Pros And Cons Of Universal Health Care

If a person elects to not carry health insurance, that burden is theirs to bear. It is a human right that no one be subject to medical treatment without their consent and it is nothing more than theft to force someone who has no desire to seek medical treatment to carry Health Insurance. However, health care is NOT a right. Individuals have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It follows that rights are the rights to action, not rewards from other people.

According to the Objective Standard, “These two federal insurance programs compose nearly 20 percent of the federal budget, and the percentage keeps rising.” (Zinser, “Moral Healthcare vs. Universal Healthcare”). Doctors are paid far less from treating Medicare patients because of the insufficient funding of the program, and therefore have to turn away a lot of new Medicare patients. This is an example of what public healthcare will look like if this was prov... ... middle of paper ... ...ally based on cost-effective measures. Treatment for a patient’s health should not be decided by the government. Privatizing healthcare will impact those who can afford full coverage, and those who can only afford minimal coverage.

Universal health care is a dream many Americans hope to see sometime soon. Many hope that they would not have to pay great amounts of their incomes to afford what they see as something that they see as a basic human right. Just like any other service, healthcare costs money. Medical bills are known to be quite expensive in the United States. People have even been known to go bankrupt due to these bills they cannot afford.

According to Vishal Persaud of NBC Washington, the average price of health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is $328. At first glance this may seem like a fair price, but is this actually the most affordable option? Can everybody get this option? The fact of the matter is that this is not actually the best option for United States citizens. The act forces many Americans to lose their current insurance, meaning many citizens paying small amounts of money for insurance will actually have to pay more because of the act; also, the act will force government dependency, reducing the freedom that America was once known for.

At some point, someone in the system has to say there are some things people will not pay for. The big question is, who though? Ineq... ... middle of paper ... ...being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care. "Right to Health Care (cons)1 .Health care should not be considered a right because the Preamble of the US Constitution states that its purpose is to "promote" the general welfare, not to provide it.2. Health care should not be considered a right because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

Philosopher Robert Nozick believes in the entitlement theory. The entitlement theory states that, “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding...A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding…No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2” (NOTES). Health care should not be provided for all US citizens. While this may be convenient for some, it would be very inconvenient for many. Providing health care for all US citizens isn’t very realistic, and would have more negative results than positive results.

This situation shows that the governments has been created thanks to the technology. Therefore, the technology should not be controlled by the government. To begin with, if a government limits the technological developments, the lack of the development in the medical technology can cause a decrease at the population, and governments’ economic conditions can be badly influenced. Firstly, millions of people can die. People need to use private hospitals for the best opportunities because of the limited technology that their countries’ hospitals have.

Libertarians do not believe in positive rights stating that it is not others duty to provide someone with either a good or service (Norman 2). No member of society has a right to demand a minimal share of basic goods from that society (Norman 2). However, people have the right to not have their rights interfered with (Norman 2). If one does argue that healthcare should be a right at what point should the care provided be cut off? A cut off point cannot be determined because everyone has different definition of what basic healthcare rights should be p... ... middle of paper ... ...

However the universal health care can also be seen that it undermines god – given free choices and personal responsibility as shown in perspective three. Thus depicting that it has the capacity to undermine and violate human dignity by not being able to fulfil their potential removing ones freedom of choice. It is also important to not view human dignity in one aspect rather than in a multidimensional perspective. As seen in perspective one only focusing on 1A – 1B aspec... ... middle of paper ... ...e same health care values that the civilized human race receives. In conclusion I believe that the universal health care should be given free all around the world not to those who have the money to receive it, as after all we are human and need the same medicine or surgery in order to survive in this world that can bring such devastation to the human race.

A lot of people take into account the doctor's right to refuse to participate, and distinctively protect the doctor that doe... ... middle of paper ... ...ng this argument are non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, loyalty, and justice. Pharmacist may not be respected as much as doctors or other health care providers but they should be as their job is just as important in diverse ways. Pharmacist make medicine possible and just as a physician has a right to refuse procedures pharmacist should have the right to refuse medications. No court cases have been found that ruled in favor of or opposed to a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs. However there is fear among pharmacist of using their power of pharmacological knowledge to make a proper decision pharmacist fear for repercussions that could take place if they are to refuse a medicine to a patient for whatever the reason.