Health Care A Right Or Commodity Sociology Essay

Many people consider healthcare to be a privilege while others consider it a right. Health care should be a right; everyone should be entitled to proper healthcare and not be subject to being medically treated or not, based on their financial status. This has been an argument for over 100 years. In a country like ours, it is a shame that we do not provide something that should be a basic human right to every citizen. The Preamble of the United States Constitution and in Article One, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution both describe the original purpose of our United States: to promote general welfare for every citizen. I believe that health care is a vital part of our general welfare and it is the government’s responsibility to provide this for us. It should be our right to health and health care.

Even in 1943 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt had proposed a Second Bill of Rights for Americans, for he suggested this was due to the political rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had proved to be inadequate to assure us the equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. Roosevelt’s remedy for this was to declare an economic bill of rights, which included “the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.” However, unfortunately the United States turned its back on Roosevelt’s vision for a more secure and happy America, and as a result our health care system is in a state of crisis.

Figure 1-Roosevelt, Franklin. The Economic Bill of Rights. Web. www.fdrheritage.org

The right to health however is guaranteed elsewhere through international human rights treaties and declarations such as, the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, the American Declaration on the

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 2.

Rights and Duties of Man, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right to health is also recognized by national constitutions around the world, and even some U.S. state constitutions include protection of the public health as a core government function.

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” ~Universal Declaration of Human Rights- Article, 25 ~

The country of France funds its health care system by using taxes from income, pharmaceutical companies, and products that are harming to one’s health such as tobacco. With their health care plan, they charge a co-payment for certain specific procedures that are performed, but every citizen still has health care. Denmark also has a universal health care system; it is different from France’s where it is free to everyone who is a citizen. Their government made the decision to fund its program through taxes. Germany has the world’s oldest universal health care system, which covers the majority of the German population. Not everyone is forced to participate in the standard program, people with higher incomes can choose to pay a tax and opt out of the universal plan and purchase private insurance. Those who have chosen to opt out to get private insurance then pay premiums that are linked to their health status. Many countries enjoy a universal health care system, where every citizen and even non-citizens can afford to get proper health care. How the system works basically, is everyone pays taxes towards medical care based on their income and allows everyone to use it without prejudices. This system is used successfully in many countries worldwide especially in Europe and Canada.

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 3.

When you hear someone from another country talk about the United States they are saying that

we have a great country to live in. With being in such a great country why is something as essential as health care considered as a luxury item. In addition, with our country being so rich and a country that actually helps to build other nations; it is sad that we as citizens are penalized on whom the better health care gets depending on money. The United States has one of the worst health care systems in the world and as far as industrialized countries we are the only country without a universal health care system and our citizenship does not include health care as a right. Either in the United States, we receive our health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan or we purchase our own insurance that often includes high premiums as well as high deductibles for a basic plan. I can definitely understand a person who cannot afford to pay the premiums that goes along with having private insurance; it can make you feel like you are stuck in a difficult situation. You know you need the insurance, but when something does happen that requires you to use it how will you pay for it all? The premiums are expensive enough as it is when you add the thousands of dollars for the co-payments and the deductibles; you can easily spend over $10,000.00 a year. Additionally, because of the economic downturn, many people do not have health care or cannot afford healthcare.

Figure 2-Nesri. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-health-and-health-care

Health care is a luxury in our society, we have the people that can afford to pay for the medical services they receive, and we have the ones who cannot and they are left in the cold. Simply put, our HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 4.

health care system serves too few, costs too much, harms too many, and is too inefficient. A decade ago, affordability was primarily a problem limited to low income families, but has become an issue with middle class families.

There have been many that have tried to pass a universal health system for the United States, but with no success. This goes way back to the 1912 Progressive Party Platform and Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party when they both made passionate cases for a compulsory national health plan in their Declaration of Principles of the Progressive Party. Unfortunately, this did not go anywhere because of the opposition it received from the American citizens and the start of World War I.

“The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adaptation of a system of social insurance adapted to American use” ~1912 Declaration of Principles of the Progressive Party~””Roosevelt , T. (n.d.). Progressive party platform, 1912. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/tr-progressive/

The most recent attempt was in April 2006 when the state of Massachusetts became the first state in our nation to require all of its residents to purchase health insurance. This was to ensure that every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will have affordable health insurance, this was particularly in part due to today’s health care costs which are rising twice as fast as inflation which makes insurance unaffordable for many of the employers and individuals. Currently, we have over 47 million Americans that have no health insurance. So in an effort to solve the problem in their state, Governor Romney and the Massachusetts state legislature enacted this plan with twin goals of reducing the cost of health care and guaranteeing coverage for all Massachusetts residents.

The Massachusetts plan consisted of the following elements: The state would establish a governmental authority known as the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector(or Connector) to

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 5.

serve as a clearinghouse through which individuals would be able to purchase state approved insurance plans. Every resident would be required to purchase a health insurance plan, either from a private insurer or through the Connector, which there would be stiff penalties for those who failed to comply. For those who could not afford the insurance would have their expenses provided for by the state in part or in full, depending on their income. Employers with more than ten employees would also be required to provide health insurance for their employees or pay a special fee to provide coverage for low income individuals. The theory of this plan was to lower individual patient’s insurance costs by enlarging the pool of insured patients. Particularly, the younger and healthier patients (who often choose not to purchase insurance), would be required to do so, thus paying a portion of the health costs of the larger population.

