Obama Care Program Issues - Essay Example

Obama Care Universal health care in the United s has been an issue that has had many organizations debate over what is required in the developed nation. Their counterpart to the north, Canada, offers its citizens universal health care and this has many groups up in arms over why the United States is not. Obama’s bill tries to do many things in its attempt to aid in providing universal health care to its citizens. However, this bill has many lobby groups debating over whether it is appropriate to have such a bill in the nation. One thing that is noticeable about this bill is the government mandate that requires every individual to purchase health insurance. It does this by offering an exchange that assists individuals get insurance from private companies (Sandel 47). This paper will examine the utilitarianism and libertarianism view on Obamacare, and how this may affect individuals in the United States. It is through subsidizing health insurance for poor and poverty stricken families that this bill seeks to assist. The main convictions of the bill revolve around the mandated insurance clauses. This is what many people are having a problem with as there are groups that support the presence of such a bill, while others detest the idea of its existence. Utilitarianism offers an insight into the benefits of the Obama care bill, whereas libertarianism seeks to find the flaws in the bill and reject it. This is where the question of whether the government should be involved in providing health insurance for its citizens appears (Sandel 52). Utilitarianism view on Obama care A look into the bill and all that it addresses may give one the possibility of finding something useful. One thing about this point of view is that it seeks to find the good in something. In Obama’s health care plan, it is obvious to see that this is a vast improvement on the previous laws that existed, and that it serves to increase the total utility of the state. Back in the day, there was no requirement from the government for privately owned companies to justify their price increases. This allowed these companies to take advantage of the situation and exploit consumers with exorbitant insurance policy prices. The new law, as it implements the exchange program, requires that all companies publicly justify their premiums, and explain any high prices (Sandel 56). This may work toward providing more insight into the functions and actions of a company. The above may result in the lowering of health premium prices, which may work toward improving the quality of health care that individuals receive. To those who cannot afford insurance at the beginning, Obamacare works to provide more widespread and available medical care at reduced prices. An increase in the number of individuals who can receive this regular health care can ensure the happiness of individuals, and the overall utility of society (Sandel 59). This can only work with the cooperation of the private companies with the government regulations, while trying to satisfy the people it is meant to serve. These regulations are not meant to downsize or downplay the insurance companies. They are only meant to ensure the public gets the required premiums for the appropriate amount of capital. Obamacare does not restrict the freedom of individuals as many folks tend to believe. On the contrary, it works to satisfy the happiness of majority of the people in society. Minority groups are known to suffer and bear the full brunt of many policies in the United States. However, this bill in its entirety guarantees that everyone benefits from all the said policy implementation plans. Poor people are protected from private companies and some of the policies that they put in place to profit from society’s health needs (Sandel 63). By claiming that there is no right to choose between whether to have insurance or not, individuals are overlooking the bigger picture. This is only one provision in the whole bill, and it should not be used as an excuse to be against it. From a utilitarian point of view, it is the belief of a large number of individuals that this provision is outweighed by the much greater implications the bill offers. These implications could be seen in more, if not all, individuals in the United States affording and receiving health insurance, medical care and attention as is required by law. Utilitarianism argues that the denial of this bill from or by the public is tantamount to denying an individual their right to life. This is sometimes seen in some quarters as depriving someone of their freedom of choice, which is undemocratic in a nation such as the United States (Sandel 67). Libertarianism view on Obama care As seen in the above view on Obamacare, there are some objections about the policies that the bill proposes. Libertarianism often asks the question as to whether the government should interfere in the matters of an individual’s health insurance. It is no secret that everyone needs medical insurance cover, but the view of a libertarian is the non-inclusion of the government in a person’s personal affairs. The first case or issue of the libertarianism view is that health insurance is none of the government’s business or concern. By providing universal health care for its citizens, people believe that the government is infringing on the rights of free people. It is the belief of libertarians that if there was the provision of health insurance, it would be from tax capital, which should not be taxed (Hayek and Hamowy 79). There is the belief that this bill steals from those who have and hands it to those who do not have. By making the citizens of the nation purchase health insurance, this is an indicator that the government is coercing its people. People may want to buy health insurance, while others may choose not to, and according to this view; it is not the government’s place to dictate what its citizens should do. It is evident that everyone needs health insurance, but they might need other things that are more urgent at the time. So, in such a situation, they must choose what to purchase as they can only afford health insurance and the urgent commodity one at a time. However, libertarians believe the government is taking this option away from its citizens (Hayek and Hamowy 82). This view is based on the flawed nature of the health insurance buying process. Health insurance companies are being forced to regulate the amount of capital they issue on their premiums. This means the government is not only forcing its citizens to purchase health insurance, it is also forcing insurance companies to abide by their rules. In a democratic world, this cannot be allowed to stand. The government is obligating more than just the buyer of health insurance. It is now forcing its hand to the seller; in this case, the insurance companies. What is unacceptable in this view is that, the government can provide health cover to those who cannot afford it while demanding those who can to purchase health insurance (Hayek and Hamowy 87). The liberties of the citizens are being wavered at the cost of health insurance and medical cover by the government (Hayek and Hamowy 91). Many beg the question, who will provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it if the government stops doing it? Such an issue is left up to the charitable and philanthropic nature of the people. However, if the citizens do not feel philanthropic toward such an issue, it is not the government’s place to demand charity from its citizens. The fact that government allows such a bill to govern society is an indicator that the government is doing more than it is meant to do in terms of serving the interests of the people. In conclusion, the views expressed by the above schools of thought offer an individual time to think of the impact such a bill has on society. The coming up of such a bill may have irreparable consequences to society and the individuals in it. However, it would not be wise to ignore the overwhelming benefits that come with such a bill. It is, therefore, society’s place to dissect both sides of the bill and see what may work for them (Hayek and Hamowy 96). They can start working toward addressing these issues for the good of all. Works Cited Hayek, F. A., and Hamowy, Ronald. The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. New York: Free Press, 2011. Print. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Read More