The Background: When did the Debate Start, and Where is it Now?
The Backstory
The right to healthcare has been a debate in many countries for many years. On the surface it seems like an easy answer. But why do so many people disagree? Over the past few centuries it has been an issue that tears the unification of people apart. But why? Is it something that can be solved outside of the government's help, or is it a problem that will plague the world for the rest of its exsistence? When you get down to it, it becomes a simple question: Socialism or Capitalism? I’ll let the facts speak for themselves, but first let us hear the backstory.
The US federal government would not, and did not finance or provide healthcare to the american populace through the 18th and 19th century. [1] In the early 20th century, things started to change when a debate arose on whether or not health care should be a right to all citizens. In 1915, the American Association for Labor Legislator promoted a series of bills that provided medical benefits to all low income workers. In 1920, the New York State Commissioner of Health started to promote services of health to the public at the county level. But all efforts failed the same year when the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed a resolution that officially opposed universal health insurance in the United States. [2]
Government-funded health insurance wasn’t even considered until President Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic security, where he wanted to include it in the 1935 Social Security Act. However, it didn’t succeed due to the opposition from the American Medical Association. The US Surgeon General at the time said “equal opportunity for health care is a basic American right.”[3] In 1939, Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) introduced the National Health Care Act of 1939 which would have implemented universal healthcare, but the bill did not gain the legs it needed to in Congress. [4]
In 1945, another attempt at universal health care was promoted by Harry S. Truman. He sent a message to US Congress asking for a new national health insurance program which would be ran by the federal government. It was a voluntary program that would have allowed individuals to pay monthly fees in return for coverage of all medical expenses. However, this bill didn’t pass due to the American Medical Association equating it to “socialized medicine.” [6] Although a universal health program was not successful, advocates of the plan continued to advocate for government-funded health insurance by diverting the focus to provide coverage to Americans of the age of 65 that of at were at an economic disadvantage. [7] Several more decades passed, and several more attempts failed.
Where we are now
As of 2012, it is recorded that a number of 47.9 million people in the United states were without health insurance Coverage. That is roughly 15% of the entire U.S. population. [8] Out of the 34 countries that are apart of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S is one of only two countries that do not offer universal health care. [9] But why is that? Why doesn’t the U.S provide universal healthcare? Well, let’s dig deeper.
Advocates of universal healthcare will set forth the argument that nobody in the richest nation should have to live without some form of healthcare. Many would go further and argue that universal healthcare would be the fix to the following: medical companies going bankrupt, an overall improvement of public health, a drastic reduction in healthcare spending, it would help small business, and overall it should be an imperative service of the government. Does that sound like a capitalistic mentality? Government controlling the business cycle and discouraging competition?
However, adversaries of universal healthcare will set forth the argument that making healthcare a “right” measures up to socialism. It should be a responsibility of an American citizen, and it should not be the role of the American government, to “secure” universal healthcare. Many would say that government administering of healthcare would ultimately decrease overall quality and even the accessibility, or availability, of healthcare. In the end, it would lead to massively larger government debt and further increase the deficits.
