Essay Example on Why Healthcare Should Be Free for Americans

Introduction

Arguably, America spends more on healthcare services than any other country in the world; however, the highest percentage of this expenditure is incurred by the citizens themselves and not the government. Over the past twelve years, the average annual spending on medical care per person in the US has shown a continuous increase. In 2007, every citizen spent $7,700 on average; by 2012, the per capita average had grown by $1896 to become $9596. In 2016, the average per capita further increased to $10345, which is tremendously higher than the $146 per person spent on medical care annually back in 1960. This trend is not expected to change any time soon; by 2023, it is expected that an average American citizen will spend up to $14,944 per year (Bloom). Although health insurance covers are commonly used in the U.S., they can only cover up to a given a percent of the per capita used on medical care, and the citizens have to pay deductibles for the remaining percentage (Bloom). Therefore, although America is a developed country, affordable healthcare might be a problem for some citizens, especially to service workers who earn less than those in professional careers. This paper debates the necessity of making healthcare for U.S. citizens.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Why Healthcare Should be Free for Americans

When the question on whether or not the U.S. government should provide healthcare at zero cost was posted on Debate.org, 71% percent of the respondents agreed that it should indeed be a free service to the citizens, and with valid reasons. For instance, some diseases such as cancer, in addition to having a long-term effect on life, they are expensive to treat, and this makes proper treatment inaccessible to all. Secondly, most hospital services are expensive, and not all citizens can afford a medical cover or insurance; this forces people to go for over the counter medication which might be ineffective. One respondent gives an instance where his grandmother could not go to the hospital because she could not go to the hospital, and unfortunately her sickness overcame the will to live. This respondent's grandmother only represents a significant number of people going through the same suffering, which could not be avoided if the medication was offered for free.

Another reason why healthcare should be free is a whole country that produces a healthy workforce, which leads to tremendous economic growth. For instance, if parents cannot take care of their children's health, their education will be affected, which will, in turn, affects the future skilled workforce. Also, poor health will affect the productivity of adult workers since they might miss out on their work life; therefore, good health is key to economic growth, and it should be accessible to all.

One more reason why the government should consider giving free health care services to its citizens is a good number of people do not have a medical insurance cover, which means they might not be able to pay for their medical. The U.S. and the United Nations at large made a declaration that states that every living individual has a right to access adequate medical care services, at both personal and individual levels ("Should the U.S. Have Free Universal Healthcare?"). Therefore, if for any reason people want to access health facilities but they are unable to due to financial difficulties, then their right to medical care is limited. Just like Israel, which gives medical insurance to citizens upon birth as a fundamental right, the U.S. government should adopt the same policy to manage the unaffordability of healthcare.

Adequate medical care improves public health and medical bankruptcies; health is one of the highest expenses in the U.S. today, and it has contributed to two-thirds of bankruptcy cases filed as at 2019 (Konish). The federal law of America terms bankruptcy as it is, without considering whether its cause was a health problem or not; therefore, if a debtor is declared bankrupt due to a medical cause, he/she will not be favored by the law. The law does not consider age either when looking at medical bankruptcy, which might have adverse effects on the public. The government could at least have the policy to cut treatment cost for retired people with medical conditions that are expensive to treat, to prevent medical bankruptcy since they probably have no way to earn. By improving public health, free healthcare would help in disease management by minimizing the expenses that would be incurred by the government.

In conclusion, free healthcare would help low-income earners by reducing their expenditure; hence, they will have more to save and invest. The overall effect of free and accessible Medicaid will be a visible economic growth within the country.

Counter Argument

One of the main reasons why some people think medical care should not be free is that the government will have to find a way to fund the health sector by imposing higher taxes on the citizens. Unfavorably high taxation will increase the prices of commodities, which may become an additional problem to the people since some of the resources to meet their needs might be unaffordable. Also, high taxation might resort in low incomes, low-quality products since companies will want to cut their production cost, homelessness if people are unable to pay their rent and mortgages, and eventually, a continuous economic recession ("Economic Effects of Taxation: Top 6 Effects").

One payer, medical care provision, might be a problem to doctors because some patients might refuse to comply with insurance policies due to high premiums, increased paperwork and increased pressure to keep up with the increased number of patients they have to serve. .If medical care is freely given to the public, private hospitals will be affected because they may have to lower their prices to unstainable levels.

