If you use sources, please cite them! As you will discover in your readings, cit
ID: 388257 • Letter: I
Question
If you use sources, please cite them!
As you will discover in your readings, citizens of the United States do not enjoy a fundamental, constitutional right to healthcare. In many other countries, this right is deemed fundamental and is protected by laws in various forms.
Why has the United States taken a different approach? What are the pros and cons of no fundamental right to healthcare in the United States?
Explain how different approaches to this issue impact stakeholders. In your opinion, which impacts are the most undervalued by the approach adopted by the United States (i.e., no right to healthcare) and the approach adopted by some other countries (a "fundamental" right to healthcare)?
Explanation / Answer
The united state has taken different approach with respect to rights to healthcare is because it feels it is already paying for poor in form of Medicare and other policies and it does not find it reasonable for others to pay out of their tax to some other people medical bill.
The pro for no rights on healthcare is that it will save government some money and taxpayers money and could be used somewhere else and other benefit of it and cons would be that many genuine people who would require government assistance and economic would be left out of its help when they would need the healthcare.
The US government however is justified when they say that most Americans are covered under some insurance plans and many are under government policies for welfare and that there no need to have taxpayers money spent on all for healthcare as their definition of rights are different from other countries. While countries like India wherein its mention in constitution and judgments of Supreme Court that right to life includes right to health which is essential to live a life.
US is a developed country and the situation certainly is different in US than other countries. The rational that rich and average people can cover for their health holds true and that developing and other countries need to provide healthcare to many is also true so these two cannot be compared. However, the US rational that people are covered under insurance policy and many are under government welfare healthcare policy and taxpayer shall not pay for their neighbors and the definition that they have put stand good in their social, economic, political situation.