ESSAY: Universal Healthcare

Revised argument

Premises

Premise 1: Universal healthcare is important for a productive society as it is with education.

Premise 2: Healthcare is protected by the constitution as right entitled to all the citizens

Premise 3: The constitution guarantees inclusivity and equal rights in healthcare access to all citizens, whether they can afford to pay or not.

Conclusion: Universal health should, therefore, be availed to all the citizens for free.

Rationale

The first premise equates education to healthcare and defines them as two interlinking objectives that are mandated to the government. The two are necessary for growth of the economy since they help to maximize the productivity and efficiency of an individual. Hence, healthcare should be availed to all, universally and unconditionally.

The second premise address the issue of healthcare as a constitutional right. It is the responsibility of the government to protect all the rights of the Citizens, and Universal Healthcare should be part of the priority. Universal Healthcare helps to reduce the costs of health insurance and more so it keeps the people active and productive.

The third premise reinstates the second premise. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all people have access to basic needs. Therefore, both the federal and state governments should promote the wellbeing of citizens by ensuring inclusive coverage of the medical services. That ensures all citizens will continue to enjoy their rights without deprivation. It doesn’t limit the people who are poor, healthcare should be distributed to all without partiality.

   In concussion, provision of universal healthcare should be perceived as a way of promoting rights of the citizens other than selling a service to them. Just as education quality education is focal for the advancement of the society. Healthcare is necessary for the society to be productive and no one should be deprived the right to access it for free. Healthcare should be seen as a basic right for everyone and the government should protect that right by availing the medical services to all.

Counterargument

Premise 1: universal healthcare is not clearly defined by the constitution

Premise 2: The constitution does not prescribe that healthcare should be a right availed freely, it is a right that is received at the at the expense of the patients.

Premise 3: Healthcare, unlike education is sought by individuals who need it, universal healthcare may also be a burden to the government.

Conclusion: Like any other services, healthcare should be provided at an affordable cost and not availed freely.

The first premise relates to the constitutional coverage of healthcare issues. The Declaration of Independence in the United States defines the rights that all citizens are entitled to enjoy for free. Universal healthcare is not provided as a right. Speculation about making it a right only came through the intervention of the court (McNeese, 2014). 

The second premise reaffirms the first premise. The constitution only regards all people as equal before the law but it does not imply that they should enjoy resources equally and for free. Healthcare is different from other rights such as the right to live. In addition, provision of universal healthcare is costly and the government is not obliged to provide such services at no cost. Further, personal health is dependent on one’s ability to eat well, exercise and pursue other health tips. The government cannot spend on behalf of the people who do not care about their health issues. The Government should only be responsible in availing resources such as quality and affordable medication, improved infrastructure, and qualified personnel. However, it is not a legal requirement for the state to cater for healthcare services in private and public facilities. (Patel & Rushefsky, 2014).

The third premise views universal healthcare as a partial thing that not everyone need at the same time. Bringing the idea of Universal healthcare means that everyone should incur the cost of health budget, which many people would feel as a burden. For instance, people whose health problems are accidental may feel relieved by free universal health, but it may be a burden to the state as a result of those individuals who have deliberated harmed their health through unhealthy diets or other activities such as smoking. In addition, universal healthcare should not be approached as a legal requirement because people cannot be forced to buy health insurance and yet they do not find its benefit.

In conclusion, healthcare issue should not be made universal on the grounds that it does not amount to universal benefit. Instead, healthcare is something that is sought by people for different reasons and causes.  That way, the issue of Universal healthcare can be relief to some people and a burden to others (Lee, 2014). Again, interpreting the constitution as it is, one would realize that the constitution never indicates that healthcare as a right. Therefore, individuals should cater for their own expenses.

References

Lee, T. H. (2014). The strategy that will fix health care.

McNeese, T. (2014). US constitution. Milliken Publishing Company.

Patel, K., & Rushefsky, M. E. (2014). Healthcare politics and policy in America. Public Integrity, 17(1), 94-96.