Healthcare is a sensitive issue in the US today. Among the numerous developed countries around the world, the US remains to be the only one with major issues in the health care sector (Bouquet, 2019). Most people, especially the stakeholders in the health care sector are uncertain on whether it is a privilege or a right because of the lack of clarification by the government (Bouquet, 2019). Today, 84 million people, which is a number nearly half of the total adults, in America are either underinsured or uninsured (Bouquet, 2019). Although the US is among those countries that spend a lot of funds on health care, the current state of this sector does not reflect the injected investments.
There is no clear guidance on how the health care system in the country should handle the influx of immigrant population into the country. Since health care is financed by taxpayers’ money, there are concerns on the implications of making it accessible to illegal immigrants (Papadimos, 2007). As the dilemma on whether or not to make health care accessible to immigrants in the country drags on, a larger percentage of the population falls in the uninsured category or with the people who do not have access to proper medical services. The issue of availability of health care services has affected the position of many people in society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Controversies Surrounding the US Healthcare Sector
It is crucial to point out the importance of access to medical care services, especially because of the ripple effect that an unhealthy population has on numerous sectors of the economy. There are various factors that influence access to health care. These factors, which include income, level of education, race, and employment status, show that there are many people in this country who lack access to healthcare services (Pearson & Lieber, 2009). Therefore, it appears that the health care system in the country is more of a privilege than a right because of how it is designed to serve people with certain privileges such as education, race, and income among others.
The system of healthcare in this country, as currently constituted, focuses more on cures than on preventions. In addition, the focus of the system is on people with health insurance without much consideration for the fundamental medical care requirements of the other people. Protections offered by the medical care system in the country are, therefore, mainly reliant on programs formulated by the government as well as arrangements from the private sector (Maruthappu, Ologunde & Gunarajasingam, 2013). This is the reason why most working-aged families in the country do not have assurances for medical insurance coverage. Similarly, many institutions are finding it challenging to pay the considerably high medical insurance premiums for their workers. This fact has led to the failure of such institutions to compete in the market, especially when there is competition from countries where medical care is assured by the government (Stephens & Ledlow, 2010). American businesses have, therefore, had to adapt to this reality by introducing ‘benefit buy-down’ charges to their employees.
Medical insurance companies in the country have developed a tendency of protecting their profit margins through unscrupulous practices such as dumping subscribers who develop costly illnesses like cancer, hiking rates to avoid covering some segments or groups of the population that are likely to have high health costs. These practices have led to incidences in which people find out that they are not covered for certain health conditions after they fall ill or get injured (Maruthappu, Ologunde & Gunarajasingam, 2013). Reform is, therefore, necessary in the mecial insurance sector in the United States tom prevent private companies from taking advantage of the population.
The failure of the American medical care system to focus on preventive health as opposed to focusing only on the curative aspect has derailed long-term efforts to strengthen the system. For example, expensive technological developments have been made to cure illnesses such as diabetes and heart diseases instead of developing preventive measures for those and other conditions (Daiqin He & Yang, 2009). In order for reform to take place in this system, all stakeholders have to ask themselves if health care in the country is a right or a privilege.
How ‘Right’ vs. ‘Privilege’ Debate Began
One of the first proposals for universal medical care in this country happened in 1854 when legislation was formulated to seek permission from the federal government to build asylum institutions for handicapped individuals who had been deem unfit and unable to take care of themselves. However, the federal government was not willing to participate in this social welfare initiative (Bouquet, 2019). This proposal was, therefore, rejected by President Franklin Pierce who claimed that those situations were not a concern of the government (Vanthuyne et al., 2013). Since then, it took the federal government more than seventy years to engage in health care reform. The health care policy that was formulated showed notable progress through the years and prompted government officials to seek extensions so that more people, especially the general public, could be covered in the policy. However, the debate on extending the coverage of the policy was marred by uncertainties since most people were not sure whether medical care was a right or a privilege (Jacoby, 2009). To some people, the government was supposed to provide medical care to the poor communities only since it would not have made sense to cover everyone across all social classes.
The dilemma on whether medical care is a privilege or a right led to the roll out of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. Whereas the former was devised on the basis of medical care as a right to cover the elderly, the latter was formulated on the bias of medical care as a privilege to cover the people with the financial abilities to sustain themselves. This was the first time that the government created health care policy that recognized the right of certain groups of people to be covered (Butts, 2016).
Health Care as a ‘Right’
Contextually, the word ‘right’ means something that can be justifiably claimed. The argument, therefore, would be that the people have an inalienable right to be provided with health care services without any form of discrimination. Arguments can be made from political and scholarly perspectives to support medical care as an ultimate right to the Americans, hence laying the responsibility of providing those services on the government (Jacobs, & Skocpol, 2012). In his response to John McCain on whether medical care in America is a right or a privilege, Barack Obama said that it should be a right (Brokaw, 2008). President Obama went on to spearhead the formulation of the Affordable Care Act that gave the Americans new benefits and rights. The legislation was also aimed at helping more children in the country to get coverage, hence bringing to end limitations on care that prevented individuals under twenty-six years to stay covered in their parent’s health insurance.
Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont argues that medical care is a right and not a privilege. The senator makes reference to a study that investigated all bankruptcies in 2007 and found out that 62% of them were caused by medical problems (Linkins, 2008). Sanders also highlighted the fact that all other major countries in the world treat medical care as a right and not a privilege. The federal government should respond to issues in this sector the way they do on matters like education and security. Sanders also holds the opinion that the medical care system in the nation is set up in a such a way that the priorities lie with the making of huge profits instead of the provision of quality health care for all (Sanders, 2009). The senator believes that this set up is not only immoral, but also ethically wrong.
On the matter of corruption in the sector, Sanders explains that the private medical insurance companies use a third of medical care funds on expenses such as billing, advertising, lobbying, and special packages for CEOs. This information means that a large amount of the contributions pooled by the insurance companies is used for other functions that are not directly related to medical bills (Sanders, 2009). In comparison, public health insurance programs like the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare have far less administrative costs. Finally, Sanders believes that the health care sector should be given more importance through the formulation of a national health care program, as is the case with other grassroots efforts such as women’s rights.
If, therefore, the medical care is a right, then how differently should the system be run? There have been suggestions from various quarters on how a government health care program that incorporates health care as a right need to be set up. In a column in The Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby proposes for the inclusion and recognition of health care as an unalienable and certain right to be in the same category with Liberty, Life, and the pursuit of happiness (Jacoby, 2009). So the question arises, is health care already part of these inalienable rights? The columnist observes that t is the responsibility of the government to secure the people’s fundamental right and ensure that there is no infringement on the same. Therefore, if medical care is considered a right, then it is the duty of the state to guarantee the access of that right by all citizens. Jacoby goes on to argue that the right to health care services need to be treated like the other unalienable rights and be administered equally to all citizens.
The access to medical care in this country is closely connected to health insurance, which, in turn, is related to employment. Therefore, the immigration status of an individual can be a direct limiting factor for employment since the lack of a legal status in the country makes it impossible to get a well-paying job with medical insurance (Wolthers, 2015). The inability to get medical insurance cover is one of the most challenging problems that immigrants in America face. Other related issues such as cultural and language barriers as well as poverty levels impede immigrants from access to quality medical care (Sultz & Young, 2006). For these individuals, medical care is not a right but very much of a privilege.
Health Care as a ‘Privilege’
In this context, the word privilege means a special benefit, exemption, or immunity that may be extended to a group of people or an individual. In the United States’ medical care arrangement, the privileged people are those who can pay for health care or those who can receive services. The medical care system as a privilege would, therefore, mean that health care would only be available to certain people only based on some specific, and somewhat rare, qualities (Suphanchaimat, Kantamaturapoj, Putthasri & Prakongsai, 2015). If, for example, health care services were to be a privilege for the wealthy people in America, then it would mean that the poor population would be completely locked out of the system.
In a 2009 interview done with MSNBC, Representative Zach Wamp, while speaking about the state of health care in the country, affirmed that medical care is a privilege. Wamp explained that any attempt to drift away from that perspective would lead to the adoption of a universal medical care, which would take the country in the route of socialism (Powers, 2009). A situation where the government takes on from the private sector would be a step backwards in this and many other sectors. According to the Representative, the medical care system in the country, as currently constituted, is not fully taken advantage of by the stakeholders. However, reform in this sector is not needed, according to him. The Representative also went on to argue that among the high number of people without insurance, most of them consciously opt out of health care coverage provided by their employers (Powers, 2009). Therefore, the implication here is that if the current medical care system was fully and appropriately utilized, then there would be no problems associated with it.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Governor of California, holds a stance similar to that of Representative Wamp. According to the former Governor, medical care is not a right because making it so would indicate that the government has to interfere in private sector business. Schwarzenegger was making these comments after a veto on a Senate Bill that would have led to the creation of a universal medical system, which would be publicly funded to cover the entire state of California (Rojas, 2008). He proposed that the solution to the issues in the medical care system would be to let patients, doctors, and insurance companies figure out their own terms of engagements without any interference from the government or the option to socialize the American health care sector.
