It shows how much we take for granted and the selfishness we show by not putting forth an effort as an American society to do something about it. Rather spend money for our satisfaction instead of saving a life somewhere around the world. Especially when something such as malnutrition could lead to political unrest and global peace. As an American society we have our fair share of struggles, however, maybe once we should help others with something like healthcare that we are extremely advanced
Like if coming here to further their education will help them go to work on some major issue like coming up with a medical cure or create something we really need for our armed forces. I don’t think that being rich should be a reason to be given a preference. We already have so many rich people here and our economy is still in the toilet, pardon my language. Being rich doesn’t make you more special than the next person. That is my opinion and I know there are a lot of people who would disagree with me.
Of course, that isn’t the standard in this country or anywhere else for that matter. Unless it’s an emergency, there are some places that want even consider seeing you. This country is one the wealthiest and greediest in the world. If you consider all of the money we waste on entertainment and other vain self-indulgences, we should be able to provide free health care on some level to everyone.
The American Economy Stance Paper #3 Universal Healthcare The United States proudly proclaims itself as a free-market society without a managed economy. This proclamation can be put into question when government officials are calling for healthcare to be managed as a socialist program. There are inherent flaws in attempting to provide every citizen in the United States with free healthcare. Firstly, it would cause the American people’s already high taxes to skyrocket all the more; it would contribute to the degradation of quality within our healthcare system, and it would create extremely long waiting lists for any patient that might need urgent care. First and foremost, creating a system in which healthcare is “free” is incredibly misleading.
Instead of debating whether or not health care should be universal, the U.S. should be debating on which venues to take to guarantee that all of its citizens have the right to health care. Health care should be considered a basic right not a luxury reserved for the wealthy and the struggling middle class that is able to afford some of it. Human life has greater value than money. Ironically, in the U.S. we rely on private insurance companies that are for profit and that don’t take into a consideration a patient’s health or economic condition. Why do we allow such a system to
He suggested that without physician buy-in the plan wouldn’t work. He also shared the Board would not support an idea that secures funding through banks, because they believed that donors would not give once this happened. Dr. Bernauer suggested that selling Glen River to a for-profit hospital management company or making it a profit making hospital owned by the doctors would fix the problem (Drucker, 2009). Dr. Bernauer’s comments contained some truth, but they were slightly short sighted. Robbins and Judge (2011) emphasize the importance of group understanding and buy-in for organizational decisions.
The Internet most particularly makes it possible to quickly transmit large amounts of data to countries such as India where the information can be processed and returned. Countries like the U.S. have costly medical care facilities thereby prompting people to consider cheaper alternatives. A heart surgery in India is cheaper and affordable compared to that of U.S. b) Is the globalization of health care good or bad for patients? The outsourcing of medical procedures to nations where medical professionals are paid lower could clearly benefits consumers. However, the treatment standards in countries such as India may not be up to the standards found in the United States, and that the process takes some control out of the hands of the consumers.
The real debate is how can we accomplish the goal of universal healthcare in the most affordable and sustainable way. The United States is evaluated as a wealthy country, yet there are more penurious countries who provide health maintenance, paid through higher taxes. “In the United Kingdom and other European countries, payroll taxes average 37% - much higher than the 15.3% payroll taxes paid by the average US worker” (Gregory). With this data, the only reform would be to end the private health insurance companies of dominant health services, and incorporate a single payer system. Conversely, it is factual that taxes will rise, but the implementation of universal healthcare will better the health of American citizens.
This is also invalid because it is better to pay taxes rather than over priced medical bills. The last con is that people will have a longer wait time. That is also invalid because the more people that visit the more of a demand there will be for Doctors. A universal health care system would extend care to all Americans regardless of social status or bank account. Health care has become extremely unaffordable for both businesses and individuals.
They wrote the restrictive forces of the Constitution on something far more predictable, the meaning of freedom. They understood that times would change, and that breakthroughs would come in many forms and on many levels. They therefore constructed the Constitution on one thing that they knew would not change, and that is human nature. So when people say that our constitution is not relevant at all because of its age, most of our rights are declared on it and still is followed today. Therefore, these are rights that can’t be taken away or unalienable, unalienable rights are rights that are unable to be alienated, given up, or transferred to someone else.