National Healthcare

The blog “Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?” addresses the controversial subject of the American healthcare system. The argument is weak because it lacks facts, is poorly researched, and based solely on opinion. The author provides several reasons wshy he believes the universal healthcare to be negative.

The first is that taxes would be higher and education and defense finances would decrease. This statement is partially true because taxes would increase. However the money doesn’t have to be taken from those areas; money could be taken from the millions spent on experimental space travel and professional sports. It is also interesting to see how much you spend just going to the doctor/dentist every year anyway. In my experience I spent less when I lived in a country with national healthcare than I do now, and I have good insurance.

The second is that healthy people would be caring for unhealthy people. The clear issue with this statement is that very few people live a perfectly healthy life, especially in America. Everyone deserves healthcare.

The third statement was very saddening to read. The author felt that “doctors in the future may give up on their aspirations because doctors would likely be paid less than they are now.” One reason private healthcare is bad is because a lot of the doctors care more for money than the patients they see. One example is that they receive a bonus when they turn down patients. In England, the doctors that work for the government receive a bonus when they stop someone from smoking, or stabilize a person’s blood pressure. Someone should not strive to be a doctor because they desire to be a millionaire. A doctor’s prime concern should be saving more people’s lives, not being unbelievably rich.

The fourth statement is concerns with legal liability and the problems associated with suing. This seems to be a general guess. I am guessing that people are more likely to sue if they’ve paid thousands for an operation rather than if they get it for free. Also, I’m sure the government is smart enough to set up ways of avoiding issues with suing, just like the doctors are today.

The fifth concern was higher taxing on fast food and smoking and this would restrict personal freedom. Drugs are illegal, there are age restrictions to alcohol use, and some states do not allow smoking in public anymore. The author failed to mention that there are already restrictions on many aspects of the American life. This is because without restrictions there is corruption. If it is for the good of the people, I see no problem in creating restrictions on smoking and fast food.

The sixth statement addresses the fact that people without insurance can still have healthcare at certain places, and that emergency treatment is required by law. Emergency is just a small part of healthcare and the care uninsured people receive is poor and does not apply to all Americans. Also, it is not just uninsured people that are denied healthcare. Insured people get denied for using the wrong hospital in an emergency, or because the procedure is believed to be experimental. In a personal life or death experience, the hospital, accepted my insurance card, and cared for me. However, the insurance company billed me $66,000 for going to the wrong hospital. This was the only hospital close to where I lived.
The problem with the private healthcare is that it becomes a business instead of a necessity. Even calling an ambulance costs around $1,000. In another personal experience, a man was having a heart attack, and not one person would call the ambulance for him and all said it was because they did not want to be charged.

The last point this person made was about the wait lists. In an emergency situation, the hospitals do not put you on a wait list for a few days, they tend to you immediately. I, nor anyone in my family, were ever put on a wait list. Also, I've waited far longer in the private healthcare system.

The author of this argument seems to have little knowledge of what it is like living with national healthcare, and provides few facts on the matter; therefore the argument is weak. I believe the national healthcare is the most humane way to go. America should tend to every citizen, not just the rich ones.