Another argument here was that the proposals for the adoption of universal health care either state-wide or nationwide would only cost the government too much money without providing the desired answers in the health care system. Schwarzenegger’s use of his veto powers as the Governor to vote against the introduction of universal health care in California was not received well by the public and people in the medical field (Korcok, 2006). In her endorsement of the Bill, Deborah Burger, the then CNN President, accused the Governor of abandoning the people of California and exposing them to financial ruin and health insecurities because of the high cost of medical bills. Senator Sheila Kuehl, the senator who brought the Bill to the floor of the House lamented about the use of vetoes on health care legislation, noting that the failure to understand their importance carries serious consequences (McCanne, 2006). Vetoes on health care legislation prevent the formulation of regulations to keep the health insurance market in check and protect the consumers.
As people like Leonard Peikoff feel that Americans have a right to get medical care if they pay for the services. This right goes hand-in-hand with efforts and actions that ensure that an individual can afford the available health care services (Zinser, & Hsieh, 2007). Therefore, no one has the express right to be served by a health care professional or institution just because he wishes to receive those services. These individuals and institutions, which are mostly in the private sector, have their own rights and freedoms that define how they perform their duties.
The mind-set demonstrated by Peikoff in his arguments appears to be skewed in favor of elitism. However, the main point here is that people should not expect to be given professional services by others when they have not worked or paid for those services. If such services were to be given for free, then such a system would be in contradiction with the fundamental American values that are pegged on hard work. If, therefore, medical care is privilege, then it means that the people who cannot afford healthcare services or coverage have to fend for themselves and find ways to access the services (Zinser, & Hsieh, 2007). Although the consideration of medical care as a privilege is morally offensive, it makes sense from a logical point of view to serve those who can meet the expenses.
Essentially, medical care is a service or commodity, and people have to use finances of equal value to benefit from it as they would do for any other service or commodity. Sometimes people might believe that medical care is a fundamental right because of manipulative political inferences made during voting seasons. Furthermore, for medical care to be a right, it would mean that its access as a right would not harm or impede the rights of other people (Sommer, 2009). Since universal health care would be provided using public funds, then it would put pressure on the exchequer to procure more funds through methods like excessive taxation.
My Position on the Topic
Health care is an internationally recognized human right. The US is a signatory to several international declarations and resolutions that protect everyone’s right to medical care services without discrimination on financial abilities or other related factors. Many individuals in the United States have experienced the impact of expensive medical covers sold by private health care companies. The poor health of the people who are not insured has an adverse impact on the economy. With many people struggling to pay medical bills for the treatment of serious medical conditions and illnesses, costs associated with medical services have become the principal cause of insolvency in the country (Bouquet, 2019). In order to understand the concept of healthcare as a right, there is need to understand the nature of other fundamental rights afforded to people.
Most of these rights, such as liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, and life, are way more straightforward than health care. The government is supposed to safeguard these rights against infringement without any attached financial responsibility. The existence of these rights means that no one shall be deprived of liberty, property, or life except through the due process of law. Therefore, there should be deliberate efforts by the state to classify health care as a fundamental right so as to ensure that citizens have access to medical services.
The decision to render health care as a right would be fundamental in the socio economic outlook of the country. A healthy population will be more productive in their contributions to the economy. Conversely, a population that is not well protected by medical cover cannot be sufficiently productive in economic activities (Papadimos, 2007). As a result, the government will end up incurring more direct and indirect costs, through factors such as increased crime rates, decrease in productivity, and premature deaths, if it fails to offer universal health care to its people.
Health care as a privilege create a social imbalance where only certain classes of society have access to medical care. Wealthy individuals should have more privileges in life such as more cars and bigger houses. However, health care cannot be classified among the luxuries that should only be privileged to the rich. If health care was a privilege, then there are people who will be locked out of crucial medical services because of reasons beyond their creation. For example, health care as a privilege denies medical care to children suffering from leukemia because they cannot afford the high cost of cancer treatment.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that medical care services are provided to all citizens. This responsibility can only be enforced through government intervention to protect the citizens from exploitation by the private sector. A private health care system is motivated by revenue and hence gives priority and privilege to those who can afford (Bouquet, 2019). Such a system inevitably leaves many people without medical cover.
Conclusion
Although more than half of the countries in the world have recognized health care as a right for their citizens, the United States is yet to do so. The dilemma on whether health care in this country is a right or a privilege has been a subject of discussion in many fronts. Although the health care expenditure in the country has notably doubled in the last decade, there is still a large portion of the population that lacks access to medical services. Income, level of education, race, and employment status are some of the reasons why some persons lack access to medical services. For long, health care has been perceived as a privilege that is only accessible to the wealthy people in society.
Unlike the United States, most of the developed countries in Europe have had a type of medical insurance that covers the entirety of their populations for more than a century now. The primary purpose for the establishment of these universal programs was not the collection of taxes for medical expenses, but rather the stabilization of the economy and protection from losses caused by illnesses. These medical insurance programs have evolved over time to become to become stable medical care systems. In the face of these success stories of universal medical care systems around the world, the US is yet to recognize health care as a human right. This reluctance can be traced back along the history of the country’s health care sector to the late decades of the 19 th century when the ideology of capitalism was preferred over that of socialism. The perception of universal health care as a form of socialism has guided the nature of health care in the country for a long time.
