The United States Government and Health Care: Is Universal Access a Responsibility?

The question of whether the United States government has a responsibility to provide health care for its citizens has been at the forefront of many political debates. In different eras of the nation's history, this responsibility has been more openly embraced, but recent administrations have shifted perspectives significantly.

Historical Context and Early Beliefs

Once, there was a time when the country held the belief that it was indeed the government's responsibility to provide health care for its citizens, and during that period, the healthcare system was in relatively good shape. For instance, healthcare advertising was illegal, and trading healthcare on the stock market was not allowed. Local and state governments managed hospitals, and doctors charged reasonable fees for their services. This system worked well until the Reagan administration, which changed the course of healthcare in the United States forever.

Modern Perspectives and Political Debates

Conservatives often raise concerns about this idea, seemingly unable to grasp the concept that healthcare should be viewed as a service rather than a right. Ironically, many conservatives support other services like policing, fire services, and defense, which can be equally essential to the community. The argument lies in emphasizing that healthcare is no different and that it should be considered a fundamental aspect of public service.

Health Care as a Service vs. a Right

The argument for healthcare as a service versus a right can be nuanced. The Constitution does not explicitly mention economics, and the modern concept of healthcare was not envisaged when it was written. Similarly, modern capitalism, upon which healthcare depends, was non-existent at the time. However, capitalism benefits from a healthy workforce, and ensuring a minimum level of healthcare access could be argued as a national interest.

National Well-Being and General Welfare

The Constitution includes a clause that the federal government must provide for the 'general welfare' of the nation. This could be interpreted as supporting the idea that ensuring the health and well-being of citizens is a necessity. The health and well-being of one's fellow citizens often align with one's self-interest, as a healthy populace contributes positively to economic prosperity and a functioning society.

The Role of WE THE PEOPLE

According to the preamble of the US Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE are the government. Therefore, it makes sense that WE THE PEOPLE, who need health insurance, recognize it as too expensive for the average citizen to afford. The historical precedent for addressing this issue is evident in the creation of Medicare for those over 65, as the private insurance market failed to adequately serve this population. The exorbitant premiums and fraudulent practices by insurance companies have severely impacted working individuals, leading to economic devastation.

Creating a Solution

In light of the current social and economic problems hindering the nation, it is imperative that WE THE PEOPLE come together to address these issues, not out of altruism, but out of a sense of national duty. By creating a new program that excludes private insurance, we can ensure that our fellow citizens receive the healthcare they need without fear of abuse or neglect. This solution is not just about responsibility; it is a necessity for the ongoing prosperity and well-being of the nation as a whole.

Conclusion

While the debate over whether the government should provide healthcare to its citizens is complex and multifaceted, the evidence points towards a clear need for a supportive and accessible healthcare system. Ensuring universal access to healthcare should be seen as a duty, not a right, and it is up to WE THE PEOPLE to take action and create a system that truly serves the nation's best interests.