing the fastest in the world (Reid 9). As of 2005, the United States health expenditure as a percentage of GDP is fifteen point three percent (Reid 9). We currently have a system where health care costs are increasing faster than wages, and this has been going on since at least 2000 (Starr, 161). We lead the world in health care spending, and this is a hemorrhage that needs more than a bandage. Some of the other problems we face in this country are access to care, quality of care, and efficiency of care. In this paper, I will dive in to the reasons why we have these problems, and I will analyze both sides of the argument of reform. The two major political parties in the United States have very different types of solutions for these issues. I will dissect each of these approaches, and explain what works about each sides approach, and what does not work about each sides argument. I will also discuss the current US social programs that work, and explain how they work. We need congress and the president to act in cooperation to solve these issues. Our convoluted

When U.S. President Barrack Obama signed the health care reform bill into law in March 2010, opposing political pundits were quick to brand the initiative as government takeover of the healthcare system and pejoratively described it as socialized medicine. I considered it my civic duty to look a little deeper into the pros and cons of the issue as earlier research findings had reported 45,000 Americans died annually for lack of health care coverage (Robertson, 2009).

A debate discussed on a topic “RESOLVED: Medicare should be changed from a guaranteed health care benefit program into one that offers premium support for private insurance” was held on April 6, 2017, at Hunter Silberman campus room 303. Chaired and anchored by Professor Michele J. Siegel, the debate explores the pros and cons of “RESOLVED: Medicare should be changed from a guaranteed health care benefit program into one that offers premium support for private insurance.” There was two participating groups: one that spoke for the motion and another that talked against the motion. In the first place, Professor Siegel selected the participants and set the proposal for the debate. I was on the con's side of the debate, and before the debate,

Besides the general purpose of providing healthcare to all, the idea of government healthcare is that there is a single-payer as opposed to multiple insurance companies as well as government payers. All citizens are considered insured and only charged based on each individual’s “ability to pay” (MacDonald, 2013). This insurance would be paid for by the single-payer, the government, though the taxation of its citizens. Examples of this type of system can be seen in countries such as Canada and Sweden, as well as our own Department of Veterans Affairs ' VA health system. The idea of a nation-wide single-payer system has remained fairly popular in the United States due to the popularity and acceptance of the government’s Medicare program. In MacDonald’s article, “Healthcare reform: Socialized medicine?”, he quotes Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Washington, D.C.: "No matter where you move in the country, you keep your Medicare," she says. "It allows you to go to any doctor or hospital you choose, and it 's not wildly expensive given the relatively expensive population it serves." (2013) Opinions such as these are what is fueling the desire of U.S. citizens to evolve our multi-payer system into a universal single-payer system. This would eliminate competing private insurance plans and exclusion of patients from coverage due to their existing health status (Kemble, 2012). Overall, a single-payer system appears to be a more equal, streamline

Socialized Medicine and the Health Care Reform are two different types of Health Care programs. Socialized includes everything related to Health Care, where the Health Care Reform cover mainly health insurance and cutting cost. One form of socialized medicine is Great Britain National Health Service or NHS.

I believe that everyone has the right to health care, especially if health conditions calls for it. I do not think income level or the type of insurance should dictate the eligibility or quality of care. By using that criteria, we are implying that certain groups of people deserves to be taken care of and have good health while others do not deserve it. I believe healthcare should be accessible to all as a basic human right.

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.

After all, it should be a right to be healthy. This is not the case with how the health system works in America. If everybody has the right to be healthy, then why is it only affordable to the upper class? Denying necessary coverage is denying the right to be healthy. Democrat Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina, said in an article that the health care problem in America is “the civil rights movement of the 21st century” (Faces of...Debate). In the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights, people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from them. Some of these include the right to speech, religion, press, assemble peacefully, and even to own a gun. Healthcare coverage should be apart of that list too. It doesn't make sense that the Government says it's fine that you can own a gun no matter what, and yet, they could care less if you are healthy or not.