On the Question of National Healthcare and Insurance in the United States

The privatized system of healthcare within the United States, has left forty million (plus) people uninsured, and uncared for in times of sickness and distress; thus, a nationalized healthcare institution should replace the current private system. The arguments for and against national healthcare services vary on a number of specific issues regarding nationalization vs. privatization. It’s not just a question of economics or viability, but also morality. Do we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare as a right to all citizens, not just those who can afford it? While it is my understanding that we do have this moral and material obligation, the question of national healthcare needs to be addressed considering all viewpoints, so that a logical, rational, and moral solution may be determined. 

The first issue of the question is a thorough assessment of the current healthcare situation in the United States. First and foremost, the statistical evidence of over forty million U.S. citizens living without any form of health coverage or benefit is in fact true; which accounts for mostly working class men and women and their children. We as a nation spend roughly 14% of it’s GDP on health care; yet we are the only industrialized nation without a serious, comprehensive health care institution to take care of the working people (Navarro). There is often times a misunderstanding that these people are unemployed, or welfare recipients. However, this assertion bears no validity whatsoever, considering these people get the benefit of government services such as Medicaid and Medicare.