Should the federal government provide health care to all American citizens - Term Paper Example

Talking about the American healthcare system and the medical insurance in the US, it is necessary to mention that the poorest layers of the society have to stay behind the amenities of the democratic life. Even though people are American citizens, the norms of the Constitution do not refer to them, strange as it may seem. As one of the richest countries dedicated to the standpoints of democracy, the United States should never go without providing people with basic and advanced healthcare. Otherwise, it shows its underdevelopment in this field.

The overall opinion on this matter is as follows: “A June 12-16, 2009 poll shows that 64% of Americans say health care should be a right” (ProCon 1). It makes everyone believe in the public urge for equality in terms of healthcare prospects. On the other hand, the opponents of the healthcare for all Americans might think that working hard should be the main basis for letting people get their medical coverage and proceed on healthcare services. The thing is that the followers of the capitalistic way of living think that if the federal government assigns the universal right for healthcare, it will lead to the use of tax revenues for masses which is like in the socialist way of living (ProCon 1).

However, the United States is still a huge and the main debtor to the world countries and to China (socialist country), in particular. Hence, it should be a reminder for the officials in their tries to get the life better for the electorate. The question is that it is really a disgrace to the United States when 46 million people are uncovered with medical insurance (Phillips and Bostian 136). In the world arena, America seems not so attractive when people from other countries see a low rate of social guarantees for all citizens.

On the other side, all American talks on the democracy which should touch upon every country of the world render null in this case. In fact, Americans have encountered the perils of the bureaucracy in the federal government letting all ordinary people cast adrift. Neither Clinton nor Obama was apt at introducing the healthcare reform in the short run. This is why Americans covered by the insurance feel anxiety about their future: “All Americans now expect Medicare to be there for them when they reach the age threshold, or if they become disabled, and use this knowledge in their financial planning” (Levine 31).

Hence, when the officials talk about that not all Americans get insurance, it makes the public opinion right opposite to the idea of the appropriate Medicaid knowing that healthcare is the largest industry in the country employing 14 million people (ProCon 1). By and large, behind the healthcare, there might stand people with solely commercial interests going apart from the human ideals of democracy. To say more, the US healthcare system should be re-evaluated first. Needless to say, to make reforms come true, the officials are to think of their promises before the electorate.

However, one of the main impediments to the universal healthcare system is “the unnecessary fragmentation of the US delivery system” (Shi and Singh 2). In this respect along with the overall desire of officials and ordinary people to make the universal healthcare delivery system possible, the US federal government