Should the Government Provide Healthcare - Research Paper Example

Should The Government Provide Healthcare? Abstract The provision of healthcare has been a controversial one for quite sometime with some suggesting that the government should provide universal healthcare to its citizens while others, mainly the supporters of free market, oppose the idea of universal healthcare. Those in support of universal government-funded healthcare feel that a just government has an obligation to ensure the rights of its citizens, including the right to good health and safety of health are provided and protected. The free market supporters on the contrary feel that such a move would result in the government monopolizing the healthcare sector and denying the public healthcare choice. This assertion is quite ironical since it is the private insurance companies that have overtaken the healthcare industry, denying the public, more so the poor and other disadvantaged in society access to quality and deserved healthcare. If the government provides healthcare, all citizens, their socioeconomic and cultural diversities not withstanding, will access quality health services equally. Introduction Throughout historical times to current times, quality healthcare and its equal and equitable provision has been a rather controversial and fiercely debated issue not only in the United States of America but also in other countries. One reason that has made healthcare provision and financing quite controversial in current times is its cost, which has rendered it inaccessible and underutilized by many, more so the poor in society. That is, millions of people in the world do not readily access healthcare since they do not have any insurance coverage to pay for their medication. This situation presents itself despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that people should be equally treated and their rights to healthcare, good health, and enjoyable life respected and upheld (Bentes et al., 2004). Consequent to the lack of medical cover, many people are rendered helpless as far as healthcare maintenance and emergency are concerned. Thus, lack, inaccessibility, and underutilization of healthcare, and its cost are some of the health-related social inequalities that people face in contemporary society. It is for these reasons and the accompanying economic hardships that a cross section of society feel that the government should come in and provide healthcare for the public, more so the poor, the vulnerable uninsured groups (Bentes et al., 2004). Included in the group that is in great need of government assistance as far as healthcare is concerned are the majority of low income adults, the poor, their children, and the jobless youth/students that face numerous healthcare accessibility and affordability hurdles. Importantly, the government should provide healthcare for working class citizens, many of whom are uninsured hence cannot afford healthcare. Thus, the many problems that citizens face on a daily basis are the reasons for which from an economic point of view, the government should provide healthcare to the underprivileged citizens. Although many countries are endowed with wealth in the form of natural resources and skilled manpower, economic mismanagement and corruption by the elite have resulted in populations facing hitherto unexpected economic hardships such as unemployment. Despite being a superpower with the most influential economy in the world, the United States has also not been spared by the healthcare challenges faced by other countries. It is pretty embarrassing and disconcerting that even the United States government cannot wholly provide healthcare for its citizens despite its being an economic superpower. One can only imagine the situation in the developing countries ravaged by poverty, civil wars, unrests, corruption, civil unrests, and political instabilities. The real problem is however not the economy; it is the little effort the government has put in reducing the levels and impacts of contributory factors such as poverty (Bentes et al., 2004). That is, the constant failure to prioritize quality healthcare. In other words, the government has often tended to ignore the issue of healthcare provision and related factors such as poverty and cost. For instance, with the help of the government, quality healthcare accessibility may never be pegged on peoples’ income again. Unfortunately, the situation only gets worse as insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles continue to rise. This paper explores the reasons the government should provide healthcare to its people, mentioning and refuting the reasoning of those opposed to universal government-funded healthcare. The Government Should Provide Healthcare to its People It is quite a sad state of affairs that the most affected by healthcare accessibility and affordability challenges are the underprivileged individuals, families, and neighborhood. In addition, the youth (students and the unemployed youth) also bear the brunt of inequitable, expensive, and inaccessible healthcare. Besides resulting in a state of deprivation and insecurity, joblessness and poverty have led to healthcare inaccessibility by poor families/neighborhoods, the youth, and other minority and disadvantaged groups such as the homeless and the elderly in society (International Labour Organization, 2010). It is thus a major social and public issue that many citizens living below the poverty level cannot afford healthcare. The main group