Perception of the Universal Healthcare System by the Left Political Essay

Perception of the Universal Healthcare System by the Left Political Movement - Essay Example As intellectually vacuous as any plan for this type of legislative takeover of the medical industry may be, it still attracts widespread adherence from those who know only to ask questions of why while strategically evading how. This is our present purpose: to examine the political and philosophical premises of the Left's motion toward a system of socialized medicine which (a) integrates business with the government, (b) takes control away from doctors, and (c), in the end, takes control away from patients. In addition to presenting anecdotal evidence, I shall reveal the emptiness of the Left's claim that such a "universal healthcare system" is a "moral imperative", or a product of "social justice". Thus, finally, I will show that although the present system is not utopian, it is not a complete disaster, as utopias tend to be when transforms from just mere talk to reality. Our present system of healthcare, that of a mixed state, is already partially socialized. However, the principle of an individual's right to choose his healthcare coverage and costs, although buried under heaps of government regulation and red tape, still remains somewhere. Socialized medicine, in effect, proposes to remove the last pieces of capitalism from which the nascent American healthcare system was born. ... What the Left also carefully ignores is the fact that, very often, poor health is the result of poor decision-making of individuals-particularly those individuals who demand the most from healthcare. Socialized medicine, instead of fixing poor decisions, fixes only the results of these decisions, and so serves more like a band-aid for a situation which requires more invasive measures. The opposition's claim is that the American healthcare system is unequal and social justice requires a change to socialized medicine: that while the rich have awesome healthcare, the poor get treated like dirt. The proper response to such a claim is to question how it may be supported by an argument. One may claim that this philosophy is supported by some "natural right" theory: that people have a right to life. Nevertheless, a "right" to healthcare is not a proper application of the right to life. If one does not have money to pay for a decent house or medical services, and the government gives him a "right" to those things, where does the money come from Other citizens is the proper answer; in fact, it is the only answer. Most Americans would agree that the right to free speech does not denote that my right requires others to give me a microphone and an auditorium, but few (especially on the Left) would be willing to claim that the right to healthcare is somehow less important than the right to free speech-and no American would simply give me an auditorium and a microphone simply on the basis that I have a right to free speech. At best, the "right" to healthcare is a wish, insofar as "I w ish everyone could have a decent house and medical services".