While Immigration has played a significant role in the history of most countries such as the United States of America, the level of immigrants population has considerably increased which affects certain core functions of the states involved. Notably, a certain degree of immigrant has contributed to the economic growth of the host countries especially when such nations lack a particular category of labor. In terms of generating income and growing the economy, the host countries have benefited from the services of the immigrants. However, the extreme expansion can cause pressure on public services especially when such services are budgeted for by the federal government (Derose et. al 1262). Particularly, in U.S and some other countries that have a good record of a large number of immigrants per year, the health sector has been impacted due to unauthorized and illegal immigrants. On the other hand, it has affected some countries positively. Notably, particular states in the US have not seen this as a burden to the government. For example, under the proposed California law, Immigration Reform 2015 says that illegal or undocumented immigrants could access free health care just like the native citizens. This bill has been faced with strong arguments where opponents say that it will negatively impact or burden the current healthcare services while the opponents argue that everybody has the right to health services. Therefore, following the opposing arguments of the viewers, should nations such as the United States of America allow immigrants to access the universal healthcare system the same as the natives?
Allowing the immigrants to obtain the primary health care offered to the natives is financially beneficial to the host country. According to the advocates of immigrant health coverage, the sum of the money spent on hospital bills will be less when the immigrants have primary healthcare service and would be very accessible. As per these experts, the Emergency Treatment and Preventions costs to Medicaid services are approximate $2 billion in every year (Derose et. al 1264). This is mostly for immigrants as per 2013 report produced by Kaiser Health News. However, in the year in 2010, research carried out by the Center for Immigration Studies projected that the cost of treating undocumented and uninsured immigrants at $4.3 billion annually, which is quite expensive as compared if the same individuals were insured and able access the regular health care service (Lassetter and Lynn 241). On the same note, a fact report that was published by the Immigration Policy Center in 2008 suggested that improved immigrant contribution in the United States health care system has yielded more monetary benefits. According to the countrys baby boom situation, a large share of the populace is aging, thus requiring more health care (Derose et. al 1267). Therefore, a change in the aptness necessities to comprise noncitizens and immigrants in the health care system will spread the charges of filing benefit of the public. That is, more tax dollars will be found to assuage the financial worry of Medicare and social security.
Additionally, it is the mandate of the country to offer affordable services to all individuals in the state primarily matters to with peoples health. According to Lassetter and Lynn, there is no logic that the United States can offer food, health services, and other basics need to people outside the country and deny individuals who are in the nation the access to primary health care or make it quite expensive for them to afford. Although the opponents say that undocumented immigrants are illegally in the country, the state does incur any loss when they are insured and can get the needed medical services. Further, ethics says that lives of people should be saved irrespective of their background, color, and status. As such, without asking whether one has the right documents or enough money, medical ethics directs that such individuals should get treatment first. This is supported by the four principles of ethics (Okie 528). Therefore, in order avert cases where one is treated and cannot pay, the government should make sure the every individual has access to the primary health care which they can afford.
Conversely, opponents claim that immigrants propose to take the advantage of public benefits and, therefore, support legislations that enact more precincts. Then again, they believe that health care aides should be restricted due to their strain on the federal budget. This argument is based on the fact when the primary healthcare to the US citizens is budgeted from the federal government; hence, including the immigrants will strain the taxpayers (Iglehart 586). On the same note, the opponents have objected to this move due to the possible increased number of immigrants and criminal violence. Though this assessment oversimplifies a large group of people, the reports of states and cities with a large illegal immigrant populace and high rates of crime such as Los Angeles show an association between emergency medical care cases and immigrant gangs (Okie 526). However, medical ethics obligates treatment; such occurrences are taken care of but eventually result in a considerable financial loss. Notably, it is important to note that the arguments of the opponents have no logical basis. For example, it has been established that when people are not insured, they depend mostly on emergency care which is expensive for both individuals and the state (Ku and Sheetal 251). Additionally, the states or cities that record a high number of immigrants criminal activities should deal with such incidences instead of generalization.
Ideally, one of the most important aspects of life that a country or the state can offer to its citizens is access to affordable health care services. Through an affordable health care system, individuals are able to avert the prevalence of certain diseases at the same treatment themselves. In the end, such persons are healthy and able to work for the country and generate income. It is for such reasons that giving immigrants affordable health care is not only beneficial for their health but also for the productivity of the nation.
In my opinion, I feel the immigrants are also individuals who have significantly contributed to the host country; hence deserve proper care especially when it comes to their health. As much as the opponent say that giving them primary care as the natives will promote hostile immigration, denying them the right to affordable healthcare is not the right way to control immigration. Further, as already stated, the immigrants have significantly contributed to the host country through paying tax; therefore, deserve better treatment. The young ones of the immigrants are like native-born children and are in need for security in nutrition and health. Consequently, denying them, such basic needs does reflect the interest of the nation. On the same note, the regular health care for US citizens aimed at reducing financial pressure on both individuals and the federal state. However, when the health care services for the immigrants are very expensive for both people and the country, then it is wise for the government to give the immigrants the same services as the natives. Following the above discussion, I support proponents idea to give the immigrants universal health care just like the natives.
In conclusion, every individual should access an affordable health care system irrespective of color, origin, and status. According to most research, a country where people are healthy is more productive than an unhealthy one since individuals are very energetic and able to work. As such, it is the mandate of all countries and states to implement laws that do not categorize people based on their origin when it comes to the health of individuals. Notably, the immigrants are also individuals just like the natives who have contributed to the development of the host country through paying taxes and working hard on a daily basis. Moreover, improved immigrant contribution in the United States health care system has yielded more monetary benefits. Therefore, I support the views of the proponents to allow the immigrants to have access to universal regular health care just like other citizens in the host country.
Derose, Kathryn Pitkin, Jose J. Escarce, and Nicole Lurie. "Immigrants and health care: sources of vulnerability." Health Affairs 26.5 (2007): 1258-1268.
Iglehart, John K. "Health reform, primary care, and graduate medical education." New England Journal of Medicine 363.6 (2010): 584-590.
Ku, Leighton, and Sheetal Matani. "Left out: immigrants access to health care and insurance." Health Affairs 20.1 (2001): 247-256.
Lassetter, Jane H., and Lynn C. Callister. "The impact of migration on the health of voluntary migrants in western societies: a review of the literature." Journal of Transcultural Nursing (2008).
Okie, Susan. "Immigrants and health careat the intersection of two broken systems." New England Journal of Medicine 357.6 (2007): 525-529.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal:
- Mary Bowman: Bachelor of Science in Human Services/Management
- Mixed Methods in Impact Evaluation
- The Principle of Solidarity and Subsidiarity as Defined By Pope Benedict XVI
- Expository Essay on 14th Amendment and Key Court Decisions From 1870-1930
- Saudi Telecom Company
- The Impact of Disease on Family Members: Expository Essay
- Democratic Political Systems: Three Strikes Law