Introduction/Thesis statement
One of the most peculiar aspects of a contemporary American living is the fact that, as time goes on, the ongoing debate on whether the adoption of a universal healthcare bill should be welcomed or not, continues to spark up ever more public controversies. It its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, as of today, there is no universally accepted view on what should be considered the theoretical premise behind the concept of a healthcare, as ‘thing in itself’. Whereas, some Americans tend to think of this concept in terms of a ‘human right’, others prefer to think of it in terms of a ‘commodity’. The latter point of view, of course, implies the sheer fallaciousness of an idea that, regardless of what happened to be the extent of their socio-economic advancement, all American citizens are being equally qualified to receive high-quality healthcare services. In this paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this specific point of view, because the essentially Socialist paradigm of a universal healthcare is being conceptually inconsistent with the proper functioning of a free-market economy. That is, the actual price of adopting a universal healthcare bill would be the destruction of America’s economic well-being. Yet, in countries with thoroughly ruined economies, there can be no properly functioning healthcare systems, by definition.
Analytical part
As it was pointed out in the Introduction, the advocates of a universal healthcare never cease referring to the citizens’ ability to enjoy high-quality health care services as something that represents their constitutionally guaranteed ‘human right’. For example, according to Rudiger, “The failure to develop a health care system that guarantees equal access to care for everyone can be directly attributed to successive US governments’ resistance to recognizing the human right to health and health care” (123). Nevertheless, just as it is being the case with other promoters of a universal healthcare bill, it never occurred to the author that that the notion of one’s ‘right’ cannot be discussed as something separated from the notion of his or her ‘responsibility’. Apparently, these promoters remain thoroughly ignorant of a simple fact that the healthcare system cannot be thought of as something that exists on its own – it is specifically the proper functioning of a free-market economy, which creates objective preconditions for this system to exist, in the first place. Consequently, in order for them to be able to ensure the economy’s proper functioning, citizens may never cease acting in a socially productive manner. That is, their very lives must represent an objective socio-economic value. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the lives of many of those voters who ardently support the concept of a universal healthcare bill. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that it is specifically the representatives of America’s ‘underprivileged’ populations, who have traditionally been voting for Socialist-minded politicians, known for their ‘generosity’ in giving out populist promises, such as the current President Obama (Alakeson 720). Of course, we can discuss long and hard the actual reasons behind the ‘unprivileged’ citizens’ inability to attain social prominence, reflected by the unnaturally high rate of unemployment among them. This, however, does not change the fact that that these people’s tendency to talk about the concept of a universal healthcare in terms of a ‘human right’ reveals their belief that the situation when hard-working taxpayers are being forced to pay for ‘underprivileged’ citizens’ ‘right’ to enjoy a number of different healthcare benefits, is absolutely normal.
Nevertheless, for those Americans who, despite having been subjected to the ideological oppression of political correctness for decades, were able to retain their ability to think logically, the earlier described situation simply does not make any sense, whatsoever. The reason for this is quite apparent – in just about any multicultural society, the practical implementation of healthcare-related Socialist initiatives, can result in only one thing – establishing a class of social-parasites, who despite being unable to contribute to the society’s overall well-being, will still be enjoying a ‘good living’ (which includes receiving a number of healthcare benefits), at the expense of hard-working Americans.
The validity of this statement can be well explored in regards to what appears to be the qualitative essence of demographic dynamics in today’s America. For example, it is now being estimated that by the year 2050, Hispanics will grow to constitute 54% of American population, which means that they will become a majority (Oropesa & Landale 903). There is nothing wrong about that, of course, except for the fact that, as many recent studies indicate – the dropout rate among Hispanics in America’s high schools accounts for as high as 45%. According to Crosnoe, “Compared to other racial/ethnic populations, Hispanics lag behind on most indicators of academic progress, such as grades, test scores, and social-psychological adjustment in school” (563). Given the fact that many Hispanics make a deliberate point in refusing to learn English language, while preferring to create their own ‘societies within the society’ (which hampers their chances to able to secure employment), within a matter of the next decade, the population of ‘underprivileged’ Americans will increase by another 3-5 million.
The earlier provided observation directly relates to this paper’s subject matter, because it reveals the sheer wrongness of an assumption that one’s ability to enjoy high-quality healthcare services should be solely discussed in terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed ‘human right’, which in turn is being irrelevant of her ability to act as the society’s productive member. If the concept of a universal healthcare continues to enjoy American politicians’ support, it will result in the creation of a situation when the number of citizens, entitled to receive healthcare services, regardless of these citizens’ socio-economic value, will increase in the exponential progression to the flow of time. On the other hand, the number of citizens whose hardworkiness creates objective prerequisites for all Americans to be able to enjoy ‘human rights’, in the first place, will be declining in the same progression. Eventually, we will end up having just about all Americans provided with a formal ‘human right’ to receive high-quality healthcare services, on the one hand, and no Americans being able to explore such their right in practice (as there will be no properly functioning Medicare system to speak of), on the other.
The ongoing implementation of Socialist reforms in the field of American healthcare, concerned with adopting a number of additional procedure-related rules and regulations, and with hiring the armies of bureaucrats, whose job is to distribute healthcare services among the ‘underprivileged’, has already resulted in the creation of a so-called ‘medical tourism’ phenomenon. After all, it does not represent any secret that, as of today, more and more middle-class Americans decide in favor of applying for a wide range of medical services abroad. The reason for this is simple – as compared to American prices on medicinal products/services, Second/Third World’s prices often appear laughable, “For example, hip replacement surgery, which normally costs around $25,000 in the United States, can be performed for $5,000 in India. Heart valve replacement surgery, which costs around $200,000 in the United States, costs $10,000 in India” (Sengupta 312). The reason for this is simple – unlike what it is being the case in America (and in the rest of Western countries that continue to grow increasingly Socialist), in the countries that are being considered the most attractive medical tourism’s destinations, there are simply no armies of useless but resource-consuming ‘healthcare bureaucrats’ in existence.
Conclusion
I believe that the provided earlier line of argumentation, in defense of a suggestion that the very concept of a universal healthcare is being innately deceptive, fully correlates with this paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, those who believe that it is being possible to provide high-quality healthcare services to all have not studied the history of Marxism/Socialism. It is important to understand that the very notion of ‘equality’ is being inconsistent with the most fundamental laws of nature (the notion of equality is being synonymous to the notion of entropy), which is why it is utterly inappropriate to stick to this notion, within the context of designing socio-political policies. Apparently, it is being only a matter of time, before Americans will learn to refer to the concept of a universal healthcare as yet another proof to the validity of an old saying that the road to hell is made out of good intentions.
Bibliography
Alakeson, Vidhya. “America’s Health Choices.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 337.7672 (2008): 720-722. Print.
Crosnoe, Robert. “The Diverse Experiences of Hispanic Students in the American Educational System.” Sociological Forum 20.4 (2005): 561-588. Print.
Oropesa, R. S. & Landale, Nancy. “The Future of Marriage and Hispanics.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66.4 (2004): 901-920. Print.
Rudiger, Anja. “From Market Competition to Solidarity? Assessing the Prospects of US Health Care Reform Plans from a Human Rights.” Health and Human Rights 10.1 (2008): 123-135. Print.
Sengupta, Amit. “Medical Tourism: Reverse Subsidy for the Elite.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 36.2 (2011): 312-319. Print.