National Health Care

I agree with your definition of National Health Care, and that it is a result of governmental action. Good Luck to you. Definitions: Good: something manufactured or produced for sale Service: contribution to the welfare of others First I will provide an overview of my arguments for this topic: Premise 1: National Health Care is not a right it is a privilege. Premise 2: National Health Care will negatively affect the quality of care patients receive. Premise 3: National Health Care is bad for economic productivity. Premise 4: National Health Care will lead to further debt in our country. Premise 1: National Health Care is privilege, not a right guaranteed by the government. Based on the definitions listed above, nowhere does it say that a good or a service is considered a right. If we look at one the most famous American documents, The Declaration of Independence, it guarantees the right to pursue happiness, not to be confused or misunderstood as the right to pursue happiness through free medical services. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the individual, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles. Premise 2: The quality of Service will decrease under National Health Care. By guaranteeing health care as a right, it will lead to an increase in demand for health care that will decrease the quality of care because health care professionals will be overstretched by the demand. Under a National Health Care, doctors would be paid less, and in turn would leave the country for better wages elsewhere. This can clearly be shown in Canada, as many doctors have come to America because of our high wages for doctors due to our privatized health care system. Guaranteeing everyone health care will lead to longer wait-times for patients to receive diagnoses and treatment of illnesses, as is the case in Canada, which could potentially deny patients with chronic diseases timely medical care. Allowing health care coverage to be driven by the free market without government intervention increases competition as well as the incentive for providing higher quality medical technology and service. If health care is considered a right and not a privilege, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and their doctor to decide upon. Premise 3: National Health Care leads to decreased economic productivity. Providing free health care reflects that of a socialized system, and encourages people to be lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and thus inhibits productivity. So, knowing that, and with our economy's current status, we as a country cannot afford to limit our productivity. Providing health care to everyone is a huge expense and may result in tax increases thereby further harming the economy and individual pocketbooks because time and time again higher taxes has resulted in decreased spending by consumers. Premise 4: Our country cannot afford any further debt that would be caused through National Health Care. History has shown that granting health care as a right would lead to greater government deficits. Every time the government intervenes in health care there is a greater redistribution of wealth and greater government spending that results in a debt increase. Knowing that we are already in 14 trillion dollars worth of debt, it seems common sense that we cannot keep pushing off repaying the debt and keep spending further and further, as we will see consequences for his later on. Conclusion: National Health Care is a danger to our country and the way that our country functions. By allowing National Health Care, we will see many negative effects on our country and on its citizens.