Does a society has an obligation to ensure adequate health care for its citizens?
Well, I am doing research for my American History class, and this question popped up for an issue to be discussed in a report. I need some comfort and facts please along with your beliefs. Thanks for your help!
Best Answer:
I totally disagree with all-purpose healthcare. Pretty much the only people who support it are people near no jobs who will never get a job. So they force other empire to pay for their flu medicine. I think that children are an exception. And perchance a student if they prove that they have a high GPA so one day they'll contribute to america instead of suck sour the government. Plus- think of how crappy our healthcare would be if it was broad-spectrum. I'm saying this- and i don't have my own healthcare yet.
Society doesn't HAVE to, but it should. This is just my opinion, but i think that if your a working, taxing paying citizen, and/or a student and/or lower than 18, than the government should provide some kind of assistance when it comes to health contemplation. I think that its disgusting that the U.S. is one of the most developed, most powerful countries in the world and yet copious of our citizens are unable to afford simple health care for themselves or their kith and kin. One of my co-workers went to pick up prescription on last week and ended up spending $450, on ONE prescription on! He is a full time college student, and he pays adjectives of his tuition and living expenses, so you can imagine the burden this must have put on him.
Depends on what that society wants. In the US for example, the population have decided (through the politicians they elect) that adquate healthcare is the provision of emergency healthcare for all, the provision of which can in receivership someone, even if they have insurance! Although the USA has voted for change by elect Obama, all they have voted for is for him to increase the availability of health insurance, not for international health coverage. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. FACT - the US has higher loss rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal vigour coverage. That means that a dead American four year old would enjoy had a better chance of life if they be born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have wide-reaching health coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/13/usa.health https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/table/2008/oct/01/uselections.healthcare
The key here is does society hold the responsibility to provide health care or to make sure strength care is available for all. Quite a difference. This is the core issue today. In a socialist society the government desires to provide for all. In a Capitalist society the private sector wants to be the provider. From that one has to resolve what type or level of coverage should a person receive, and who should have the final vote in the service provided. Again, in a socialist society the government will desire what level of service you receive and they will have the final say. True Capitalism provides choices for the individual and the individual have the final say. The last point I will make is which program provides the best possible service. I can just say, I have traveled to many different countries and enjoy heard many times , if you have a go threatening illness you will receive treatment fairly quickly but it may not be to the smooth that is available in a non-socialistic country. If you are trying to schedule elective surgery you should be prepared to keep on months. You can compare that to what we have in the country and make your own edict.