Health care is not a privilege but a right. The success and benefits that have been realized from Medicaid and Medicare programs can be used to expand the health care system in the country and ensure that the number of uninsured individuals is brought down. The recognition of health care as a right would make sure that more people are medically insured and hence promote economic development. People should not be denied health services on the basis of their ability to afford those services or expensive insurance covers. It should be the government’s responsibility to safeguard the health of its citizens. Although the constitution does not describe health care an as inalienable right as it does Life, the government should consider it a right because of the ability of health care to directly affect the quality of life. Therefore, health care need to be a right and not a privilege.
References
Bouquet, O. (2019). Healthcare, Birthright or Privilege. Health Care Current Reviews , 7 (240), 2.
Brokaw, T. (moderator). (2008). Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate. CNN Politics . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/
Butts, K. J. (2016). Healthcare as a Right, Not a Privilege: Reshaping America's Moral Lens (Diss). Northwest University, Kirkland, Washington, USA.
Cockerham, W. C. (2002). Is Health Care A Right or A Privilege [J]. Medicine and Philosophy , 11 .
Daiqin He, D., & Yang, J. (2009). Authorization control in collaborative healthcare systems. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research , 4 (2), 88-109.
Daschle, T., Greenberger, S. S., & Lambrew, J. M. (2008). Critical: what we can do about the health-care crisis . Macmillan.
Jacobs, L. R. & Skocpol, T. (2012). Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (2 nd ). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jacoby, J. (2009). What “right” to health care? Boston Globe . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/09/13/what_right_to_health_care/
Kereiakes, D. J., & Willerson, J. T. (2004). US health care: entitlement or privilege? Circulation , 109 (12), 1460-1462.
Korcok, M. (2006). Schwarzenegger Vetoes Single-Payer Bill. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal . 175.8
LeBow, R. H. (2003). Health care meltdown: confronting the myths and fixing our failing system . Chambersburg, PA: AC Hood.
Linkins, J. (2008). Obama: Health Care Should Be A Right. Huffington Post . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-health-care-should_n_132831
Maruthappu, M., Ologunde, R., & Gunarajasingam, A. (2013). Is health care a right? Health reforms in the USA and their impact upon the concept of care. Annals of Medicine and Surgery , 2 (1), 15-17.
McCanne, D. Gov. Schwarzenegger announces veto of SB 840. Physicians for a National Health Program . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/september/gov_schwarzenegger_.php
Papadimos, T. J. (2007). Healthcare access as a right, not a privilege: a construct of Western thought. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine , 2 (1), 2.
Pearson, S. D., & Lieber, S. R. (2009). Financial penalties for the unhealthy? Ethical guidelines for holding employees responsible for their health. Health Affairs , 28 (3), 845-852.
Powers, R. (2009). Rep. Wamp: Healthcare is a ‘privilege,’ not a ‘right’ for all Americans. Think Progress . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://thinkprogress.org/rep-wamp-healthcare-is-a-privilege-not-a-right-for-all-americans-a320d6657f1b/
Rojas, A. (2008). Gov. Schwarzenegger again vetoes single payer bill. Physicians for a National Health Program . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://pnhp.org/2008/10/01/gov-schwarzenegger-again-vetoes-single-payer-bill/
Sanders, B. (2009). Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege. Huffington Post . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/health-care-is-a-right-no_b_212770
Sommer, A. (2009). Getting what we deserve: Health and medical care in America . Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stephens, J. H., & Ledlow, G. R. (2010). Real healthcare reform: focus on primary care access. Hospital topics , 88 (4), 98-106.
Sultz, H. A., & Young, K. M. (2006). Health care USA: Understanding its organization and delivery . Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Suphanchaimat, R., Kantamaturapoj, K., Putthasri, W., & Prakongsai, P. (2015). Challenges in the provision of healthcare services for migrants: a systematic review through providers’ lens. BMC health services research , 15 (1), 390.
Szalados, J. E. (2004). Access to critical care: medical rationing of a public right or privilege? Critical care medicine , 32 (7), 1623-1624.
Vanthuyne, K., Meloni, F., Ruiz-Casares, M., Rousseau, C., & Ricard-Guay, A. (2013). Health workers' perceptions of access to care for children and pregnant women with precarious immigration status: Health as a right or a privilege? Social science & medicine , 93 , 78-85.
Wolthers, M. (2015). A right not a privilege. Social Alternatives , 34 (1), 76.
Zinser, L. & Hsieh, P. (2007). Moral health care vs. “universal health care.” The Objective Standard . Retrieved on 3 December 2019, from https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2007/11/moral-vs-universal-health-care/
