Thesis: The United States Healthcare policy needs to be altered so that it can accommodate the citizens of this country that cannot financially afford healthcare, if their situation deems necessary. It does not need to allow for Universal Healthcare because it is not realistic to give ‘free’ healthcare to a country, when in reality someone has to be paying for it. An affordable universal healthcare policy would be appropriate solution for the situation to allow the less financially stable to be able to insure themselves and their families.
Reason 1: There is no such thing as a ‘free lunch,’ nor should their ever be. In the United States, programs such as Welfare have given some of the population the idea that it is acceptable to live off of their government and not strive to better their lives with the opportunities for advancement offered. If a Universal Healthcare plan was implicated, where it was only funded by the tax dollars of citizens, it would only further this ideology and hurt our nation.
Reason 2: It is not realistic to believe that everyone follows this ideology stated above; and some people really are just in a bad situation where they cannot obtain healthcare. This is especially true for the elderly, disabled, and youth of the United States. There should be a form of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program, that can cater to the needs of the helpless. Just because someone’s parents may have made mistakes in their lives which led them to not have healthcare, doesn’t mean that their children should have to pay for it by bearing the problems caused by no healthcare. By allowing assistance for people when they are truly struggling or in a time of need only, it would allow a good approach to helping the general welfare of the United States, yet would be fair to those whom work and can afford healthcare.
Reason 3: One of the biggest problems with healthcare in the United States is that insurance companies only work for the profit they receive and not the general welfare of the public. When people have taken the appropriate steps to achieve healthcare, they should not have to worry about their claims being considered ‘invalid,’ and then being denied. This is a problem that the United States government should step into and make regulations about so that these companies cannot keep hurting the United States public. This would greatly improve the healthcare system in the United States.
Conclusion: Overall, I think a Universal Healthcare would not be the best answer to the crisis over healthcare that is happening in the United States right now. I feel that a modified version of Universal Healthcare, such as a revised Medicaid program or some other program that assists in helping people pay for healthcare that are unable to do so, should be applied. In the end, giving a country’s citizens free healthcare will hurt them in regard for what they strive for in life, whereas an assistant program would ultimately be a fair option to help benefit the general welfare of the United States.
About Me
Canadian Waiting Rooms
A pictorial depicting the effects of Universal Health Care
Waiting Rooms
A pictorial depicting the effects of Universal Health Care
4 comments:
I actually wrote about universal health care for my community paper, and one of the biggest problems I had was defining exactly what was meant by that term. I think the paper would probably be stronger if you would define exactly a)what kind of system you are arguing against-- Universal Health Care meaning what? and b) what system you are supporting by, for example, expanding what you meant when you mentioned revised medicare/medicaid programs. In my paper, I argued in favor of universal health care, but when I was researching I found that one of the biggest downsides to it is that is realistically very infeasible (bordering on the impossible) and unlikely to ever happen, so you might want to focus more on that. Your opponent will probably also try to bring up the efficient single payer systems of Canada etc., but definitely research the problems with these systems, such as longer waiting times to be seen by doctors. Hope that helps!
I really like your reasons, especially how you came up with a new form of revised health care. I think that should be a main thing you expand on. I think you should also give a few more reasons on why universal health care would not work, such as comparing it to Canada's health care system. Also when talking about the insurance companies, it can be a good think to have because there is competition, and when there is competition it makes the quality better. Also when saying the elderly, youth, and disabled come from bad situations, I think that those are the kind of people that we as people should take care of. There are places such as Saint Jude's hospital that is run off of donations. All together I think this makes a really good argument.
I completely agree with you about the fact the Universal Health Care would lead to people falling into this belief that it is acceptable to live off the government and not strive for better. With your modified Universal Health Care people who only needed the help would get it and this would solve the bulk of the problem. Still I think you should expand on what the Universal Health Care actually is for those who may not understand what it means for the U.S. Overall though I think you have an excellent argument.
A healthcare program won't provide a homeless person with a house or a job or a "free lunch." That is what homeless shelters and soup kitchens are for and thank god we have those! This is the United States of America--there should not be people begging or choosing between shelter (rent) or their heatlh. The United states also does not permit torture, not even on the worst and most vile of people. So why is it permisable to allow the continual suffering of decent people who can't afford that surgery or treatment that could put an end to their pain?
It is a huge stereotype to think that the poor and homeless are all stupid, too lazy, only care about drugs and alcohol, and threw away their lives. I worked with the homeless over spring break; I met three who had a college education, many vetrens, mothers, even an olympic champion, and a man who had his house burn down and got layed off of his job all in the same month. Can you imagine? Yes, somewhere down the road these people made poor choices (most of the time due to an abusive past or a major life blow which often leads to substance abuse and depression)It is hard for us to imagine because yes we've all gone through a tough time or two, but for the most part, our lives have been comfortable; full of parental guidance and great opportunities to an education. Social dawinism is still very much part of the American culture. If your parents are doctors, guess what, you are very likly to grow up and be successful. If your parents are unemployed alcoholics, it is very less likly that you will grow up to be successful. Equal opportunity in America has its limitations.
You probally think that I'm over critical of your arguement, but I actually think it's quite brilliant, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Here are some rebuttles to consider for each of your reasons:
Reason 1: I agree with you that welfare programs that don't attempt to provide those on it with valuable skills are wrong and only hurt society. Clinton is retarded. Like almost all social political issues, welfare is very situational because there are children involved and people with real disabilites. However, health nowadays is like water, food, shelter, and clothing-- a basic necissity that should be guranteed to all citizens lazy or otherwise.
Reason 2: It is a good concept to seek out those in a situation where they truly need the governments help. However, when you say help the kids, but not the parents; in the end you are still hurting the children if their parents aren't able to care for them because of sickness. I agree with you on time limits for people who are unemployed, yet perfectly able to work though. Perhaps, coverage can be free for a year and then steadily increase allowing for that person to get back on their feet.
Reason 3: Compltely agree with you on the evils of private insurance companies. The government does need to regulate them and be more sensative toward those filing complaints with their company to show insurance companies that they cannot get away with ripping off its costomers.
Perhaps socializing healthcare while still allowing for a private sector is the way to go. The government can even set up something where they pay for aspiring people's medical school in exchange for the doctor's agreement to work in socialized healthcare for four years or so. That way those who can afford healthcare can avoid all the long lines, have nicer hospital rooms and beds, better food, and other luxuries that the rich are used to...who knows it could help fix our nursing and doctor shortage too
I say Let the rich have their showy things; nice cars, mansions, grand vacations,the newest and best technologies, IV Leauge educations...those things are all showy and very nice; it is what sets apart the rich and poor, health should not be considered one of those showy things. I think wealthy America can afford to give the poor their health.
Post a Comment