Healthcare for All? Not in This Country...

February 23, 2011
By Jlosc9 BRONZE, Reno, Nevada
Jlosc9 BRONZE, Reno, Nevada
1 article 0 photos 7 comments

Favorite Quote:
"The greater the struggle, the more glorious the triumph."

-Joshua Weckel


What is Universal Healthcare? Is it A) Socialists taking over the U.S., B) Our “Muslim” President taking away our rights, or C) Healthcare coverage for all eligible residents of a political region? The correct answer would be C. The sad fact is that many people think that A or B are the correct answers. If people were careful and not influenced by the media as much as they are, they would have a better understanding of what Universal Healthcare actually is. Universal Healthcare has recently been in the media and in the news for a few reasons. The United States President recently passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was created to increase health care coverage for all, and to include 32 million previously uninsured Americans. He also passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act in March of 2010. This act has been called “Health Care Reform.” This has taken the country one step closer to Universal Healthcare, because it provides 95% of Americans with affordable healthcare. With Universal Healthcare, you would be paying more taxes, but they would go to everyone’s health benefits. Universal Healthcare is a positive thing that can help many people. Not many people agree with this, but there are ways to understand why this is a positive thing.

Universal Healthcare provides health care benefits to everyone regardless of age, race, or pre-existing conditions. Studies have shown that citizens of countries that have Universal Healthcare systems have more doctor visits per year than people in the U.S. Access to healthcare is directly related to income and race in the U.S. This means that the poor and the minorities have less or no healthcare, while wealthy white people have better care. Is this acceptable, is this fair, is this humane in a country that prides itself of its human rights?

Universal Healthcare would be less expensive for the people who are paying for it. Right now, the United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other country that has a Universal Healthcare System. State Studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that it would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year in total medical expenses, despite covering uninsured and increasing health care benefits. There have also been Federal Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and General Accounting Office that have shown that Universal Healthcare would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering uninsured.

With Universal Healthcare, there would be more preventive services, which is less costly than paying for treatment of preventable diseases. This would bring down the rate of sick people and deaths. With Universal Healthcare, everyone would be covered, so everyone would have access to healthcare. The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990. The United States ranks poorly related to other nations in health care, despite having the best-trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation.

There is much opposition to Universal Healthcare. Some are:

It is not the government’s responsibility: Healthcare is a human right that everyone deserves. Don’t you think it should be the government’s responsibility to make sure their citizens’ health is taken care of?

There Would Be Longer Lines and More Waiting: This is actually a false statement. The United States would not have longer lines because we have 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons.
We Would Be Paying For The People That Don’t Work: It would be the same as it is today. We are already paying for people that don’t work, and for people that are underemployed. Where do you think the Medicaid/Medicare money is coming from? Or who pays the bill for the uninsured who go to the hospital for a flu? Our taxes. With Universal Healthcare, we would be paying for the people that DO work, but cannot afford or qualify for healthcare or benefits. In my opinion, I believe that paying for the people that can’t/don’t work is not a bad thing. Put yourself in their position.

My cousins have lived in the U.S. for 7 years. They are now 13 and 11 years old. They moved here from Mexico with their single mother, and yes, they are legal citizens. After living in the U.S. for one year, their mother opened her own Pilates studio and has kept it running for six years. Sadly, she has not been able to afford healthcare for her kids because she has to pay rent for her studio, house payments, car payments, daily necessities, salary for her employees, and countless bills. This is a successful, middle class, single mother, who works her fingers to the bone, employs people, but who cannot afford healthcare. The only healthcare she and her kids get is when they go to Mexico to visit their father. But what if her 11-year-old son breaks an arm? What if her 13-year-old daughter gets really sick? What does she do? Be in debt for the next 20 years for going to the hospital.

The point is that the current healthcare system is really unfair and unaffordable for millions of citizens. Affordable health care should be a right for all citizens. Universal Healthcare is a positive thing that would benefit us all. If you can find any way to promote Universal Healthcare, it would be fantastic. You need to spread the truth and make sure people get their facts right.

The author's comments:
I wrote this hoping people could understand what Universal Health care really is. There are many misconceptions and I hope I can clear some of them up.

Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 4 comments.


on Mar. 7 2011 at 10:59 pm
spiritualrevelationrevealspainandrevolution PLATINUM, Eugene, Oregon
23 articles 0 photos 212 comments
treefiddy you actually made an extremely intellectual comment, and i thank you fo rit. heres a simple way to look at it though, many times haveing healthcare gives people the means to keep from dying, thus making unconstitutional to not do everything in our power to keep people alive.

on Mar. 7 2011 at 12:18 am
Treefiddy BRONZE, Tarzana, California
1 article 0 photos 158 comments

My point is that whatever confiscation of property which is taken by the state, is ultimately done so at the point of a gun. The founders of the United States believed that the purpose of the government was to keep people from using force and coercion against one-another. If you have a right to health care, the government must confiscate the rightful property from somebody who has earned it to give it to somebody who has not. Government is necessary, but only for the protection of Individual natural rights, not the collective, cannibalic, tribal system.

Also, government's job is no to ensure the health of the citizenry. If that were true, the government could basically dictate every aspect of your life, operating on the premise that it is for the benefit of your health. In N.azi Germany, there was a slogan that "food is not a private matter", because you have an obligation to everybody else to be productive and to serve the common good as efficiently and as altruistically possible. Please note, that I am not calling people who support national health care N.azis; I am merely stating the extreme to make a point.


Jlosc9 BRONZE said...
on Mar. 2 2011 at 11:59 pm
Jlosc9 BRONZE, Reno, Nevada
1 article 0 photos 7 comments

Favorite Quote:
"The greater the struggle, the more glorious the triumph."

-Joshua Weckel

But like I wrote above, shouldn't the government make sure their citizen's health is taken care of?

And writing an article about wanting Healthcare for all does not mean I'm pointing a gun at someone. I just want fairness for the citizens of the U.S.


on Feb. 26 2011 at 11:31 pm
Treefiddy BRONZE, Tarzana, California
1 article 0 photos 158 comments

The entire argument for national health care is the question of fairness. Is it fair that one man is born with sight and another man is born blind? Inequity is the natural state of man, but that does not give the state the power to make the unequal equal.

Operating on the premise of God given Natural Law, which was the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, it layed out the institution of governance and the human condition.

Health care is not a right. Neither is food, shelter, or clothing. Health care is, like all things of material manifestation, a good. To declare it to be a right is to say that it is inherent to the human condition, where health care exists as naturally as the right to life.

To the secular humanist, a right is something which the collective have arbitrarily agreed upon as the foundation of mutual enslavement. To those who believe in the doctrine of Natural Law, a right is something which is conditional to human nature. The Declaration decalres for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The foundation of all human action is life. Without life, man has no capacity for liberty or the ability to pursue happiness. Without liberty, the ability to make choices defining his own life, while respecting the liberty of other men, there is no way which he may pursue happiness. The ability to pursue happiness is, in my opinion, the most important thing on this Earth.

Every man is free to the mutual and free state of his affairs, without the sanction of the collective or government to illegitimately seize his property for the collective good. To arbitrarily say that health care is a right is to say that everything is a right. There is nothing less arbitrary to declare health care as a right compared to saying a laptop is a right. And to declare something which is the product of the mind, the ability of a few men, to confiscate it and to nationalize it for the tribal good, is a depravation of individual liberty, which is the only true form of liberty.

To give anecdotal evidence as a sancation for the confiscation of legitimate property, is to render Natual Law and ultimately the individual's life as being sacraficed for the sake of the "common good". It renders the individual as a sacraficial animal, whose right to life ultimately is dependant upon the consent of the majority and/or the state.

"The right to life means the right to health care."

The right to life does not give the right to force your gun upon the mind of free men. The right to life means that you are free to pursue happiness, as long as you do not intrude upon another's right to life. The state exists solely to prevent man from coercing his fellow citizen.

Your values end where the point of a gun begins. Because of this, it is within my rights to respond to the treat of force with force. This is the only legitimate function of the state. When the state becomes involved in the affairs of collectivising the masses and the confication of property, it declares in principle that they may be sacraficed. What differs is not the principle, but the extent to which that principle is applied.

The question you would ask me is: "What should the state do for those who do not have health insurance"? I reject the premise of that question. The true question is: "Should the state give health insurance to those who do not have it?" The answer is "no". Despite the fact being that all the problems with health care in the United States are due chiefly to the involvement of the state in economics, the government may not sanction my being as a free individual.

To those who do not have health insurance, and lack the true capacity to acquire it on their own volition, it depends upon the free, uncoerced, charity of private citizens and their families. Americans are more than willing to provide for the comfort of his fellow man, but it may not be done so at the point of a gun.

The gun is the instrument of the state, by which all laws are ultimately upheld.





MacMillan Books

Aspiring Writer? Take Our Online Course!