Essay on the Right to Healthcare for all Americans

The right to healthcare has for long resulted into controversial debates in the country, leading to an ideological rift between the conservative and liberal standpoints. That is mainly because the cost of healthcare in the United States has been on the rise for a long time. Due to the numerous politics brought into play regarding the issue, the Congress had to go through several thousands of pages regarding this controversial health care reforms bill passed back in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The proponents of this Act termed its passage as the law that would eventually enable each, and every American have some basic security when it comes to their healthcare. However, many factors are in play regarding as to whether every American has the right to Healthcare or not. There is the economic impact of this Bill, particularly on the part of the uninsured population, as well as the expected government spendings in the implementation of this act (Bodenheimer & Thomas pp12). On the other hand, how about the lives of the underprivileged that are at stake, those who can't afford the current medical care. The definition of the term American in this case, also raises some concerns, particularly regarding the immigrant categories (Jones & Cynthia pp2 ). Therefore, this paper will rhetorically analyze the question at hand from the moral implications of the topic, an emotional perspective, as well as the logical reasoning from an empirical standpoint, thus giving the reader the opportunity to take a stand on the validity of the topic at hand.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The logical argument regarding the right to healthcare is based on three counts of challenges that face healthcare reforms; access, quality, and costs. The enactment of the Affordable Healthcare Act simply broadened the access and pushed towards improving the quality. However, the cost problem persists, as the bill never made sufficient provisions for that. It is also important to note that there has been a tremendous increase in healthcare costs, by 73%, as compared to the 15% increase in salaries over the past five years. Those percentages are unbalanced. These statistics rank the US as one with the most expensive health care system. The reforms necessary in the healthcare sector cannot be fully rolled out without acknowledging the fact that an overall healthcare budget that requires caps on expenditures for medical procedures and services is mandatory. Therefore, some services will cost more; others will be partially covered, while other services will be entirely excluded. This indicates that the general populations health care needs cannot be catered in entirety when demanded. In addition to the argument, no constitutional provision states that the government is obliged to give healthcare to its citizens (Bodenheimer & Thomas pp12).

There are ethical implications regarding the Rights to health care. The Kantian ethics, contractarian ethics, and utilitarian ethics perceive health disparities as a moral wrong, serving as an exemplification of historical injustices, based on race and class. This is under the assumption that even when done unintentionally, still is likely to de-facto racism, hence morally problematic. The financial capability of a citizen should not be a measure of the quality of healthcare that should be entitled to them. The argument, in this case, is that there is no evidence that the uninsured are biologically determined to be less healthy because of their status quo, hence a violation of civic liberties of those individuals. Other principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence and distributive justice can be applied to offer support that unaffordable health care for many is a moral wrong that should be undone (Jones & Cynthia pp5 ).

However, on the pathos side of the argument, considering that there are over 68 million uninsured people in America, there is the devastating impact of the current healthcare system on their families, including most immigrants. Some with chronic conditions may need extensive care, beyond which, they cannot afford. The result is the increased mortality rate of such category. There is also a rift between the Republicans, who are inclined to spend trillions on wars in Iraq, and the Democrats, who are inclined to allocate more federal money to improving access to healthcare. The former President, Barack Obama, began his state of the union address speech in January 2012 by including pathos in his fight for the right to healthcare. He gave a limelight of the thousands who would have already lost their health insurance by the end of his speech. He also stated that American deficits were to grow, as millions more were on the verge of losing their insurance due to the ever increasing premiums (Obama pp2). That brought a sense of unity and feelings for those directly affected by the matter at hand.

Therefore, the question as to whether every American should have the right to healthcare is still a rhetorical one. The answer is evident. Despite the logos standpoint on the financial and empirical implications of the implementation of such right, the pathos and ethos sides of the argument outlive it. Every human being has a right to be healthy, hence a common ground for productiveness. Therefore, affordable healthcare should be a right to every American irrespective of their origin or class.

Works Cited

Bodenheimer, Thomas. "The political divide in health care: A liberal perspective." Health Affairs 24.6 (2005): 1426-1435.

Jones, Cynthia M. "The moral problem of health disparities." American journal of public health 100.S1 (2010): S47-S51.

Obama, B. "Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address| The White House." The White House: Speeches and Remarks (2013).