The healthcare segment in the US is unique and differs from the systems commonly employed in other countries. Namely, universal healthcare is yet to be implemented, and the current state correlates with the focus on insurance-based services. However, several demographics remain vulnerable to being unable to access the needed assistance, which is why solutions are often brought up in correlation to said barriers.
On the one hand, expanding free healthcare remains a potential action that may significantly improve the situation by offering more opportunities for those who do not qualify for Medicaid and Medicare. On the other hand, the economic barriers will become even more prominent. This paper will discuss healthcare from the perspective of a universal right supported economically and biblically.
The direction in which healthcare is moving is towards a universal system. Namely, the implementations over the last half a decade highlight that while spending has increased significantly, the economic and social benefits are worth investing in (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2020).
Thus, although over the last 70 years, the GDP for healthcare has increased by 13%, the success of the initiatives is clear. The spending is particularly high during crises such as COVID-19 (Hartman, Martin, Washington, & Catlin, 2022). As a result, more implementations are being employed to maximize population well-being.
Western ethics are based on the principle that healthcare is a right, which is a valid argument. The US aims to reach similar ethical considerations through specific acts. The Affordable Care Act is one policy that has further increased healthcare access.
Namely, the initiative established in 2010 was designed to maximize access to healthcare through tax provisions that have assisted millions of Americans (Ercia, 2021). The Affordable Care Act, however, could support the healthcare needs of each person in the US only under the condition that taxes are increased substantially.
Overall, it is inevitable that the Affordable Care Act was successful based on the number of people it has helped. Nonetheless, additional solutions are required to maintain the current needs while improving the healthcare segment and considering it as a right rather than a privilege.
One initiative that may address current problems is implementing more rigid laws about insurance companies and their rights to either insure or not insure people based on pre-existing conditions. As a result, more individuals will be able to access individual plans.
Moreover, instead of maximizing taxes on a federal level, certain segments may be more affected. For example, major corporations may be asked to contribute more to social initiatives, such as improving the basis for a universal system. In the long term, the economic burden of universal healthcare addresses itself as a healthy society is more apt to work and generate economic profit and contribute to the monetary exchange (Zieff, Kerr, Moore, & Stoner, 2020).
Similarly, the Biblical perspective supports the argument of maximizing social initiatives. It can be highlighted in Luke 12:33, stating, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (New International Version, 2011). The Christian overview correlates with the effort to assist those in need. From the healthcare perspective, those in need are demographics that do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid yet are not covered by employer insurance.
Private healthcare is a system in which health services are a privilege rather than a right. Both from a Biblical and economic perspective, maximizing the well-being of the population correlates with a variety of positive outcomes on a societal level.
Thus, maximizing taxes in specific segments and implementing stricter regulations for insurance companies would allow for a less rigid system to be established. As a result, more individuals will have access to much-needed services to maintain their health and well-being.
References
Ercia, A. (2021). The impact of the affordable care act on patient coverage and access to care: Perspectives from FQHC administrators in Arizona, California and Texas. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). Web.
Hartman, M., Martin, A. B., Washington, B., & Catlin, A. (2022). National Health Care Spending in 2020: Growth driven by federal spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Affairs, 41(1), 13-25. Web.
MIT OpenCourseWare. (2020). 25 Health Economics [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy debate. Medicina, 56(11), 580. Web.