English 1301 

Misty Stovall

Ms. Cowart

ENG 1301-4601

25 October 2016

The Government Should Not Provide Healthcare

            An efficient, well-organized healthcare system is what citizens depend when they need medical services or emergency medicine. Citizens should have the freedom to choose how a citizen manages their own medical coverage and choose their own primary care physician gives a person autonomy over their health. The government should not interfere with how individual’s healthcare needs are managed by offering a government sponsored healthcare system. Healthcare is a fundamental right to all citizens, but having the government control healthcare takes away personal freedom to choose a plan that best suits the needs of individuals and their families; society is not “a one size fits all” society when it comes to healthcare, citizens should be able to choose a plan that bests fits their healthcare needs.

            Government sponsored healthcare has limits, and those limits will affect the aging and elderly population. Government healthcare is a utilitarian approach to healthcare; the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. This approach leaves a gap between the aging and elderly population. Healthcare for the elderly would be rationed because they will not be of greater good to society. The average life span is increasing every decade because of medical advancement and technology, therefore, the elderly population will use more medical resources and could take up more healthcare resources. As life span increases, “emphasis should be placed on increasing the opportunity to enjoy the ‘normal’ lifespan rather than extending that lifespan” (Petrou and Wolstenholme 40).  This means that the elderly population will not have access to healthcare that could save their life. Hospice centers will be overburdened with elderly patients to provide palliative care rather than healthcare to extend their lives.

            A medical priority differs from one person to the next. Government healthcare will be so overburdened that that the healthcare system will have to prioritize which services they offer based of the sickest population. If the government is overwhelmed with individual medical emergencies, then healthcare rationing will have to be in place. State run hospitals will not be able to keep up with patient demand.  Private hospitals will have to close because there will not be private insurance companies to pay for private care, therefore, overburdening the public hospital system. As explained by Petrou and Wolstenholme, “The resources available for healthcare are limited compared with demand, if not need, and all healthcare systems, regardless of their financing and organization, employs mechanisms to ration and prioritize finite healthcare resources” (Petrou and Wolstenholme 33). Medical supplies and medical equipment will need to be used for the sickest patients, leaving long wait times. Lives will be lost waiting for medical care. Denmark has free healthcare for all of its citizens funded through taxes; wait times for medical services are higher than ever. Denmark is an example of long wait times due to government healthcare, “in the 1990s, waiting time first grabbed media attention and was typically referred to as the waiting list. It suggests a physical piece of paper lying in a bureaucrat’s desk drawer, a list deciding the order in which patients are admitted” (Larsen and Stone 949).  This would mean the death toll would rise for life saving surgery.

             Doctors have incentives to become doctors, not only for their love of medicine, but because their love of medicine can provide them a good lifestyle. Going into medicine requires a lot of schooling, discipline, and great work ethics. Going to medical school for eight or more years to specialize in their choice of the medical field they prefer, requires a hefty student loan. If physicians can specialize in what they love doing instead of the broad scope of just a practical medical doctor, they should be paid for their experience and schooling.  Under government healthcare, doctors will be paid a set fee for their services. There will be no incentive to continue schooling while piling on student debt, to specialize in their preferred choice, if they will only be paid a set fee for their services. Healthcare services will decline; doctors will not have a reason to provide the best bedside manner possible to keep patients coming back. This takes out the competition between hospitals and physician offices to provide the best care possible. This will leave a shortage of new doctors entering the medical field.

             Many will argue that money will be saved by business and companies because they will not have to pay for extended sick leave for their sick employees.  The employees will be covered by free government medical care.  On the other hand, taxes will increase a great deal in order to be able to provide free medical services to citizens. Increased taxes may not even be enough to pay for all of the free healthcare services “financing is another issue. Funding may come from (yet more) taxation. This approach may not be enough and other approaches be considered” (Amando, Christofides, Pieters, and Rusch 7). The government will run out of money to pay for its citizen’s free healthcare, then society will be in an even greater discord than before free government healthcare was established.

             Another claim by the opposing parties is that expenses for healthcare will go down.  Hospitals will only be able to charge the government a set fee for services used, instead of the outrageous fees already being charged for medical services and medical testing. Hospitals will be overburdened with patients on waiting lists, and patients electing to have surgeries they could not afford before because they now have free care. This would mean overworked staff and doctors trying to keep up with patient demand, while private hospitals were forced to closed due to implementing free healthcare. In America there is Medicaid for the population that cannot afford to buy private insurance, and doctors are only allowed to charge a set fee for services.  Some medical facilities and physician offices do not accept patients with Medicaid and only take private insurance patients, because they are not paid enough for the services they provide. If government healthcare were to take effect, then the wealthy citizens able to pay out of pocket for medical services would be seen as a priority above the citizen that use free government healthcare.  That would mean that doctors would practice medicine under the table to make more money limiting services for other patients.

              Limiting the freedom of citizens to choose what best fits their needs should never be taken away. The government should never be allowed to step in and have full control over a citizen’s health, because individualized care is more important than a free healthcare system. Money will not be saved it will just be taken from one sector and placed in another to be able to afford to pay doctors and hospitals. Corruption and doctor shortages will happen leaving the sickest and elderly patients hanging by a thread. Moreover, the lives that are saved due to citizens having access to free healthcare will create a shortage for patients needing immediate and emergency care, overwhelming the medical system. Taxes are already being paid to provide government programs to the needy. We need a healthcare system that benefits both sides of those who can and cannot afford private healthcare are the best options.

Works Cited

Armando, Leandra, Nicholas Christojides, Raymond Pieters, Jody Rusch. “National Health  Insurance:  A Lofty Ideal in Need of Cautious Planned Implementation.” Steve Biko

           Centre for Bioethics 5 (2015):4-10. EBSCOhost. Web. 24 October 2016.

             Larsen, Lars and Deborah Stone. “Governing Healthcare Through Free Choice: Neoliberal

            Reforms in Denmark and the United States.” Health Politics, Policy and Law 40

             (2015):1-31. EBSCOhost. Web. 27 October 2016.

Petrou, Stavros and Jane Wolstenholme. “A Review of Alternative Approaches to Healthcare

             Resource Allocation.” Pharmacoenomics (2000) :18(1). EBSCOhost. Web. 11 November 2016.