Free health care

Jessica Sandoval-BIOL 1408

Free Health Care Law in the United States
I. Introduction
New diseases emerge everyday. More and more people die because prices of treatments increment rapidly. Such high prices are leaving those with low or no income without a chance to get the treatment done. The question is- Should the government standardize health care? Next, we should find out if it wouldreally help or- would it lead us to chaos? Some people support the claim for standardized health care. They say that it would decrease the rates of people dying every day, the rapid spread of diseases, and even crime. The opposite side believes we are better off without it. Their concerns are that taxes would increase; it would slow down the services, and reduce the quality. The government shouldn’tstandardize health care without first taking both, the positive and negative’s side concerns in contemplation.
II. Background
Ever since the United States government has tried to pass a free health care law, it has been denied. Most of the time the percentage in favor of it surpasses the ones opposed but at the end it has yet not been approved because of may important points that have to be takeninto consideration.
III. Benefits
The debate about standardized health care is still going on after many years of contemplating it. People are getting frustrated to watch their beloveds die and not be able to pay for treatments that could have saved their lives. There are many people out there dying of treatable diseases. Because medicines and services are too expensive, they are not able toafford recovery. Most people who don’t agree with the standardization of health care are those that have enough money to pay. They are not entirely able to understand the desperate people who can’t afford a simple Tylenol. If the government provided free health care less people who still have the chance to live would die. It is unfair to decide if someone will live or die based on how much they canafford to pay. We should not put a price tag on anybody’s live. Every human is important for the society. We could be letting the next Albert Einstein die just because his family wasn’t able to pay the medication for a simple flu.
Not only is limiting health care to people letting many die but it is also letting the disease spread quicker. The recent “Swine Flu” is a good example. It is said thatif the people that first got the flu were attended and medicated quickly, the disease wouldn’t be recognized by many of us today. We put everyone in risk when a disease is not treated. Children are usually the most affected by diseases. Their schools are a great place for bacteria to spread. It is effortless for infants to not wash their hands, put their hands in their mouth, and touch anythingin front of them. Children have fewer defenses than adults. If we don’t treat children rapidly they have a higher risk of dying. Providing health care could reduce the spread of a disease. It is in the government’s hands to decide if they want to let diseases have it their way.
When we talk about free health care, we are also talking about the reduction of crime. Delinquency increases every day.Many people don’t notice the clear connection between the raise of crime and illnesses. A significant percentage of robbers do it in a desperate situation. It is evident that many people take the risk of becoming a delinquent in order to save a loved one whose life is in jeopardy. The rates of robbed banks escalate rapidly through the years. The government needs to take delinquency in considerationwhen they discus about free health care.
IV. Negative Impacts
Throughout decades, there are many presidents that have said “I will make sure the government provides free health care,” in order to get more votes. But after elected, they can’t find a way to put it to work. There is a reason of why free health care hasn’t been set. After they analyze the pros and cons of standardization of...