So for these reasons, mandatory health insurance became popular with the politicians in both major political parties. This idea has also been endorsed by the National Small Business Association and the National Business Group on Health. This idea also made several states that includes New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado to consider or are considering to incorporate some version of mandatory health insurance.

But after two years after it started, the Massachusetts plan failed to achieve either of its goals. The plan did not lower health care costs, nor did it achieve universal coverage. Instead, this plan has increased costs for individuals and the state, reduced revenues for doctors and hospitals. Costs have increased to the individual because Massachusetts requires insurance plans that includes 43 mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services-whether you want them or not. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent. Costs to the state government have sky-rocketed and are projected

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 6.

to run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. This is due to that mandated insurance is so expensive, the government has had to support the costs of the premiums not only for the lower income residents, but also for those with incomes as high as $60,000.00 for a family of four-which is 3 times the Federal Poverty Level. The state had anticipated a significant drop in spending for the uninsured instead, overall costs to the state has risen by more than $400 million, that is 85 percent more than originally projected. As a result of these rising costs and falling revenues, access to medical care has dwindled for many patients.

So what caused this innovative plan to fail in accomplishing its intended goals? The plan had failed for two reasons: First, it violates individual rights; second, health insurance is a commodity-a good or service created by businessmen for trade in the marketplace. As with any other commodity, health insurance cannot be created by a government mandate. The proper function of government is not to create or provide goods or services, but to protect individual rights. Selling health care to those who can afford it is a logical way to distribute it. That was certainly typical in the early days of this country when the doctors was paid in whatever manner the family could manage. Charity, for those who could not afford care, was the domain of the church and the community, not the government.

Our health care system is based on the premise that health care is a commodity like TVs and computers and that is should be distributed according to the ability to pay in the same way that consumer goods are. This is what health care is not about, health care is a need-not a commodity, and it should be distributed according to need. This is a fundamental mistake in the way this country and only this country, looks at health care. Let’s not forget about individual choice and personal liberty aspects of the American Way. We should be able to spend our own money in whatever way we see fit for we have earned it.

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 7.

Taking responsibility for our own health care means paying for it if I can, or doing without if I cannot. So those without financial resources receive inferior care, and those who can afford it receive quality care. I do not believe that unaffordable health care is anyone’s intent; however circumstances have made the cost of health care rise with the health care development and technology. It should be clear to everyone that United States health care system is failing and not serving its citizens.

In the most recent presidential election, the final two candidates provided positions on health care. John McCain’s idea focused on an open market contest rather than government spending. With his plan there were tax credits-$2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families who could not purchase or could not get health care through their employer. To help people who are denied coverage by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions, McCain proposed working with states to create what he called a “Guaranteed Access Plan”. President Obama called for a universal health care system. His plan calls for the government to establish a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include private health insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. With the universal health plan everyone would have coverage regardless of health status like if they had a pre-existing condition, it would also put an end to charging premiums based on your health. It would have required all Americans to buy insurance through the government health care plan or a private insurance plan, but all Americans would be required to have insurance.

” I think health care should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills-for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they are saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 8.

treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that” ~Barack Obama Oct. 7,2008 ~

President Obama is right about the unsustainable course of our health care spending. We spend $2.5 trillion per year for our health care, 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product. Under these current trends, this will increase to 48 percent of GDP by 2050. By that point, government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid alone will consume 20 percent of our GDP. Simply put, we cannot provide all the health care that everyone might want. Any health care reform will have to confront the biggest single reason costs keep rising: The American people keep buying more and more health care. If a treatment can save our lives or increase quality of life, we want it. Therefore, in the long run, the only way to spend less on health care is to consume less health care. Someone, sometime, has to say no. The real debate here is about if we should ration care but who should ration it. Right now, that decision is often made by the insurance companies or other third party payers.

So if health care is considered as a commodity and not a right, it makes a fairly strong case that is should be bought and sold like any other commodity, for a profit, and at the highest price the market will tolerate. It seems that our current system of private- for sale- at a profit, health insurance makes the most sense when health care is considered as a commodity. Then our private health insurance corporations as they exist now will not need to change very much if at all. In regards to our private health care insurance system, we overpay for our health care due to buying more and more health care. Besides paying for our actual health care services themselves, we are also paying the operating costs of the insurance company, plus whatever profit’s the insurance company builds into our premiums. And although they are regulated to a certain extent, private health care insurers are not directly accountable to the public as government institutions are.

Health care is just not another commodity. It is not a gift to be rationed on the ability to pay. It is

HEALTH CARE: A RIGHT OR COMMODITY 9.

time to make universal health care a national priority, so that the basic right to health care can become a reality for all Americans. There should be a clearly defined basic health care plan that is available to all Americans. I am not talking about a health care plan that will cover at no cost, elective medical care. I would advocate for financing a health plan that be based on a concept of public good rather than a commodity. If all citizens can receive benefits, then they all can contribute based on their own ability to pay through income taxes. These funds then would pay for all medically acceptable inpatient and outpatient services, both mental and physical. A properly financed, universal health insurance program will provide the best opportunity to provide what we Americans want most, high quality, affordable health care for all. I also believe this would be something that most physicians also want and would benefit from. Our current system of health insurance tends to put the cart before the horse, the role of financing is first then the delivery of health care. If we can define the delivery of health care, we would have a better opportunity to create a more user friendly system. It would also support an extensive range of services made available to all Americans which reflects extensive community based, primary and secondary levels of care. We might finally recognize and fund what we have ignored for too long: long term, respite and nursing home care.