Nowadays, it is being often suggested that healthcare should be made accessible to just about anyone, regardless of what happened to be the would-be treated patient’s social status. This suggestion, however, does not hold much water. In this paper, I will explain why.
One of the reasons why people need to see doctors periodically, is that the practice in question is assumed to contribute to extending one’s lifespan. If it was not up to this, it would be highly unlikely for an individual to be willing to go as far as taking its clothes off in front of a physician. However, there can be very little rationale for people to try to live longer, unless their lives happened to be enjoyable.
The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that, as time goes on, more and more countries allow their terminally ill citizens to apply for euthanasia. Apparently, if one’s existence happened to be full of pain, there can be no reason in trying to extend it. This brings us to answer the question of what is the foremost precondition for one’s life to be enjoyable?
This, of course, would be the concerned person’s material riches. After all, it does not require a scientist to realize that, for as long as a particular person happened to be rich, he or she will be in the position to enjoy life to the fullest. What it means is that the idea that poor people should be entitled to healthcare does not make any logical sense – these people’s lives are miserable, by definition, and there is nothing doctors can do to help the situation.
Another reason why only rich people deserve healthcare, has to do with geopolitics. The line of argumentation, behind this suggestion, is as follows:
The idea that, regardless of how much money they happened to have in the bank, people may enjoy equal access to healthcare is clearly Socialist and potentially Communist (Russo 735). This simply could not be otherwise – people’s universal access to healthcare can only be ensured in the society, where the rich are being forced to share their riches with the rest of this society’s members. It is understood, of course, that this idea is being deeply inconsistent with the American way of life.
After all, it is specifically the U.S. citizens’ endowment with the strongly defined sense of greed/egoism, which makes the country’s economy to function in the way it does. However, the way it functions is good – something that can be easily illustrated, in regards to the hordes of illegal immigrants who try to sneak into this country each year.
In other words, those who advocate the idea of universal healthcare, act on behalf of the third party, which happened to be China – the world’s only ‘superpower’ that continues to proclaim its commitment to the ideology of Communism. These people are nothing but the agents of foreign influence. What it means is that they should be arrested for helping China to undermine the integrity of American society from within.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to believe that denying the access to healthcare for poor people may only benefit the rich – the former themselves should be interested in enacting this state of affairs. The reason for this is that, as practice indicates, healthcare professionals often act on behalf of the country’s pharmacological companies.
This explains why, as of today, the professional adequacy of a physician in America is being considered reflective of the amount of drugs that he or she is capable of prescribing to a patient, even when there is no reason for the latter to be drug-treated, in the first place (Mathis A6). What it means is that, as of today, one’s willingness to be checked by a physician means that the concerned person consciously strives to sustain damage to its health.
Poor people, however, are not being in the position to afford suffering from illnesses, as it would reduce the measure of their existential competitiveness. The reason for this is that, it is not only that poor people aspire to fill their stomachs with food, but they also remain in the state of competition with each other, while addressing this task.
Therefore, when it comes to dealing with illness, on their part, these people should act in the similar manner with what it happened to be the case with stray cats – they should try eating some medicinal grass.
By doing it, they will be able to save money and to contribute to increasing the overall measure of the evolutionary fitness of America’s population of the poor. After all, there can be only two consequences to a poor person’s decision to eat medicinal grass – it is either he or she recovers, or continues to remain ill and consequently dies – hence, ceasing to be a burden to the society.
I believe that the earlier provided line of argumentation is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, it is indeed thoroughly appropriate to suggest that only rich people should be entitled to healthcare.
Mathis, G. “Has the Pharmaceutical Industry ‘Bought Off’ Congress.” New Pittsburgh Courier 02 May 2007: A6. Print.
Russo, A. “Communism: An Idea to Be Divided.” South Atlantic Quarterly 113.4 (2014): 729-741. Print.