adversely affected by lack of insurance coverage and thus healthcare are the youth, more so college-going youths who are no longer covered under their parents’ insurances schemes. While some universities and colleges may offer minimal healthcare to their students and staffs, this care often covers certain ailments or are restricted to certain costs. Further, many an employer does not provide health insurance to workers since such covers have become rather costly. Since healthcare, including prescription drugs and other therapies, has become quite expensive, many citizens have resorted to making choices between paid medications and paying bills for their basic needs, preferring the latter (International Labour Organization, 2010). Due to these poverty-related challenges in healthcare, government healthcare is highly recommended and is long overdue according to some stakeholders. Accordingly, government healthcare would involve the government’s funding of healthcare through direct payments to healthcare facilities and professionals such as doctors, psychologists, and pediatrics. Instead of healthcare facilities, medical doctors, and other healthcare professionals providing health services and getting reimbursed by the government, the latter should actually employ these professionals (International Labour Organization, 2010). In fact, in certain circumstances, the government is seen to act in a manner similar to the insurance companies, which reimburse health care providers after the latter render their services to patients. Although government healthcare programs such as the Medicare have been successful to a some extent, it only provides health insurance for people aged 65 and over, and/or those meeting other specific criteria such as disability. The country thus lacks a universal and government-funded healthcare for all its citizens, quite unlike the situation in other industrialized democratic and non-democratic countries. The available statistics for 2009 makes the wanting healthcare situation in the U.S. quite evident, estimating the uninsured to be 50 million. This group has no access to adequate quality health services since they lack insurance coverage. Hence, the government should address the fact that except for those covered under Medicare and some children from low-income families, all healthcare coverage is in the hand of private insurance companies and private corporations (International Labour Organization, 2010). Unfortunately for those covered by these private insurers, these companies are been reported to be quite ineffective at cost control and always exploit every opportunity to exclude coverage. That private insurance is a mess is a good enough reason for the government to step in and provide healthcare to its citizens, their socioeconomic and cultural status notwithstanding. For example, instead of the insurance companies covering and minding the welfare of the sick, they are often jostling with each other to insure the well and the wealthy. This assertion is evident in the millions of bonuses these insurance companies award to healthcare executives as motivation to deny policy holders coverage. Consequent to these practices and policies by the private insurance companies, only approximately a third of families in the country below the poverty line are insured with 21% of black Americans lacking health insurance and a Hispanic American more than twice as likely to be uninsured as white Americans (Porter & Teisberg, 2006). The population of uninsured children is also on the increase, translating into thousands of preventable child deaths. Thus, besides the poor and lower-middle-class citizens facing an increasingly inaccessible healthcare, these people continue to pay for a healthcare that has steadily become more expensive with fewer benefits. Developments and Options in the Right Path Despite these challenges faced by the disadvantaged in society as far as healthcare is concerned, there is hope for them if the recent developments towards universal and government-funded healthcare is anything to go by. Since 2009, a number of coalitions of Congressional Democrats have passionately crafted various competing healthcare insurance and healthcare reform legislations. Additionally, President Obama himself voiced concerns and support for universal healthcare coverage for all citizens, provided for by, among other options, government-funded healthcare (Tomasky, 2010). Unfortunately, the President decided to stay on the sidelines on this issue for political reason, creating the opportunity for Congressional delays, clashes, and confusion in regards to healthcare reforms. There are a number of healthcare packages that have been under consideration for quite some time and it is high time the government acted on some if not all of them. First, the Congress, particularly the Democrats supported a universal healthcare coverage for all citizens, which would avail various options including low-cost, government-funded healthcare alternatives for insurance providers. The other proposed option is the multi-option scenario under which citizens satisfied with their present insurance schemes would be free to keep their coverage whereas those not contented and those without health covers may go for government-funded coverage. However, a cross section of politicians and the public feel that the free-market competition that would be presented by a lower-cost public-sector plan would imply that the private-sector insurance companies will have to cut their services, lose