Governing document of the United States Essay Example

Governing document of the United States Essay Example Governing document of the United States Paper Governing document of the United States Paper There is no right to healthcare, at least not in the sense that there is a right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is not an enumerated â€Å"right† in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. However, the Supreme Court has held that the rights listed in those documents is not meant to be inclusive all rights and that other rights could exist and be added as time progresses. Furthermore, whether it is a listed right in the governing document of the United States, it is reasonable to assume that we have implied a right to healthcare for our citizens by creating ever-growing social programs to provide healthcare since the advent of Social Security. : And, as the last industrialized nation in the world that does not provide universal healthcare, it is the shame of a nation that a growing number of citizens do not have access to basic health necessities. Moreover, the right to healthcare should probably be viewed as a fundamental human right, as a necessary part of the freedom to live. The simple truth of the matter is that the American health care system is the best in the world. We have the technology and facilities and health care professionals needed to see that every man, woman and child in the country has access to healthcare. The problem appears to be in the distribution of these facilities and professionals and the cost of the technology.   And, the secondary consideration is how much health care is enough? At some point the determination must be made of how much healthcare people have a fundamental right to expect. This may, in fact, be a place where having access to the best medical care in the world is a drawback and not an advantage.   Where do we draw the line between what is necessary healthcare and what is luxury? For example, if an 84-year-old woman from a family that generally lives well into their 90s needs rotator cuff surgery, should she have as much of a right to the surgery as a 40-year-old man who needs the same surgery to do his job?   Should expensive treatments or experimental drugs be covered in a basic health plan that covers everyone in the nation? Or, should the health plan only cover the most basic needs, like immunizations and wellness checkups? The answer lies somewhere in between.   It is not financially feasible for the government to provide unlimited access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country. Other countries have tried and often find their more wealthy citizens seeking out health care in the United States rather than wait for access to the needed healthcare in their own country. The fine balance between capitalism and socialized medicine is a difficult one. The government must still encourage capitalism among drug companies and doctors as the competition leads to progress in medical care. However, the government must also control the rising costs of health care so that it can afford to provide universal health care. So, who gets to decide what coverage the average citizen is entitled to and where the limits apply?   Who decides what health care is necessary and what is frivolous? And, if we have socialized medicine, and some medical treatment is considered a luxury, would it not simply create and even more two-tiered for health care than already exists? If some health care is considered a luxury, is it not even more a case of the haves and have nots than currently faces Americans. And, does that mean we value the lives of young more than those of the old or the lives of the rich more than the lives of poor? The reality is that a commission of medical professionals such as though who currently determine what Medicare covers could be put in charge of determining what health care people have a right to. The only fair way to provide health care would be to provide each and every citizen with whatever health care they need. However, this kind of a requirement places a responsibility of the citizens that goes hand in hand with the rights. If there is a right to health care, an inherent responsibility to try to do everything we can to make our lives more comfortable, healthy and lengthy, then there is a universal responsibility to pay for the health. Countries which have universal health care pay taxes considerably higher than Americans are used to paying. In short, there may be an inherent right to healthcare, but if so, it comes with a deep responsibility to every taxpayer to work to fund the system. This is in many ways what is wrong with the current proposals in California and Illinois for healthcare for all citizens. The proposal seek to extend healthcare to the working poor, and the unworking poor, but make no provisions to be certain that those people pay a share of the expense. One way to deal with this might be a system similar to Switzerland’s where the country provides healthcare for everyone but there is a cost to each citizen. Those who do not pay their share face criminal charges and jail time.