Human beings continue to grapple with numerous health challenges that make it impossible for them to lead high-quality lives. Some of these conditions include tuberculosis, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and malaria. When the government provides timely and sustainable health services, it can be possible for more people to achieve their potential in life. However, this has not been the case since many American citizens are still facing numerous problems.
The biggest question is whether health care in this country is a human right or a privilege that should be left in the hands of the government. The thesis for this persuasive argument paper is that all citizens have a constitutional right to access high-quality health care services even if they do not have adequate income.
All Americans Have a Constitutional Right to Health Care
The American Constitution has several amendments and laws that are aimed at protecting and upholding the liberties and rights of all citizens. The government is a body designed in such a way that it provides or protects and supports all people. The issue of healthcare should be governed by similar arguments or laws. This is the first reason why all professionals, organizations, hospitals, politicians, and policymakers should treat the issue of health care as a fundamental human right (Christopher and Caruso 959). Such an approach will make it possible for more people to lead high-quality lives.
The second assertion that explains why there is a need for the American government to provide nonnegotiable health services is derived from the concept of equality. For many years, societies and leaders have focused on the issue of parity to empower their people. When it comes to the question of healthcare, it is evident that many people are incapable of accessing high-quality medical services (Jones and Kantarjian 2194). This is something that amounts to inequality. It is, therefore, the duty of the government to address this problem.
The current situation in America is that insurance companies, business entities, and the corporate world control the healthcare system. These agencies or stakeholders mainly focus on the most appropriate processes to make profits (Christopher and Caruso 961). Consequently, the greatest number of citizens are currently unable to record positive health outcomes. Making health a constitutional or fundamental human right will address this issue and empower more people to lead better lives.
Article One (Section Eight) and the Preamble to the Constitution presents this powerful originating purpose to guide government policies and activities: to promote the welfare of all. With this kind of information, it is evident that health is a legitimate duty or function of the federal government. When politicians and policymakers appreciate this fact, they will go further to engage in evidence-based initiatives and practices that have the potential to support the health needs of the greatest number of citizens.
Different global organizations have presented evidence-based ideas to address the issue of healthcare, including the United Nations, Red Cross, and Amnesty International. These agencies have indicated that health care is an area that governments should pursue as a right and not a privilege (Christopher and Caruso 961). This means that people should not face discrimination when looking for health services based on income, gender, age, race, or health status.
The final argument that can support this idea revolves around the quality of health in the country and the government’s ability to achieve its goals. When the state provides superior health services to all citizens, chances are high that it will address most of its problems. Such a practice will make it easier for the government to support other sectors of the economy (Christopher and Caruso 962). People who receive high-quality services and care will engage in various economic activities and eventually make the country economically stable.
Those who are opposed to this proposal will argue that healthcare is a function of a free society. This means that the government should only introduce minimal interventions to support the needs of business people and corporations operating in the health industry. Some groups have gone further to indicate that there is no clear provision in the American Constitution to support the assertion that healthcare should be a right for all citizens.
Another proposal presented by those against this idea is that making healthcare a human right is a move that creates a situation whereby more citizens expect the government to fulfill all their essential needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, and education (Christopher and Caruso 963). However, these opposing views are refutable since the government should use its resources to meet the health needs of all citizens.
Past experiences in America explain why there is a need for the government to support the health needs of its citizens and make the practice a constitutional right. Different policymakers and international agencies support this idea in an attempt to address various diseases and make it possible for more people to achieve their health goals. Such a move will reduce the bargaining power of different corporations and businesses involved in the country’s healthcare sector. Those who are against this constitutional requirement should consider the above arguments in an attempt to make informed decisions.
Christopher, Andrea S., and Dominic Caruso. “Promoting Health as a Human Right in the Post-ACA United States.” AMA Journal of Ethics, vol. 17, no. 10, 2015, pp. 958-965.
Jones, Gregory H., and Hagop Kantarjian. “Health Care in the United States—Basic Human Right or Entitlement?” Annals of Oncology, vol. 26, no. 10, 2015, pp. 2193-2195.