Government Provided Healthcare: A Growing Disease

Near the beginning of his term, President Barack Obama proposed a plan that would allow - or force - all Americans to have health insurance. His ideology is that every American should have federally provided healthcare. Even though he may not be proposing an entire absorption of the medical field into government policy, he is suggesting that the government could offer better health options than the current system. This is dangerous. Handouts offered by the government are usually taken and more are expected. This brings forth an important question. Should the government take control of the healthcare to ensure everyone receives it, or does the current system already fulfill the country’s needs? The answer - the United States government should not control the healthcare system because the government is not able to determine who actually needs healthcare, controlled health costs will dissuade potential caregivers from training for the profession, and the regulation that would be required would hinder the speed and efficiency health care can be provided.

Contrary to this argument, an opposing view exists that every person living in the United States deserves healthcare. In this view, the assumption is made that the medicinal system has the time and manpower needed to provide for each individual. Under this system, the legislators would be the ones who decided how to equally distribute the talents and time of healthcare providers. Perhaps they would create a law that requires the provider to treat every patient who comes into the lobby asking for help. To defend against the long lines caused by the previous law, another law could be written that would require everyone to have scheduled appointments. This could lead to a law requirin...

... middle of paper ...

...essary documentation would multiply if every patient was sponsored by the government. Since time is spent on filling out forms, time with patients is lost.

Ultimately, the time spent on government regulation will lead to a loss in quantity of healthcare, the lack of doctor’s benefits will lead to a loss in quality of healthcare, and the unqualified legislators will lead to a loss of organized healthcare. Even though there is an emotional appeal to have federally funded health care, the consequences of changing are far too risky. Some may assume that our nation’s healthcare should be given to those who cannot afford it; however, they do not realize that giving out healthcare will significantly lower its value. Thus, the real question behind this entire debate arises. Is it better to have expensive but useful healthcare or to have cheap and ineffective health care?