Capitalism Vs Healthcare

When we think of the United States, we think it possibly has a highly developed health care system available to all people. However, in reality, health care is not readily available to the people that live within this country. At a time when healthcare levels are increasing, so are our diseases. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both socialized and capitalized healthcare medicine.
Socialism and capitalism are, without a doubt, two somewhat opposing economic thoughts and system. Most of the arguments that come up when debating about these systems center on equality and the role of government in our economy. Socialists' beliefs include the idea that inequality is inferior to the success of the economy and society, and that
the government is responsible to reduce this through programs that can benefit the less fortunate. On the other hand, capitalists believe that individuals are better off without government interference, with the idea that free market and private enterprises uses resources more efficiently than the government does in mind. The U.S "is widely considered the bastion of capitalism," while some major parts of the Western Europe are "considered socialist democracies" ("Capitalism vs. Socialism," 2013). However, in reality, every developed country have and continue to introduce socialist programs. For instance, the mostly capitalistic US have introduced socialists programs such as a free or subsidized health care system to benefit those in need.
Years ago, between 2001-2007, the government observed public opinion on the country's healthcare system.
The poll asks "which of the following approaches for providing health care in the US would you prefer?" with 'replacing the current health care system with a new government run health care system' or 'maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance' as the leading choices. Throughout these set years, results showed an indirect relationship between those who want to replace the current system and those who want to maintain it. Results for those who want to replace the current system was at 33% in 2001, increasing to about 41% as of 2007. Results for those who want to maintain it, on the other hand, decreased from 61% in 2001 to about 48% in 2007 (The Gallup Organization). Consequently, the US shifted from a health care system mostly based on private health insurance, to a government-run health care system. Through this, the government was able to establish programs that aimed to benefit the elderly and those who were struggling
financially.
One of these socialized medical programs introduced about five years ago was the Affordable Care Act, mostly known as the ObamaCare. This law was passed with two, big goals in mind: "to reduce Americans who lack health insurance," as well as "to [restrict health spending [only to those that] give good value to the money" being spent on it. When talking about its success, there is a distinct division to those who think it was a success and those who thinks otherwise, according to public opinion. The program did some success in reducing the number of "uninsured [Americans] from around 45 million to 35 million," going from "14 to 11 percent" (Kessley, Hoover Digest) However, although this was the case, the program also showed signs of weakness as it had minimal effect on the quality of aid provided by the system. In short, the system is cheaper, but not better.
As I've mentioned previously, the US has been very successful as a capitalistic country, while social programs introduced to aid the less fortunate and the elderly has helped further expand the country. But this has not been the case recently. In an attempt to reduce the harsh impacts of a pure capitalistic system, the government took measures. In healthcare, the government subsidized medical care for the elderly and poor in an attempt to stop the argument between socialism and capitalism. Until recently, this plan only worked during times of prosperity and the government was able to afford it. But now, this government policy could be described as a system in which "[they] take your two cows..[then] kills the cows [by accident] in a fumbling attempt to distribute the milk" (Ebby Halliday). Workers in the medical field are abandoning their professions early, considering alternative careers as those who stay behind are left with short supply and worry about how they will survive. Those in this workforce do not have the legal right to form unions, or conspire to bargain for better wages and set a limit on certain services they are willing to offer. As far as programs funded by the government are concerned, these workers have no say in how much the government will reimburse, or through how many more obstacle they have to jump in order to gain a fair ration. As it turns out, when they attempt to seek resort to a capitalist system, laws and policies they agreed to upon entering the workforce prohibits forming such relationships.
Personally, until recently, I have never really spent much time thinking about myself being a member under either a socialist or capitalist workforce.
However, as a student working to enter the medical field and a member of this society, I realized the healthcare system is a very significant issue that, not only me but others as well, need to start paying more attention to. Not only does this cover tax issues, but jobs, innovation, and individual freedom as well. While emphasis on society as a whole rather than private or individual profit is morally better, these can cause many problems due to its restrictions and limitations.
So if I were to ask myself: Would I rather have a hand out from the government or a paycheck from a business? I'd choose the latter, as I think more Americans would too. Although a socialist health care system was introduced to aid the elderly and poor, I prefer less government intervention as I believe this would introduce lesser inefficiencies among the economy and society. One must remember that if the government has enough power to give us everything, then they are also capable and powerful enough to take everything
away.