Uil speech thing
Does government have a responsibility to provide health care for its citizens? Well they are two sides to it both sides thoroughly argued and researched.
America itself is the only “westernized” country without any universal healthcare, along with Africa (exception of South Africa) India, the Philippians and others. While many argue that America is in need of a health care system, many of its recipients (not all) are unemployed and blew their chances at school. But also ...view middle of the document...
If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments? Not only that, The Preamble to the United States Constitution and Article One of the U.S. Constitution both describe an originating purpose of our United States: to promote the general welfare. Health care is a legitimate function of our government.
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million [A] political system that tries to implement a right to health care will necessarily involve: forced transfers of wealth to pay for programs, loss of freedom for health care providers, higher prices and more restricted access by all consumers
So should there be health car for provided by the government?