Universal vs. Capital Health Care
Examines the argument between providing health care to all Americans versus only to those who can afford it.
# 31728 | 900 words | 6 sources | 2002 |
Published on Sep 27, 2003 in Medical and Health (Public Health Issues) , Political Science (Social Security and Welfare) , Medical and Health (General)
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
In the first year of the Clinton administration there was put forth the idea of a system of universal health care which would guarantee a minimum of health care services to every person in the United States. While it never came to fruition, the idea was divisive and sparked a discussion that continues - do we need a system in which all people can have health care, or should it continue to be only for those who can afford it? That question rides the divide between capitalism and socialism in the American mind. Universal health care would indeed provide every person with doctors, hospitals and medicines, thus ensuring that these would not be products for purchase like SUVs, mansions and servants. But, it would also be extremely costly, require us to reconsider our economic / political structure and would be likely to negatively affect research and the development and use of new procedures. The discussion of establishing health care as a right rather than as a commodity requires looking at both sides of the issue. It is the purpose of this paper to look at the two sides of this sensitive issue.
Cite this Essay:
Universal vs. Capital Health Care (2003, September 27) Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://www.academon.com/essay/universal-vs-capital-health-care-31728/
"Universal vs. Capital Health Care" 27 September 2003. Web. 17 April. 2021. <https://www.academon.com/essay/universal-vs-capital-health-care-31728/>