Universal Healthcare System in the United States

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

Without our health, we have nothing. Money, friends and family, happiness--all are afterthoughts without our health. As such, both as individuals and as a society, maintaining our health must be an indispensable priority. Despite the many faults of our healthcare system, Americans realize this. Healthcare is undoubtedly a major concern in the United States. The recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare,” the heated debates on healthcare across the nation, and the over one trillion dollars spent per year by the government on healthcare, all show our prioritization of health ("Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go"). Furthermore, a strong majority of

Leonard Peikoff believes that national healthcare is unethical and tramples on the individual “negative” rights of hard-working Americans. He makes a point of clearly defining what our “negative” rights are; they are our ‘unalienable, individual rights’ as Americans, in the context in which it was written in the Declaration of Independence, the right to “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness”. According to Peikoff, “…all legitimate rights have one thing in common they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.” (Peikoff 2); it is this right to action (pursuit) which Peikoff attributes to the success

“For decades in this country we have accepted the barbaric consequences of a profit-driven health care system that bullies and denies us basic freedoms. Therefore, we are not free” (Redmond 76). Since Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, health care has been the topic of many heated political conversation. At the root of that discussion is one underlying question: is health care a moral right? Helen Redmond takes the stance that “Access to Health Care Is a Human Right”. Redmond states five different examples of why health care is a human right. In addition to giving statistics on why we need to reform health care, Redmond give us examples of real Americans who have struggled with the big bully know as the greedy healthcare providers. Leonard Peikoff takes the the opposite view by claiming that “Health Care Is Not a Right”. Peikoff first dissects the concept of morality and how it is explained in the Declaration of Independence. He then goes further to state that giving health care for free to other is actually violating the rights of the doctors that treat them. I believe that Helen Redmond made the best argument.

US health care is one of the most talked about or controversial topics in last few years. We often come across debates, articles or columns relating to this topic. This is a hot topic of this generation. Why everyone should have insurance? Why people should have for something that might not use? These are some of the questions we found ourselves surrounding by. In my opinion US citizens should be required to have insurance. Both men and women have separate needs when it comes to health. More women are facing health issues because of teen pregnancies and child birth, it is important to for everyone to have a health care plan according to their needs. So when the time comes right treatment and medical attention can be provided. In this piece I will be presenting some ideas and arguments supporting my side and also looking at the flip side of the discussion.

Tears fall throughout the night; a mother living in Belfast, England has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She knows that with the rate of people being admitted everyday to a hospital, it will be months, even years, before she receives treatment; by then, it may be too late. We’ve been spoiled with top notch healthcare in the United States and, upon our fairly well-off thrones, we can’t even begin to fathom the enormous sorrow and agony that these people must face. That’s why in 1906, the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL) began the first campaign for health insurance for an ailing working class. Later in 1945, President Harry Truman proposed the idea of ‘Universal Heathcare’, which would grant all citizens the access to free

Within the previous four years, the number of uninsured Americans has jumped to forty five million people. Beginning in the 1980’s, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has been trying to fix this problem of health insurance coverage for everyone with a basic reform. The AAFP’s plan imagined every American with insured coverage for necessary improved services that fall between the crucial health benefits and the surprising costs. (Sweeney) They expect by fostering prevention, and early prevention, with early diagnosis with treatment, the program would result in decreased health system costs and increased productivity through healthier lives. The way to achieve health care coverage

Few debates are more intractable than the one around the issue of the government providing free health care for those incapable of paying for the care themselves. It’s a fight between the capitalist impulse that all people are – ultimately – responsible for taking care of themselves, and the liberal-democratic idea that providing health care for those too destitute to afford ir is one of the issues governments are designed to handle. To let the most unfortunate peoples of a society die due to lack of health care is not something a modern government can allow without serious damage to its credibility and moral compass; for those reasons the United States should provide free health care for those people incapable of paying for life saving medical procedures.

