No, we as society should never under any circumstance consider socialized health care or some hybrid. For my argument, I will focus on the morality, or ethics, piece to the question then move on to if we were to enact socialized medicine, what would be some of the possible negative outcomes. First, healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is privilege that people must provide for themselves and their families. Synonymous with the concept of healthcare not being / being a right is the morality associated when you socialize medicine. When the state dictates care, the system will inevitably become corrupt. According to Papadimos (2007) “Once healthcare access is a right difficulties will invariably ensue. Do the elderly receive liver transplants?
…show more content…
First, it is fundamentally illness-care, rather than a system, which promotes good health and wellness. Unfortunately, equality in access to health care does not assure equality in health (Bernard, 2013). So, now that we have socialized medicine, we still have not guaranteed a healthier society. Thus, it begs the question of: why do it in the first place? Second, while global budgets for hospitals can be an effective overall cost containment tool, it can and has lead to shortages. Shortages and waiting lists are not widespread, but with increasing financial pressure on the health care system they are becoming more frequent (Bernard, 2013). Shortages in care will undoubtedly occur in socialized medicine. With this inevitability, how do we determine who receives care? Will government dictate who gets to be seen and who will not be seen? Very disturbing when you go back to the morality associated with this question. There are small but growing differences among provinces over what services should be included within the term "comprehensive” (Bernard, 2013). Comprehensive is too vague of word to describe the coverage. Government, using the words comprehensive, will dictate to you, what care you will receive, ultimately taking away your
First, it is fundamentally illness-care, rather than a system, which promotes good health and wellness. Unfortunately, equality in access to health care does not assure equality in health (Bernard, 2013). So, now that we have socialized medicine, we still have not guaranteed a healthier society. Thus, it begs the question of: why do it in the first place? Second, while global budgets for hospitals can be an effective overall cost containment tool, it can and has lead to shortages. Shortages and waiting lists are not widespread, but with increasing financial pressure on the health care system they are becoming more frequent (Bernard, 2013). Shortages in care will undoubtedly occur in socialized medicine. With this inevitability, how do we determine who receives care? Will government dictate who gets to be seen and who will not be seen? Very disturbing when you go back to the morality associated with this question. There are small but growing differences among provinces over what services should be included within the term "comprehensive” (Bernard, 2013). Comprehensive is too vague of word to describe the coverage. Government, using the words comprehensive, will dictate to you, what care you will receive, ultimately taking away your