Is Health Insurance Fair When It’s Not Affordable for All?
The concept of affordable healthcare is a subject of heated debate in many countries, particularly the United States. Some argue that health insurance should be accessible to all, regardless of financial ability, while others believe that people should only get what they can afford. In this article, we explore the argument against universal health insurance, analyzing its perceived unfairness and inhumanity.
Arguments Against Universal Health Insurance
One of the primary arguments against universal health insurance is the belief that people should only get what they can afford. This perspective is often rooted in the sentiment that everyone should be responsible for their own health and financial wellbeing. Sentiment expressed by the statement:
“No. You get what you earn and what you can afford. Just because someone is born does not mean my taxes have to pay for their healthcare for free for life. That just doesn’t compute.”
Another point of view is the notion that a country's healthcare system should support only the affluent, as suggested by:
“How can a country where only the rich can be healthy compete with countries where everyone can be healthy? Pragmatically speaking, it’s just impossible.”
Both of these arguments reflect a societal belief that taxes and public funds should only be used to support those who are capable of contributing to society.
The Reality of Health Insurance Costs
In reality, the cost of health insurance is often based on income. Low-income families, who can prove they are in poverty, are often eligible for free healthcare. For those who do not qualify, insurance premiums are often structured on a sliding scale, dependent on household income. This statement reflects the reality:
“Last time I looked, health insurance costs are based on income. Struggling families who can prove poverty will qualify for free healthcare. Payments for everyone else are a sliding scale dependent on household income.”
Furthermore, the idea that individuals have overextended themselves financially by purchasing luxury items, cars, and homes, does not negate the necessity for affordable healthcare. While it is true that some individuals may have discretionary spending, this does not mean they should be denied access to healthcare.
The Public Health System as a Universal Care Model
Many cities in the US have public health departments that offer free or nearly free healthcare depending on income. This system serves as a practical example of how accessible healthcare can be, provided there is political will and funding.
“The public health department in every city provides free to nearly free healthcare depending upon income. Not many people use this system because of the long queue. This system is similar to universal healthcare.”
While access to healthcare through public health departments is limited by long wait times, it does demonstrate that universal healthcare is feasible in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
The argument that health insurance should not be universal and should be based on individual capability is a complex one. While it is true that not everyone can afford healthcare, the system as it stands already provides options for those in financial need. The challenge lies in creating a balanced and equitable healthcare system that ensures access to healthcare for all, without burdening those who can financially afford it. The choice of “fair” depends on one's perspective, but it is clear that universal healthcare can be a viable solution when implemented correctly.