If free health insurance facilitates medical care, healthy people will be forced to pay premiums that they do not use. In this case, they will be paying for the treatment of others, who might have diseases that are too expensive to treat. For instance, if a healthy person takes an insurance cover from the same company with a cancer patient, they will both pay the same premiums, but the cancer patient will benefit more since the policy will cover his/her treatment cost. Therefore, compulsory health insurance should be avoided by the government; instead, individuals should take insurance cover at their own free will.

Doctors might not be paid well because most hospitals, especially the private health sector relies on income from patient fees to run the organization and pay its staff. For this reason, if the government chips in the health sector to provide free health care, most private hospitals will run at a loss and doctors will be underpaid.

The government might not cover costs on diseases with low incidence rates, but instead concentrate on common diseases; although most people will benefit, some will be left out (Amadeo). The strategy chosen to offer affordable health care should ensure that all diseases are covered; however, if it did, the government might incur extra costs that would have been avoided if there was only individual health insurance instead of national free health care.

Also, when medical care of the entire nation is left on the shoulders of the government, the government might lack enough funding to finance the health project or other projects. The cause of this problem is instances where the amount designated Medicare per individual is less than the medical cost required. Another challenge that the Medicare program can face is fraud and corruption, which results in inadequate funds for healthcare. Many argue that although the government keeps spending on affordable healthcare, the quality of services provided remains the same.

Most private hospitals and pharmaceuticals are monopolies whose actions are not affected by the government; therefore, the prices they set for their services are only determined by the health organizations themselves. Controlling these businesses to allow the provision of free health services by the government might be costly because it will have to buy from the monopolies directly.

Finally, the law does not see anyone to denied healthcare services because it has set up hospitals and employed enough medical staff to take care of the public

Rebuttal

Although many may argue that a single payer system in the health sector might affect the profitability of doctors, this may not be the case because generally, the system allows patients to have an insurance cover which pays for their medical care. In addition to that, doctors and other medical practitioners will be paid directly by the federal government.

If a single-payer system is used to provide health care to citizens, private hospitals be might affect since patients will opt to go to public hospitals. However, this might not be the case because most private hospitals target high-income earners, who are least affected by the cost of medical care. Besides, patients are only treated; the bills go to the insurance company that covers the patients, as long as they pay premiums.

Healthy people might end up paying premiums for health insurance they may not require. Hence they pay for services that are used by others instead of benefiting from them. However, health insurance does not cover sick people, but the risk of getting sick; therefore, paying premiums even when one is healthy is a legal requirement. The misconception that health insurance should only be given to sick people has made some individuals ignorant about being insured.

There is a possibility of an increase in taxation rates if the government chooses to adopt the single-payer system in the provision of health services, to finance the initiative. However, the government can deviate funds from other projects and use it to finance the free provision of public healthcare. Also, the government can find new ways of generating income to fund public healthcare without having to impose high taxes on consumer products, companies, and salaries.

Another popular belief is that a single payer system will significantly boost public health; however, the single-payer method is met with challenges since it only helps citizens to acquire health insurance, and more often than not, provision of Medicare is minimal. Therefore, if the citizens are unable to keep up with the premiums, the will not enjoy accessible health services as the system promises.

Accessible health care is a right for every citizen; however, it is not a legal right for every citizen to get free medical care. Therefore, the government can concentrate on making health care institutions available for its citizens because it is their right, but it can choose to leave the task of acquiring insurance to the citizens, because it is their responsibility, and not their right.

Although most people expect the government to provide free medical care for its people, the government might only be able to reduce the cost of accessing healthcare. For instance, instead of making the health sector entirely free for all, the U.S. government tries to set up universal care, Obamacare and the Medicare for All initiatives to make healthcare more accessible to the public. This method is more effective than entirely for paying for public health since it benefits not only the public but also the government budget.

Although some believe that medical care can be made more accessible to the public by elimination private insurance companies, all insurance companies have a common goal of ensuring quality life and health for the U.S. citizens. Therefore, both public and private health insurance providers are equally crucial for the growth of affordable health services.