customers, suffer unprofitability, and/or eventually close business (Porter & Teisberg, 2006). Nonetheless, the more liberal in society feel that it would only be fair if a single payer healthcare system in the model of Medicare was adopted. Such a plan would also allow room for competition between the government and private insurers. In such a system, only low-cost government-funded healthcare coverage would be provided to citizens on an equal basis. Similarly preferred is the Public Plan Option in which the people would have a choice between a public plan administered and funded by the federal government and private plan health insurance coverage (Tomasky, 2010). Besides economics, justice is the other reason for government-funded healthcare. Government Healthcare for Justice The government should also provide healthcare on the principle of justice and fairness to all. In other words, for a government to be considered just, it must meet its entire obligations to its subjects. It is only by the government’s acting in the interest of its citizens by protecting their rights and securing their due that justice and satisfaction will prevail. In order to protect its subjects, the government should fulfill its obligation to provide healthcare to its entire citizenry. Health Provision as a Protection of Unalienable Rights There are several unalienable rights of citizens that only a government must provide for and protect. These inalienable rights include right to liberty, life, and property. Although healthcare could not be defined as an inalienable right per see, its provision or lack thereof infringes on the right to life in one way or the other. Thus, for the protection of citizens’ lives, healthcare should be provided universally and equitably (Tomasky, 2010). Since an individual’s ability to exercise life and the functions therein fully depends on his/her health status, health becomes a rather unique social service and commodity. For a fair opportunity for its entire citizenry to equally achieve normal functioning and enjoy life to the fullest, the government should provide universal healthcare. Further, to earn a livelihood, and to exercise and enjoy the right to liberty, autonomy, happiness, and relationships, a good health is mandatory (Tomasky, 2010). Thus, by funding healthcare, the government will have helped its citizens by empowering them with the opportunities to access and enjoy health services for success and happiness in life. Inaccessibility to healthcare thus denies citizens the avenue through which they may exercise some of these inalienable rights. Thus, when a government fails in its obligation to give its citizens the means such as healthcare, by which they may protect and exercise their rights, such a government is not considered just. Healthcare and Autonomy The other reason for which the government should provide healthcare to its citizens is to protect their autonomy, which relates directly to health. For instance, an individual of poor health may be incapable of performing certain strenuous activities, implying he/she becomes less self-sufficient and has to rely on others. Similarly, autonomy is important for the existence of good mental health and well being. By failing to provide for its citizens' requisite needs, the government will have failed in empowering them to exercise their autonomy. According to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, basic needs such as food, water, and shelter fall at the bottom while the least basic such as self-actualization, security, security of health, self-esteem, and sense of belonging fall at the peak of the pyramid (Kotlikoff, 2007). By meeting these needs, including security for health, an individual becomes more able to actualize his/her autonomy. Devoid of access to quality and affordable healthcare, people cannot afford autonomy and actualize their desires. The Need for Consistency The need to act consistently on policies is the other reason the government should provide healthcare to its citizens to protect their inalienable rights. That is, it would be unjust for the government to implement measures to protect life only in certain circumstances while ignoring and disregarding such measures for the same lives in other situations or disregarding other lives altogether. For example, civilian lives lost to chronic and other illnesses should be protected in measures equal to those protecting these lives against terror attacks. Just like terrorism is a threat to the lives of millions, so are the many diseases people suffer from. Thus, the same way the government protects its people against terrorism and militaristic threats, so should it protect them from health hazards. A Free-Market Argument for Government-Provided Healthcare Those opposed to guaranteed universal healthcare also feel that such a policy would lead to complacency and over dependence on the government by its people. They fail to notice that such a plan would be effective and quite helpful to the people in case of lethal and long-term diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and cancer whose treatment is long and costly. In other terms, government-funded healthcare would raise the quality of life for patients of chronic and expensive-to-treat conditions such as HIV/AIDS and cancer since their treatment often leave households bankrupt and poorer. Universal healthcare is also opposed by most free-marked-based arguments, which assert that government-financed health-care systems are failures in most of