This writer believes that health care is a right, and therefore the government cannot discriminate who should and should not receive health care. As a matter of social justice and political obligation, the government should be responsible for making sure that every citizen of the country, regardless of their race, color and ethnicity, has access to affordable coverage and quality care. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2007), everyone has the right to health, including health care. Good health is everything – it means a person is able to be a productive citizen and it increases quality of life while positively impacting the quality of life for the entire community. Thus the role of the government to achieve health for

A question that liberal democratic states continue to ponder on is whether universal health care is a right or a privilege. It is a legal yet conceptual question that truly can say a lot about where a nation stands today, particularly in the political realm. An equitable state requires that high quality care is accessible to all and that the quality of care provided does not vary based on personal characteristics such as income or status. The state has a responsibility to provide its citizens with adequate and appropriate health care. Without access to it, the health care system is simply regarded as a commodity in the market, sold by the state and bought by the wealthy, with profits generated. Access to health care is not a privilege that is solely reserved for those who can afford it, but rather a right for

Feminist Care Ethics is a moral theory that is mainly focuses on emotions and caring for those we are responsible for. There are many features within this theory. First, the main focus of feminist care ethics is attending to whom we are responsible for. The theory acknowledges that throughout a lifetime there are times where people will need to be cared for whether it is in their early years or later. Those who are responsible for a person in need of care have an obligation to care for them. For example a mother to her dependent child or a daughter to her ill mother or father (Held, 2006, p. 478-9). Second, what is considered to be moral or immoral should be based off of valued emotions. Valued emotions are sympathy, empathy, sensitivity, and responsiveness. These are valued because they are considered kind and moral. I support this part of the theory because other moral theories rely on reason and rationalistic deductions and calculations in order

The government is a key player in any policy field, and it is true that decisions by the government entities represent public policy. However, private policy, such as insurance companies, private employers, influential individuals, and others who can all be part of health

Humans. Humans are known to dedicate both time and effort into things that spark interest and value. Such is why we have to take direct action to dedicate so much time and effort into a truly universal value; health care. Good health is for everyone – not just for those who can afford it. Said fairness is fundamental to the any and all healthcare systems. Equity and equality, whilst different, must be combined. Every citizen deserves to have access to quality healthcare, not just healthcare - on truly equal terms. No matter who they are. This principle is not just at the very heart of the law but rather it is in the hearts and minds of almost every person. But we know – and the government know - that there are gaps. Gaps between tradition practice

Healthcare is widely described as the preservation and enhancement of physical and mental health, specifically through the provision of medical services (Notara, Koulouridis, Violatzis, & Vagka, 2013). Health affects everyone and is prominent in all aspects of one’s life because it cuts through a wide range of human activities (Gable, 2011). Furthermore, this brings about the argument on whether or not health should be considered a right or a privilege. According to Gable (2013), health is essential to the human condition and is a multifaceted, relativistic concept that is at the basis of the Human rights law. The Human rights law relies on two foundational concepts: firstly, that human rights are universal and indisputable, and secondly, that human rights surpass state dominion and obligate governments to protect, respect, and fulfill the human rights of all people within their jurisdiction (Gable, 2013). The Human rights law acknowledged everyone’s right to a standard of living that is adequate for their health and well-being that includes: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, social services, and their right to security in circumstances that are beyond their control (Gable, 2013). Moreover, because healthcare is essential to the well-being of others this further answers the previous question that yes, in fact, healthcare should be considered a right and not a privilege.

Individuals who reside in countries practicing a system of universal health care have access to the health services they require, which, consequently, leads to overall healthier populations. Such health services include, amongst other things, prevention promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care.(who.org) These services are provided without the risk of monetary adversity or destitution for those who use them. Ease of access to health facilities and care in turn leads to healthier people. Universal health care systems bring the entire populace into contact with good quality services and health professionals, in addition to medicines and technologies that aid in the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems. In order to meet the urgent well-being needs of the population, such systems employ a people-centered combined care approach to treatment that incorporates: