A quite important subject for discussion, when it comes to the governing of healthcare, is the extent to which the government should interfere in the private lives of individuals. While some people claim that constant federal intervention is made for better living standards, others believe it is a direct violation of the notion of freedom. In order to evaluate the discussion, it is crucial to regard the issue from the aspects of both routine and emergencies.
To begin with, one should dwell upon the usual healthcare regulations. As there is no such notion as completely free medical help in the context of today’s US healthcare, the interference into people’s lives is understandable. According to the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the absence of the market makes it difficult for the residents to pay directly for medical care (Mitchell, 2018).
Thus, it is important for the government to track the average profits of the population to make medicine relatively available to everyone. The healthcare representatives estimate the income rates and social aspects of an individual to define the ways of treatment. The capitalistic patterns of social structure in the country made it obligatory to distinguish various social layers in terms of providing medical care. While at first, it may seem like a direct violation of people’s freedoms and preferences, the system’s primary goal is to wisely allocate financial and human healthcare resources.
When it comes to public health, it is difficult to talk about direct interference with residents. The primary goal of the public health system is to inform people of the current health situation both in the world and in the country to sustain general health and combat various diseases. Hence, any actions taken in order to prevent the disorders could be explained as the ones crucial for the country’s sustainable development.
Although it is almost impossible to define the rates of governmental interference into human lives when there is no direct threat to the population, emergencies, on the contrary, require the intervention. The brightest example possible is the current outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to save millions of lives, federal governments all across the globe introduce quarantines and self-isolation, along with blocking shopping centers, cafes, and public transport.
The US, especially the city of New York, or European countries such as Italy, are now fully controlled by the government. People can be fined for violating the quarantine rules submitted by a law. In such a way, there is a chance to contain the pandemic without considerable losses. If the healthcare system were privatized, such a collaborative action would be impossible to be executed in such a short time. Thus, the discussion’s idea that interference into the life of an individual for the sake of millions of lives is more important than personal freedoms is justified.
The freedom of one individual ends just where the freedom of the other one starts. Thus, in cases when there are millions of lives at a stake, the violation of one’s rights and privacy by the government can be reasonably approved. However, when it comes to everyday life in a safe environment, the federal intervention into human lives should be minimal, as the US is aimed at showing the world an example of democracy.
References
Mitchell, D. J. (2018). The pernicious impact of government intervention in healthcare, captured in a chart. Web.