The United States stands alone on many fronts, but did you know that it is the only industrialized democracy that has no guarantee of health care for its citizens? Is this a breach of one of our inalienable rights (i.e., life)? According to The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including... medical care," it is. It should be noted, however, that this decision is one that the American nation should decide for itself; President Obama, seems to have made up his mind—evidently, he believes healthcare is a right that should be protected by the government. So, what do you think; should America continue as it always has, or is there a reason that every other country uses a different method?
Some may argue that the expenses of universal health care are simply unacceptable.
Others may argue that this change will actually benefit our economy, and even demonstrate this point with the fallacious statistic which shows that a whopping “62.1% of all US bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical expenses.” This may lead us to believe that our economy will improve with nation-wide health care, but think again. “Approximately 78% of medical bankruptcies were filed by people who had health insurance;” this means that with or without health coverage, a person is liable to go bankrupt due to health-care expenses. Therefore, the government’s plan will only make a difference if it does things much differently and covers a great deal more than the insurance companies who were around only two years ago.
Although there is good reason to believe that everyone has the right to health coverage, it important that we be skeptical of reforms that seem too good to be true. If medical coverage has not prevented an overwhelming percentage of sick Americans from going bankrupt despite medical coverage, what preventative actions have been taken to stop these same problems after the proposed reform? This and many other questions like it deserve a solid response before the panacea of universal health coverage should be accepted; this does not, however, mean that nation-wide health care is a bad idea, nor does it mean that we should stop pursuing an improvement of America’s standard of living. Such defeatism would constitute an egregious mistake: improvement should be sought for American citizens, but it must be well thought out and well balanced if a difference is to be made. Perhaps the proposed reform needs some changing, perhaps not; what do you think?
See http://healthcare.procon.org/ for more details.
Article by Lundy McKibbin
