The United States Health Care

The principle of market justice is a system where medical care and benefits are distributed on the basis of people willing and able to pay. Moreover, the principle of market justice assumes that the free-market forces for supply and demand can govern health care, individuals are responsible for their achievements, and the market works best with minimal inference with the government (Shi and Singh, 2013). On the contrary, the principle of social justice is when health care is equally distributed, and it is a societal responsibility. Social justice regards health care a social good that should be available to all citizens regardless whether they can pay or not. The social justice method assumes that the government can decide through rational planning how much health care to produce and how to distribute it among all citizens. The problem is that the United States does not follow free-market principles, which can be seen in market justice, and social justice has been ongoing and gradual in the United States. Social justice drives publically financed programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. However, market justice drives employer-based insurance (Shi and Singh, 2013). Nonetheless, there are many Americans who cannot afford insurance, or do not have a job and do not qualify for any public programs. The amount of Americans uninsured is because of health care costs. As health care costs go up, the middle class is diminishing. Health care can very well be a factor contributing to

Health care in America is a serious issue as it involves families that are unable to receive accessible, affordable and quality medical treatment. Middle class or impoverished families are unable to receive the benefits of health care due to low income levels and a volatile economy. Politicians discuss the reformation of the health care system, but people who are uninsured suffer the consequences of a system that overlooks middle class families in favor of wealthy families, a dominant issue for conflict theorists. Some argue that the health care system is not in need of reform and state that

“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.

Primary care is the backbone of many industrialized nations, but is the US one of them? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The US lags behind such developed nations in its accessibility of primary care by a huge difference. The United States healthcare system fails to ensure the timely preventative and primary care for its residents. The current estimates indicate that there is merely one physician for every 2,500 patients. Not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also privately insured adults struggle in accessing the right primary care physician at the right time. Moreover, maldistribution of physicians only exacerbates the problem, especially for those residing in health professional shortage areas (HPSA).15 Approximately, sixty-five million Americans live in designated primary care shortage areas.13 Such underserved population faces higher disease and death rates and health disparities that then result in higher rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits—in other words, expensive medical bills.21 More governmental control on the geographic location of primary care physicians can be a first-step to fixing the shortage problem.

In attempting to remedy the unjust nature of the American health insurance system, one cannot determine what a just system should be based on the current assessment of society. Inequalities within the current system cannot foster discussion for what we believe is justice because preconceived notions cloud the judgment of even the foremost health policy intellectuals. Many philosophers therefore turn to creating hypothetical societies where these inequalities do not exist as a means to facilitate the discussion as to what true justice requires. Two such individuals, Ronald Dworkin and Charles Fried, have constructed such situations as a means to assess what a just healthcare system should be comprised of in a truly fair-market economy. Although they agree on issues pertaining to the resources available to individuals in a fair market, they also disagree on what constitutes justice in regards to how individuals may spend their allocations. An assessment of the disagreements between the two reveals that the main consideration for what justice demands of society boils down to the degree to which individuals are responsible for purchasing their share of health insurance as well as their fellow citizens’.

There are considerable differences both in health and in the resources needed to ensure equal opportunity to all with regards to health care (Powers & Faden, p. 36) and vulnerable populations often have decreased access to quality health care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides us with the opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by affording equal access to health care for every American through market reforms, new health care insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion for low-income adults. However, this opportunity has not been fully realized since the inception of the ACA by leaving Medicaid expansion up to individual states. Other weaknesses result from the fact that provisions of the ACA has not often achieved the intended effects

Equitable coverage and access to health services is a goal for states across the globe as healthcare is viewed by many major voices as a human right (UN, 1948; WHO, 2016a; NESRI, 2016; Obama, 2014). Many scholars reason that equitable coverage and access to health services is ethical (Aday, 1993; Putsch and Pololi, 2004; Kasule, 2012; Hurley, 2001). Specifically, Jeremiah Hurley (2001) argues that healthcare equity is ethically valuable because of its contribution to health and thus, “the ethically justified distribution of access to and utilization of needed health services is one which generates the desired level and distribution of health” (p. 235). From his argument, access is seen to be a central idea in the debate

Health inequality is one of the social inequalities that may cost the lives of people unless backed by corrective policies. Universal health care is one of those tools by which we correct disparities in health care utilization and insure the health of the fellow citizens. World health Organization (WHO) defined Universal health care, also universal health coverage as “a specific type of health care coverage of all people regardless of their income, age, race pre-existing illness, gender or wealth”. In other terms, it is ensuring health care utilization of all legal residents (World Health Organization, 2013).

In this article G. H. Jones & H. Kantarjian expose the scary truth of health care. They explain that health care is a basic human right for individuals to have, but is not guaranteed in the freedom of the U.S. and is rather a privilege. Freedom is seen as the equal opportunity to have health care. This being said, they discuss the downfall of not having health care, the inequality that has corrupted our nation, and what our money is actually going towards. In the end their goal is to inform us citizens while making us aware of our actual privileges.

In the United States, health care is considered a market compared to the National Health Insurance (NHI) System in Taiwan. In the U.S. health care is seen as a privilege in accordance with the lack of universal coverage. The U.S. also has the most expensive health care system in the world, yet when assessing performance compared to other countries, they consistently fall short; the U.S. has failed to achieve better health outcomes than other countries and is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity (Davis, Stemikis, Squires & Schoen, 2014). According to Palfreman and Reid (2008) in the film “Sick Around the World”, Taiwan has the lowest health care average costs paid by families per year.

The United States healthcare system is unique when compared with that of other developed nations. Shi and Singh (2015) describe 10 different characteristics of the United States system, as well as, several external factors that assert some pressure on the healthcare delivery system. In this discussion, we will focus on access to health care, as one of the characteristics, and information technology as the external force. I will then review what effect the Affordable Care Act of 2010 had on these issues.

2. It is a basic necessity for all human beings to have equal access to healthcare. Justice demands that there should be a fair provision of resources in regards to vital needs (Baldwin 2003). It is unfair when a portion of the population has access to quality healthcare while the rest does not. When there is a disparity in the allocation of social investments such as housing, nutrition and education, this does not only limit opportunities for people, but it also lessens the health of the general population. Access to quality healthcare is important because it improves the quality of life. The disparities in access to healthcare are widespread, especially in areas where there are little or no social amenities.

Health care is one of the most pressing issues in the media and on people’s minds in today’s society. There is much disagreement on how to solve the problems within the healthcare system, but everyone agrees that there are problems. The significant numbers of Americans who do not have insurance drove the Obama administration to make health care reform one of its top priorities. The rising costs of health care and abuses of the system have motivated the Trump administration to try and repeal or reform Obamacare. One of the biggest issues in health care is what is called health care disparities, which involve unequal access to quality health care for people based on things such as cultural, linguistic, or economic factors. As a

Over the years, government agencies have tightening their focus to improve the healthcare of people who live in poverty, although the results are not promising. According to Amartya Sen, there has been a misconception that a country needs to be rich in order for it to be healthy (Sen, 2015). While richer societies tend to be healthier, ‘’the connection is not automatic because it really depends on a wide range of factors, such as how societies choose to organize itself and deploy resources’’ (Sen, 2015). A research conducted by Bloom and Canning on how to improve healthcare reform for the underprivileged population suggested that our nation’s health spending was ‘’misallocated and inefficiently applied toward the affluent, and not the poor’’