Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Brief on Universal Health Care

For years the government of the United States has been trying to acquire a health care system that provides good and affordable health care for everybody. Many people argue that health care is a human right and that universal health care is the answer, but that is far from the truth, it is simply a market commodity made for and by the people. If people have the money to pay or have insurance they get care, and that is the way it should be.
Universal health care, or socialized medicine, is not simply “free”, it is paid by the people’s tax money. That implies that people who have decent jobs will be paying for the insurance of people that do not have enough money to provide health care for themselves or for their families. There will also be a tax cut in things such as education and defense. Some people in our country believe that it okay to be lazy and have everything handed to them. In America everybody has an opportunity to have an education and to get a job that offers insurance, some people just choose not to take advantage of it.
Many people who come into the hospital without insurance are also the ones that are obese or have lung problems from smoking. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is essentially unfair. Why would people who take care of themselves and make money have to pay for the stupidity of other people?
Profit motives and competition have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive. The quality of health care for patients would decrease tremendously as well as their flexibility. The Universal health care system in Canada forces patients to wait over six months for a routine pap smear.
Just because some Americans are uninsured does not mean that they cannot receive health care. There are nonprofit and government-run hospitals that provide services to those who do not have insurance. It is also illegal it refuse emergency medical services because of the lack of insurance. The patient care may not be of the same quality of care, but people are never turned away.
When the government cannot run programs efficiently now, what makes people think that they will be able to effectively manage our health care system? Look our social security system, department of education, and department of transportation. There is not a government office out there that shrewdly uses their dollar as well as private sectors do. Health care is too complex for politicians to manage when they cannot even take care of manageable issue.

5 comments:

Jessica Wade said...

Even though I don't agree with your argument I felt that the points you expressed will make a good argument.

Although your points were good some of them used some common fallacies- like there are more than people who are obese with lung cancer who need healthcare. Also depending on your audience some ppl. may not view education, jobs and healthcare as accessible to everyone in the United States.

Perhaps these are points that could be enforced in your final argument.But you did a good job of getting your thesis across

Laura said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura said...

Michelle,

Spoken like a true conservative. You argue your case very well, especially emphasizing the fairness argument by using emotional appeal. However, you are also leaving yourself open to criticism on your harshness when you say, “why would people who take care of themselves and make money have to pay for the stupidity of other people?" Sometimes it's not so black and white. 21% of the uninsured are kids below the age of 18. There are many people with disabilities and hard working people who have to choose between paying rent or insurance. Plus the elderly are getting completely screwed over. A lot of times people in the private sector are layed off and loose all of their benefits, while federal government employees are not.
The comment about how private sector "shrewdly using their dollar" is a vulnerable thing to say because your right the private sector is shrewd-- it exploits people to save a buck and screws over 3rd world countries all in the name of profit. A strong point you make is the fact that competition does create better technologies and services-- I think this should be your focus of argument for private health care, and your other arguments should be defending your stance, not proving my points of the shrewdness and harshness of the private sector.
Also, it is true that no one will get turned away from the emergency room, but is it right that the poor have to get sick enough to need a trip to the ER before they get treatment. This in itself causes hours of backup in ER waiting rooms and is comparable to the waiting problem you claim of Canada’s system. Good job though, you make strong points and have a strong pathos as well ;)

...but you are wrong ha

MR. MILLION said...

Make sure you have solid evidence to support your reasons and your claim. Some of this sounds like it has been repeated from your earlier assignment. Watch arguments such as: "when the government cannot run programs efficiently now, what makes people think that they will be able to effectively manage our health care system?"

Just because they can't do one thing correctly, doesn't mean they will automatically fail at another.

Melissa Magee said...

I think you have a lot of strengths in your argument and I agree mostly with it. Yet, I do feel that some of the points you make do not necessarily have the evidence or a strong reasoning behind it to back them up.
The first part of your brief is wonderful in that you understand the fact this is America; the land of opportunity. If people decide not to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer, than why should reap the benefits, such as health care, also? I also liked how you brought up the problems with Universal Health Care programs from other countries who participate in it.
Although you make a very valid point about how health insurance is a market commodity and not a human right, I feel that this is not entirely true. Although it is a market, some actions that insurance companies make are not acceptable or fair for the people that pay for their services. Insurance companies have a tendency to only think about money and dehumanize people’s lives. An infant was turned down by its insurance for cerebral palsy rehabilitation because the skill of walking was not a previous learned skill. Incidents such as this one are reasons why the government should step into the world of health insurance and make laws regulating their prices and their claims that they reject. This would allow for everyone that makes a reasonable income to be able to afford insurance and benefit from the health care that it is supposed to provide.
I really don’t agree with you on your stance about how our government cannot do anything right. I think that although some government programs do have faults, many are run very efficiently. Taking on Universal Health Care would be a complex and difficult process, but don’t be so sure to jump to the conclusion that our government could not handle it. I just feel that there would be a lot of rebuttals to that reason if you were to use it in your paper. Instead of a Universal Health Care plan by the United States, I feel that we should focus on improving one of the government’s programs, such as Medicaid or Medicare.
Although they do provide health care, they do not provide efficient health care. The government makes it seem like they are providing this wonderful care to people that are unable to afford insurance, yet the government does not allow for Medicaid recipients to get equal or sufficient care. Medicaid will not even be accepted by most doctors, because it is such a loss for their profit. Swanson, a practitioner from Mesquite said: “If I accepted even 10% Medicaid, I would have to close my office. Pediatricians make very low margins. I am barely in business. ... It breaks my heart I can't treat Medicaid patients because I took care of them when I was a resident.'' It is not the responsibility of doctors to accept a health care program that does not provide them the means of financial stability, but it is the responsibility of our government to provide a health care program that will benefit the general welfare of the public. Medicaid is not doing that at this moment. There should also be restrictions made on Medicaid, such as a maximum time limit that one can be on it throughout their life, so that citizens do not only depend on these programs.
Some other resources that you might want to look at:
1. General Medicare Information and requirements: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/
2. Comparison of benefits and downfalls of UHC: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Informal Bibliography:
Quote about Medicare: http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3468398115&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3468398118&cisb=22_T3468398117&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8176&docNo=3
‘Sicko’ Review: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/30/BUGOPQOIJT1.DTL