The Government Should Provide Healthcare to Poor Citizens - Research Paper Example

There has been a raging debate as to whether the federal government should provide healthcare to poor citizens. There exist many opinions on whether this should occur with some people supporting and others opposing such a move. This essay will examine arguments in favor of a universal healthcare system and those against it. Introduction The health of citizens in any given nation is important to the growth and development of that nation. To ensure that the government does not increase its budget deficit by treating preventable diseases as well as maintain the productivity of its citizens, it is imperative that the federal government provide health care to citizens who cannot afford their own. One proponent of such a universal health care system, Keim, writes that Cuba is a model example of the success realized through provision of health care to poor citizens. He states that although Cuba has suffered a trade embargo for more than 50 years by the United States, the poor nation has still managed to maintain an excellent health care system. The average life expectancy in Cuba is 77.5 years while in the US; it is 78.1 years with infant mortality rates slightly lower. For every one hundred and seventy people, there is one doctor, which is more than double the US average. Keim adds that medical students in Cuba have to do family medicine for three years, which means they emphasize primary care and are thus able to prevent diseases. Medical students in the US however are at liberty to choose their specialization hence; only 8 percent end up in family medicine. The Cuban government also pays for the Medical Course thus students graduate without debts. In the United States, medical students graduate with debts ranging from two hundred thousand dollars, which discourages them from going into primary care in favor of more specialist fields. Only the wealthy can pay for their services in such situations thus leaving the majority poor without the much-needed doctors. In a similar analysis, Radford.edu reports that health in Cuba is a basic right enshrined in the constitution and an intrinsic value is placed on each citizen regardless of social status. Reid points out that other governments around the world have managed to provide accessible health care to their citizens at a more affordable rate than the US. He states that the US combined a series of health care models in order to finance health care. These models include the Bismarck used in Germany and Switzerland, the Beveridge used in the UK and Spain, and National Health Insurance employed by Canada and South Korea. The Bismarck model represents the employer-sponsored medical care; Beveridge represents the Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service while the national health insurance model highlights the role of Medicare. He further includes the uninsured citizens who suffer just like people in Cambodia and Burkina Faso. Reid proposes the National Health Insurance model, premised on an improved model of Medicare, to enable high quality and affordability to all citizens. He predicts that Americans would choose private health care plans couched in the Bismarck model but warns that the US would have to undergo a paradigm shift from a profitability mindset to that of service, just like the Europeans. He believes that the greatest obstacle to an improved healthcare system is not private insurers but the Congress itself. The expansion of the business model private plans will result in the use of insufficient subsidies in buying costly private medical plans. Cohn traces the history of Medicare to the 1950s when ardent reformers tried to give a voice to the elderly. Previously, majority of the insurance companies denied their beneficiaries continuity of coverage after retirement, especially if they were more than sixty-five years old. They further refused to sell the elderly insurance directly, since the aged were more susceptible to high medical risks that would not be profitable to insurers. With the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Medicare was introduced and it guaranteed the provision of health services to the aged. With the passing of years, the cost of Medicare became more expensive and the federal government put in place antiregulatory measures. A new system of hospital charges payment determined on the type of diagnosis arose to lower hospital costs. Additionally, standard fees for doctors came into being in the 1980s. Shaffer cites the American Medical Association report stating that the death of people who earn a salary of less than 10,000 dollars is three times more than that of people with an income of 30,000 dollars. He disputes the argument that the American Federal government cannot afford to provide healthcare for all its citizens. He counters this notion stating that the government spends twice as much in militaristic adventures than it does on healthcare. If countries such as Spain, Costa Rica and Finland can afford to, he states that America is equal to the task. Diseases such as cardiovascular conditions, cancer and chronic pulmonary diseases kill a greater number of Americans every year than the total of all those killed in America’s military history. Congress always approves the bills for the purchase of new and improved weapons and at times provides more money than requested. However, when it comes to healthcare, finances are usually inadequate and instead, nationwide appeals for donations to fund healthcare research occur. The improvement of pubic health requires the input of more funds into research. Johnson and her co-author echo a similar concern that it is purely due to lack of political will that the federal government fails to provide universal health care for all. They state that the US spends twice per capita expenditure than other developed economies and hence, it is not an issue of lack of funds. They also state that there have been five attempts to legislate universal healthcare but large stakeholders and interest groups have thwarted such endeavors. Such opponents of change have hampered reform efforts at a health care system whose beneficiaries are largely trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. They signal that there is hope since some states have already started to put measures in place that would help provide healthcare to all residents. This would be beneficial since such a change from the federal government would take considerably longer to get underway. However, other scholars disagree on universal healthcare provision that even encompasses the poor in society. Firstly, Gratzer argues that statistics stating that 46,000,000 Americans lack insurance and that 18,000 deaths occur due to lack of medical care are political fabrications. He proposes that the solution is to make insurance less costly. He states that a system funded by the government is not the solution to healthcare improvements as evidenced by the failure of such a system in Canada where medical services suffer long delays. An effective strategy would be to make health care more mobile, create new avenues for healthcare provision to the elderly and establish a market that will facilitate innovation in drugs and medical technology. He asserts that through deregulation and increased dependence on market changes, the solution lies squarely on capitalism, not on a socialist kind of government intervention. Secondly, it is a myth that universal healthcare would be totally free or cheaper than the private healthcare. This is because money for paying doctors and buying medicines would have to come from the citizens. This payment would be indirect through increased taxes. Furthermore, owing to a public perception of a free commodity, demand would increase through a rush to benefit from free health services. This demand would exceed the supply of the free health services forcing the government to limit the available health services to lower costs. This would be through rationing or increasing the amount paid for health services. Another problem would be a reduction in the number of healthcare providers. Doctors, for example, might move to countries where the government does not regulate their salary. Problems of such a healthcare plan are also evident in England. Due to overcrowding in the emergency rooms, patients have had to wait in ambulances for almost five hours thus restricting deployment of the ambulance to other emergencies (Thornton, para1-4). Thirdly, as Rae and Cox point out, universal healthcare system or socialized medicine is whereby the government employs all doctors. They refer to it as a single-payer system where people pay the government in the form of taxes in order to have their healthcare needs provided. However, despite the fact that the government provides universal coverage, they criticize such as system due to the low quality and long delays that result. In such a system, wealthy citizens seek treatment outside the country where they are assured of better quality and faster treatment. The provision of universal health care in Canada benefits its citizens a great deal since it helps in keeping malpractice lawsuits at bay as well as providing cheap generic drugs quickly while maintaining high care quality from its doctors. The federal government’s purchase of drugs in wholesale also helps to keep drug prices low, a fringe benefit to many senior Americans living on the border, who take advantage of such services. This notwithstanding, Pipes, another opponent argues that in years to come, Canadians will be queuing and suffering from rationing in order to acquire medical care. In addition, such a system is a great impediment to accessing the latest technology and even a brain drain of doctors. The provincial governments have further been unable to control rising costs of maintenance and the strain falls on the patient through an increase in pain, waiting longer for critical operations as well as incurring traveling expenses to acquire medical care from the US. Reform instead should take the form of abolishing state regulations that make healthcare policies complex and expensive. To allow for more competition, it is necessary for the government to deregulate the healthcare monopoly. Conclusion The government has a duty of protecting the health of its citizens. Health is a critical part of life in every human being and it determines the development of a given country. Although providing free healthcare may initially appear expensive, the long-term effects in the form of healthier workers and low infant mortality rates will ultimately be a countrys economic juggernaut. Billions of taxpayer dollars spent in curing diseases will be greatly reduced through emphasizing on primary health care even among the poor. The Federal government needs to borrow a lesson from the island of Cuba, which has achieved worldwide recognition for the tremendous investment into the health of its treasured citizens. Works Cited Cohn, J. (2008). Sick: The Untold Story of Americas Health Care Crisis. New York: Harper Perennial. Gratzer, D. (2006). The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. New York: Encounter Books. Johnson, N. J. & Johnson, L. P. (2009). The Care of the Uninsured in America. Springer: New York. Keim, B. (2010). What Cuba Can Teach Us About Health Care. Retrieved 9th July 2010, from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/cuban-health-lessons/ Pipes, S. (2004). Miracle Cure [electronic Resource]: How to Solve Americas Health Care Crisis and why Canada Isnt the Answer. Vancouver, B.C: Fraser Institute. Radford.edu (2000). The Development of the Cuban Health Care and Value System: Two Systems, One Ideology. Retrieved 9th July 2010, from http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/law/cuba.htm Rae, S. B. & Cox, M.P. (1999). Bioethics: a Christian approach in a pluralistic age. Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Reid, T. (2009). The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. Hudson, NY: Penguin Press. Shaffer, H. G. (1999). American Capitalism and the Changing role Of Government. Group Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing. Thornton D. W. (2009). The Problems with Universal Healthcare. Retrieved 9th July 2010, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1688989/the_problems_with_universal_healthcare.html?cat=75 Read More