The government provision of healthcare is one of the most controversial issues in the contemporary political realm. Some people argue government should be responsible for the well being of its citizens and this includes the provision of health care to everyone in the country. In this paper I argue the government should not provide health care and utilize different perspectives to make my case. First of all, I will argue the government provision of health care goes against American value of freedom of speech and action which is one of the defining traits of American society. I will also argue that the provision of healthcare is financially bad for the economy and evidence exists outside America that it imposes undue burden on the average person. The U.S. Government should not provide healthcare because it will not only be a bad move from economic perspective but will also violate the American ideal of freedom of speech and action.
One of the major components of American tradition is an unwavering conviction in freedom, specifically economic and social freedom. The private sector is already a major player in the healthcare sector which includes health insurance companies. This doesn’t only advance the social interests of the society but complies with the traditional beliefs regarding the importance of economic and entrepreneurial freedom for people who live and engage in commercial activities in the United States of America. Not only is this freedom a core tenet of American society but it also plays a vital role in ensuring social stability as well as maximizing the overall of the general population.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Government and Healthcare".
The issue of healthcare is indeed very important, however, private healthcare sector is capable of efficiently meeting the healthcare needs of the society. America is a capitalist society, founded on the freedom of choice among both the consumers and the producers. One of the most famous economists of the 20th century, Milton Friedman drew attention to this freedom and made it central to his writing about the way society should function. His main argument was that government should intervene as little as possible in the way the economy functions. This will lead to maximum economic prosperity because markets, in most cases, are able to regulate and function by themselves. Friedman also claimed that this economic freedom will also solve many problems such as racism and various forms of prejudice in the society. He wrote, “The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.” (Friedman, November 15, 2002, P.56). If the government provides healthcare, it will create hurdles for the private healthcare sector and only introduce economic inefficiencies into the healthcare sector. In addition, government interference in the healthcare sector will also undermine the sense of freedom and discourage risk-taking by the private sector.
The government should also abstain from provision of healthcare because it will send the wrong message regarding individual responsibility. One of the traits which define what it means to be an American is that one should take responsibility for his life choices as well as their consequences. It is entirely possible for individuals to have access to healthcare via the current system of insurance which is run according to the principles of capitalist freedom and enterprise. The idea of individual responsibility does raise the question whether “Am I my brother’s keeper?” For those who strongly believe in individual responsibility, the answer is a clear “no”. Universal healthcare involves subsidization of the health care costs for the uninsured individuals which conflicts with the idea of individual responsibility (Daily Kos, 2009). Thus, government provision of healthcare doesn’t only limit capitalist freedom but also violates the principle of individual responsibility. It encourages a system in which people who are not responsible or successful become a burden on those who are. This is a fundamentally unjust system and, therefore, I oppose it.
Government provision of healthcare will unjustly penalize responsible and hardworking Americans. The insurance coverage for the uninsured would most probably come from taxes paid by those who do have health insurance and who have worked hard to earn it. This would be a fundamentally unjust situation. This unjust reality has been pointed out by many opponents of universal healthcare system. This is not merely a speculation but backed by evidence. For example, UK is famous for providing free healthcare. However, recently it has been estimated that citizens of that country will need to pay much higher taxes in order to maintain the universal healthcare system and this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of the country. The author Szu P. Chan writes, “Without significant changes to spending levels [in the healthcare sector], huge sacrifices will have to be made by future generation either through significantly higher taxes or reduced benfits.” (Chan, 2014). Chan adds that the problems with providing healthcare cannot be solved by projections of economic growth but rather growth would be severely harmed by rising taxes which are inevitable in order to maintain the same standard of healthcare in the country, “Governments will not be able to grow their way out of trouble…and are too often fixated on short term growth.” (Chan, 2014).
Government provision of healthcare may yield short term gains for the party in power but will impose huge costs on the country in the long term. It is likely universal healthcare system may result in political gains for the party that supports it but it will have detrimental effect on the economy of the country in the long term, just as what we are witnessing in the UK now where an increase in tax rates is now inevitable. Thus, not only government provision of healthcare violates American principles of freedom of commerce and speech but may also impose huge economic and political costs on the country down the road.
It is clear the US government should not provide healthcare to its citizens because not it would violate American ideals of freedom of commerce and action but will also impose huge economic costs on American society as it has elsewhere such as in the UK. The US government is currently attempting to recover from a major slump in growth and already struggling with several key economic and social issues. In order to meet these economic and social issues, it is vital to encourage both economic growth as well as ideals of freedom and individual responsibility upon which the USA was founded. Economic prospects as well as these basic ideals will only be harmed by the introduction of government provided healthcare and, therefore, I strongly oppose it both today or in the future.
- Chan, S. P. (2014, March 13). UK faces ‘crippling’ tax rises and spending cuts to fund pensions and healthcare. Retrieved August 3, 2014. Web.
- Daily Kos. (2009, April 7). The Conservative Argument Against Universal Health Care. Retrieved August 3, 2014. Web.
- Friedman, M. (November 15, 2002). Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Chicago, Illinois: University Of Chicago Press. Print.
