Health Care and the Uninsured
Develop a policy that addresses the status of health care in America. Do Americans have a right to health care or is it a privilege? Should the government fund a nation health care program? What should the National National Government's role be in providing health care for those who cannot afford HMO fees? Should pharmaceutical companies be forced to provide prescription drugs to everyone at the same price? Should senior citizens recieving Medicare be provided with free prescription drugs and long term care? If so, who pays for it? is it the role of the National or state governments?
Radical: Ashwin
The U.S. constitution guarantees every citizen the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government is thus obligated to maximize the venues through which these natural rights can be accessed by its citizens. On that note, every American citizen has the right to absolutely free healthcare. The government needs to carry the expense of providing healthcare to each of its constituents because many are not able to afford this necessary utility. How can the U.S. consider itself one of the world’s supreme powers when many of our neighboring countries have health care policies far more advanced than ours own? Even nationally denounced countries such as Cuba are able to provide medicines for its citizens at a far lower price than America’s primitive system is. Our government’s greed concerning this matter is causing our citizens to suffer unnecessarily. Even prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay have better healthcare than the average American citizen. Universal healthcare is a necessity. Those who desire, and can afford, private healthcare will still be able to access the benefits of privately incorporated companies. Pharmaceutical companies should be forced to provide prescription drugs to everyone’s affordability.
In addition, senior citizens who are on Medicare should obviously be provided with free prescription drugs and long-term care. These are the people who need the government’s help the most because they can’t afford the drugs they need to survive. In most cases, these people as well as others without healthcare end up wasting billions more in federal money by using the free services provided by the emergency room rather than conventional treatments.
The national government needs to pay for this service, because if this decision is left to the states, many will not comply. The privileged who have reaped the benefits of our system are obligated to help those in need.
Liberal: Sid
Our first “unalienable right” is th right to life. Yet, in the wealthiest
and most powerful nation in the world, our nation, in the Unites States of America,
there are 47 million people without health insurance. 32.5 million seniors with
disabilities are forced to pay higher premiums for Medicare. 13% of applicants for
individual health insurance coverage are denied due to “pre-existing” conditions like
heart disease, cancer, and arthritis. How could the United States, the wealthiest nation
on earth, be ranked 37th in healthcare performance by the World Health Organization,
losing to Finland, Morocco, and Colombia?
As Liberals, we believe the answer to this healthcare dilemma is a modernized
national healthcare plan, with guaranteed universal coverage. People suffering from
serious illnesses and chronic conditions, who would be denied coverage by insurance
companies today, will be able to get the health insurance and care they need. These
people are the ones who need help the most, and with guaranteed coverage they can afford
the care they need. However, we are not talking about socializing medicine; Americans
will be able to choose from many different private insurance companies and coverage plans
or even keep the insurance policies that they have now. Our plan is simply to streamline
the system, make sure big insurance and pharmaceutical companies are charging fair
prices, and ensure that every American, regardless of their ability to pay or medical
condition, gets healthcare. Instead of giving Americans the “choice” between expensive
premiums and going without healthcare that conservatives are advocating, we’re giving
Americans the choice to be healthy without going bankrupt.
Conservative: Viraj
While a system of free healthcare seems like it could be the solution to the problems of many Americans, such a program would undoubtedly become entangled in a net of bureaucracy. Our government has proven itself utterly incapable of orchestrating a major organizational effort, as was well illustrated by FEMA during their attempted post-Katrina relief efforts. Our tax system is so complicated that if all the pages of forms and instructions sent out by the IRS each year were laid end to end, they would stretch around the earth 28 times. Healthcare is an infinitely more complex issue, and one we have yet to demonstrate the logistical capacity to successfully administer. Nationalizing health could potentially have catastrophic consequences for the American economy, as well. An additional $100 billion would be required annually to maintain the insurance policies that Americans currently have, not counting the 46.6 million constituents who are currently uninsured. This extraordinary fiscal burden could only be subsidized through a significant increase in taxes or by major cuts to other expenditures, but plans for universal healthcare are packaged with neither. In addition, government subsidized healthcare could significantly retard the progress medical research and development. Medical consumerism forces pharmaceutical companies to compete with one another to develop the most effective and cost efficient products. Making the state the primary purchaser of medical goods could potentially stymie progress by granting the government the power to select which drugs will be most widely distributed. The state would also be far less likely than individual consumers to risk using newer drugs of unknown efficacy because of the additional liability involved in such trials, which further decreases medical innovation. Finally, providing for free healthcare fundamentally misidentifies the locus of responsibility for an individual’s health with the government. Subsidized healthcare provides an easy out for those who choose not to take care of themselves, for instance by smoking or by maintaining an unhealthy diet. The medical costs for such individuals would, on balance, be significantly higher than for the average American, but the costs would be distributed equally across the entire population. A system of universal healthcare would also be unable to dissuade individuals from over-utilizing medical resources. Whereas one might only normally visit the doctor once or twice a year, the common cold might be enough to give the local physician a ring if the state were to be the one picking up the tab.
Ultra-Con: Petie
Peter Scobel, the ultraconservative candidate, believes that the funding of a national health care program would reduce the quality of health care in the United States. Doctors and hospitals should only be accountable to patients and not to bureaucrats. Health care should not be controlled or regulated by the government; it should be freely available to everyone. Therefore, all health insurance should be privatized. This will encourage competition, which will in turn cause prices to drop. For those who cannot currently afford HMO fees, the competition will be a blessing. There should be no other government controls on health care, either, such as restrictions on the prices of prescription drugs. Senior citizens should not be provided with free drugs and care; any financial help they might need can be provided by charities and nonprofits.