The “doomsday clock” on American healthcare is perhaps just seconds from midnight, but the clock has been fitfully ticking for an entire century. Healthcare remains a difficult issue in the modern United States, and the tortured path that President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as “Obamacare”) has taken towards passage and acceptance during President Obama’s first term is indicative of the complexity and divisiveness of this issue in the United States. Obamacare might or might not succeed, but in any case, some form of national healthcare is eminently necessary: “no care” is simply not feasible.
Nevertheless, not everyone agrees with the position that some form of national healthcare should be elaborated and supported. The opponents of the necessity to create a form of government healthcare plan have many counterarguments, and one of the most common among them is whether the state officials, who majorly do not have enough qualifications in the area of medicine, should control important matters that are related to the healthcare. Among the most active supporters of this position are the members of The American Medical Association (AMA), who are licensed, medical doctors and medical students. As Greg M. Shaw observed in Healthcare Debate, “The mood of the leadership of the AMA was one of fierce opposition to further steps toward compulsory insurance.” (Shaw 32).
The concerns, stated by the members of AMA, are well-grounded as it is true that in such areas as medical care, only professionals should make important decisions; otherwise, serious problems may take place. However, the government must provide the necessary care and assistance to all the citizens, who are not able to finance their treatment. Besides, it is undeniable that the state must control all the major areas of social life in the country to protect them from any kind of monopolism, abuse, and corrupt practices (Deber 349). With regards to the fact that unfortunately, medical specialists have been many times caught on practicing illegal actions, it appears to be unavoidable that the government should control the healthcare in the country using implementing all the reasonable measures including developing and introducing the national healthcare strategy. Of course, the arguments of AMA members are very strong as well when they prove that medical professionals should make decisions in healthcare. Therefore, the compromised position, developed by the Obama administration, that offers a variety of opportunities for the government officials and medical doctors to cooperate during introducing corrections into the state healthcare practices, is a wise option for solving the contradiction (Avraham 8).
The other significant reason for concerns by the opponents of introducing the national plan of healthcare is its expensiveness. As Ronen Avraham, Professor of Law at the University of Texas at Austin observes, “Currently healthcare is expensive—very expensive. In fact, ours is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but it does not deliver measurably better outcomes.” (Avraham 10). Also, “according to Congressional Budget Office projections, spending on Medicare, which equaled 5.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2009, is predicted to…reach 10 percent by 2035, consuming more than half of all federal tax revenues” (Miller pa. 8).
Sure enough, financial concerns have always had their primary role during the process of making important decisions in the United States, but when the problem is related to the well-being of citizens, prominent political leaders should have a different attitude. This is explained by the fact that the state is its citizens, and if citizens are in trouble due to the health problems they are not financially capable of solving, then the state is also in trouble (Long and Masi 579). Thus, the administration should find ways to economize in the other fields, and not in the area of healthcare. It is praiseworthy that the Obama administration took the courage to make such a decision, and stopped retrenching on the health of the citizens.
In addition, the opponents of the national healthcare plan state that the government does not provide free healthcare; rather, it becomes an intermediary between hospitals and citizens. Common citizens of the country state their concerns regarding the matter in blogs. For instance, one of them says: “it’s “free” only in that the government inserts itself as a middleman into the payment system so that you pay for your health care indirectly in the form of higher taxes to the government” (“Why America Hates Universal Health Care” par. 7). The other citizen describes his concerns in the following statement, “I don’t want the federal government taxing me to pay for the medical costs of people who don’t care enough to provide for their costs” (Ebert par. 7).
Addressing rueful feelings of common citizens that in case the national healthcare plan is elaborated and introduced, they will continue to pay much money, but simply to a different receiver, it is important to note that they are partially fair. Still, it is important to remember that there exists a big category of citizens who are not even able to pay taxes, and for this category, the national healthcare plan is the only chance (“The Nation’s Healthcare Crisis” 12). Also, if any citizen should pay someone for healthcare arrangements, then it is better to pay to the state because it owns a variety of mechanisms of distributing financial means in the most effective ways.
In conclusion, the necessity of developing and implementing an effective national healthcare plan appears to be undeniable. Despite the concerns of the opponents of such a position, the facts show that without the national healthcare plan, citizens of the United States may experience a real catastrophe shortly.
Works Cited
Avraham, Ronen. “Clinical Practice Guidelines: The Warped Incentives in the U.S. Healthcare System.” American Journal of Law & Medicine 37 (2011): 7+. Mt. SAC Library Resources. Boston University School of Law, Web.
Deber, Raisa. “Regulating Healthcare: A Prescription for Improvement?” Inquiry – Excellus Health Plan 41.3 (2004): 349-350. Print.
Ebert, Roger. A Shot in the Dark. 2012. Web.
Long, Sharon, and Paul Masi. “Access and Affordability: An Update on Health Reform in Massachusetts, Fall 2008.” Health Affairs (2009): 578-587. Print.
Miller, Jake. Issue Brief: Healthcare. 2012. Web.
Shaw, Greg M. The Healthcare Debate. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2010. Print.
“The Nation’s Healthcare Crisis.” Policy & Practice 64.3 (2006): 10-12. Print.
Why America Hates Universal Health Care: The Real Reason 2009. Web.