Should everyone have access to healthcare, regardless of socio-feconomic standing? Does medical care fall under the jurisdiction of the state? I would argue yes. And the United Nations would likely agree.
Universal healthcare is a topic of considerable controversy, particularly within the US: a world superpower, a developed nation and yet, a country that refuses its people one of their simple human rights. In accordance with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN (United Nations) classified access to basic healthcare as fundamental, but in today's primarily privatized system, thousands of individuals are prevented from receiving adequate treatment of their maladies, some going without treatment at all.
When removing all political and economic standpoints from the situation, the reality is simply ludicrous. People are unnecessarily experiencing pain, others are prematurely dying, solely because they cannot afford to pay the extortionate costs associated with modern day medicine. The system discriminates based on financial standing and if we allow ourselves to delve into the historical context of economic instability, it is not hard to uncover that such situations are often a result of deeper institutionalized discrimination. For this reason, marginalized members of society tend to suffer the most. The lives of the rich are not worth more than the less fortunate and yet, the current healthcare structure within America would have us believe just that. Is this not a moral catastrophe?
Often, as a nation, we look upon developing countries scattered around the globe and wish for them to have better medical resources. We participate in volunteerism and send missions trips to disadvantaged areas with the intention of helping, of making healthcare a possibility. These are all noble and paramount efforts but few fail to recognize that an identical - although lesser scale - crisis is occurring right here in the United States. A recent study published by the Harvard School of Medicine associated a lack of health insurance to be the cause behind 45,000 deaths annually within America. This number is astounding and it all comes down to a gargantuan absence of affordability in the healthcare system.
Growing up, I lived in a country in which all residents were able to access a network of universal healthcare. As a child, myself nor any of my friends (as far as I can recall) ever worried about our ability to access medical attention, neither did our parents. Universal healthcare provides an essence of security, both financially and in a matter of individual wellness. The system is by no means unflawed; waitlists are long, hospitals are oftentimes understaffed and people do indeed exploit the operation, however, all things aside, that basic human right of healthcare is present. Everyone can be and will be treated! This does not mean that individuals receive state of the art treatment, they may, but what they are guaranteed is medical support regardless of age, race, or socio-economic standing and perhaps more importantly, without the fear of bankruptcy as a consequence. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it seems, at least to me, a better, more humane, health care solution.
What's more, a healthcare system available to all does not in the slightest undermine privatization. It simply makes healthcare a more economical feat. Even in countries like the UK, Germany, Spain and Canada (to name but a few) where the state actors have adopted a universal healthcare approach, privatized care is always a viable option for those who wish pursue it. Oftentimes, this allows the cons of free medical care to be avoided entirely. Those with private insurance will tend to experience shorter wait times and better treatment (think single suites, improved facilities, etc.) than their counterparts utilizing the comprehensive alternative.
The issue isn't that privatized healthcare is bad and universal health care is good: they are both phenomenal services. The problem therein lies in that a system consisting exclusively of privatized healthcare is fundamentally discriminatory and fails to serve the entirety of society. For this reason, a shared system of universal and privatized healthcare would appear a logical proposition, guaranteeing both medical coverage and choice. On a moral platform, it is imperative that healthcare is available to anyone in need, not just the fortunate few equipped to afford todays ever rising medical costs. Universal healthcare is a much needed approach to ensure that a basic human right is attainable, after all, healthcare is a necessity and should never be considered a luxury.