the tried cases. These free market arguments refute those that favor government-financed health care, which emphasize that governments must ensure social justice by providing proper health care to all. Instead of arguing with free market as a premise, most of these arguments use free market, a concept of extralegal and sacrosanct property rights, as a conclusion (Kotlikoff, 2007). Strange enough, those opposed universal healthcare are individuals and corporate bodies that fail to benefit from government-sponsored healthcare systems and programs. They take this stance despite the fact that private health insurers have problems, the existence of government-funded healthcare notwithstanding. Although many a capitalist could support this stance, it does not validate the arguments mostly presented by those opposed to government-funded healthcare. For instance, there is a premise of free market, which states that a participant should be free to choose whom to trade with. If the government and other stakeholders for that matter are not allowed to fund or provide some types of healthcare, then how will a client choose whom to trade with (Kotlikoff, 2007)? The healthcare industry thus becomes extortion by the private insurance companies rather than a free market where patients can freely choose the facility or professional to visit. Since those visiting health facilities are often under pain or on the verge of death, it is quite inhuman to demand payment from such a person. Furthermore, it is also not free for patients’ liberty to choose health facilities and professionals to treat them to be withdrawn or for doctors to be restricted from undertaking private practice. Arguably, the free market is hence ill suited and ill prepared to provide universal healthcare since it is more business oriented than it is oriented towards providing healthcare. To the free market, any benefits to consumers/patients are a mere pleasant side effect of their business operations, which mainly focus on selling as many policies as possible (Kotlikoff, 2007). Their main goal is profit maximization and not better health for the people. This goal is exactly opposite that of healthcare, which is to sell as little as possible by emphasizing and preferring prevention to treatment. Further, while the free market-centered private insurance companies would wish for health issues to continue and even multiply in their numbers and severity, healthcare is about the minimization or the elimination of diseases and other health hazards so that healthcare is no longer necessary (International Labour Organization, 2010). Conclusion Healthcare provision, cost, quality, and equality continue to be hotly debated controversial issues in many a sphere. Specifically, the role of the government in the provision of healthcare has been a recurring topic of discussion, research, and publication. Quality, financing, and accessibility are the core issues encountered in these discussions. A major contributory factor to healthcare cost and accessibility challenges is poverty. In addition, medical coverage by private insurance companies has left out the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, and the lower-middle-class in society, rendering healthcare services inaccessible and expensive. The youth, the most affected groups by the high unemployment rate is the other major group affected by inaccessible and expensive healthcare. Healthcare funding is hence the major way in which the government may come in and help citizens of all socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic/racial backgrounds to access quality healthcare. A universal/government-funded healthcare system, though opposed by the proponents of free market, is perhaps the best way forward in regards to healthcare accessibility and quality. Importantly, it is the sole obligation of the government to concern itself with all the rights, interests, and well being of its citizens, more so the protection of the poor, the innocent, and the disadvantaged such as the elderly and the homeless. Among the opponents of a universal and government-funded healthcare system are free market supporters who assert that such a policy would encourage complacency and overreliance on the state by citizens. In addition, they cite infringement on free market principle of free choice by clients if such a policy is implemented. However, this line of argument is refuted by the argument that privately sponsored healthcare denies patients the right to choose their doctors. Similarly, healthcare providers’ practicing freedoms are also restricted. Although the government should provide universal healthcare to all, certain conditions such as those cause by cosmetic surgery should not be covered. References Bentes, M., Dias, C. M., Sakellarides, C., and Bankauskaite, V. (2004). Health care systems in transition: Portuagal. WHO. International Labour Organization (2010). World social security report 2010/11: providing coverage in times of crisis. Geneva: International Labour Office. Kotlikoff, L. J. (2007). The healthcare fix: universal insurance for all Americans, first edition. The MIT Press. Porter, M. E., and Teisberg, O. E. (2006). Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results, first edition. Harvard Business Review Press. Tomasky, M. (2010). Healthcare Vote: Barrack Obama Passes US Health Reform by Narrow Margin. The Guardian (London). Retrieved on September 19. 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/health-care-vote-us-obama. Read More