Imagine, you’ve been working the past five years. You’ve been frugal: ramen and water. However, a stranger, without a job, is unable to pay for his medical bills, so the government taxes you and you lose all of your savings to pay for this man who left the hospital without losing a dime. Although this seems like an utterly ridiculous situation, this is a reality for many countries with universal healthcare. In her compilation of pessimistic, ranting essays called This Land is Our Land, Barbara Ehrenreich fulminates about the so-called malicious “enemy” (Ehrenreich 144), or the American private health insurance industry, in the chapter “We Have Seen the Enemy- and Surrendered.” Ehrenreich radically discusses the problems resulting from the American
…show more content…
Primarily, we are 17.075 trillion dollars in debt, and as it is known, debt and unemployment go hand-in-hand. Switching to a universal health care system would exacerbate the financial and unemployment crisis, as the switch would lose more jobs, and we will be taxed to provide the government with adequate fiscal resources in establishing the new jobs, increasing our debt, and creating a panic for the citizens, as this would be an extremely long-term decision and confusion from the switch would inhibit the flow of patients in the hospital. I ardently disagree with Ehrenreich’s absurd suggestion to unemploy all those 400,000 people in the insurance industry, many of who do not support their companies’ ideals, but need work; she defends the unemployed/those unable to afford health care, but insults those who are working as a means to provide for themselves- so neither way is right to her. Universal health care may simply not work with the political structure the United States follows. Additionally, when considering trying and implementing a single-payer healthcare system, a government must consider time as a main factor. Time is a huge …show more content…
However morally speaking, universal health care is much worse than any privatized health care system. I wholeheartedly disagree with Ehrenreich’s belief that universal health care is morally better than privatized, and her only point being that everyone can be treated; there is a difference between morality and equality. In a society with universal healthcare, if someone goes to the hospital and cannot afford the bills, the entire nation is taxed to pay for that person’s bills. That is totally immoral, as no one should be entitled to anyone else’s wealth or what is in someone else’s wallet that they worked for; a government should not coerce its citizens to pay their own money to provide healthcare to someone unable to afford it; that is equitable, but not moral. Equality and morality are individual of one another. If someone is unemployed and they want health care, they can apply for a job, they can tap out of an emergency fund, appeal to a charity, family, or friends. There are many options for everyone; however, it is not right for the government to have to guarantee health care to each of its citizens. There is no such thing as universal food or universal cars where the government will provide these items to each citizen, regardless of whether they are employed or not. I do not agree with Ehrenreich’s point
Primarily, we are 17.075 trillion dollars in debt, and as it is known, debt and unemployment go hand-in-hand. Switching to a universal health care system would exacerbate the financial and unemployment crisis, as the switch would lose more jobs, and we will be taxed to provide the government with adequate fiscal resources in establishing the new jobs, increasing our debt, and creating a panic for the citizens, as this would be an extremely long-term decision and confusion from the switch would inhibit the flow of patients in the hospital. I ardently disagree with Ehrenreich’s absurd suggestion to unemploy all those 400,000 people in the insurance industry, many of who do not support their companies’ ideals, but need work; she defends the unemployed/those unable to afford health care, but insults those who are working as a means to provide for themselves- so neither way is right to her. Universal health care may simply not work with the political structure the United States follows. Additionally, when considering trying and implementing a single-payer healthcare system, a government must consider time as a main factor. Time is a huge …show more content…
However morally speaking, universal health care is much worse than any privatized health care system. I wholeheartedly disagree with Ehrenreich’s belief that universal health care is morally better than privatized, and her only point being that everyone can be treated; there is a difference between morality and equality. In a society with universal healthcare, if someone goes to the hospital and cannot afford the bills, the entire nation is taxed to pay for that person’s bills. That is totally immoral, as no one should be entitled to anyone else’s wealth or what is in someone else’s wallet that they worked for; a government should not coerce its citizens to pay their own money to provide healthcare to someone unable to afford it; that is equitable, but not moral. Equality and morality are individual of one another. If someone is unemployed and they want health care, they can apply for a job, they can tap out of an emergency fund, appeal to a charity, family, or friends. There are many options for everyone; however, it is not right for the government to have to guarantee health care to each of its citizens. There is no such thing as universal food or universal cars where the government will provide these items to each citizen, regardless of whether they are employed or not. I do not agree with Ehrenreich’s point