            In today's society, most Americans side with their political party, or who they view as their political party, with no questions asked.  The result of this is events such as the government shutdown of 2014 (check date).  When individuals view government issues as us against them issues, and not for the benefit of society, the result is stagnation in the progress of our society and its laws.  The largest example of how this detrimental behavior affects the American political system now is the lack of guaranteed health care.  As individuals within the United States begin to uncompromisingly side with their own party, they begin to lack the ability to think for themselves.  Individuals allow a politician or a political party to make decisions on every issue.  In some cases, this may be acceptable, but not in the case of health care.  As a moderate republican, after doing much research, I can honestly say that health care and health insurance are not where they should be in one of the largest world powers in the modern era.  All powers that compare with the United States have guaranteed health care as a human right.  When looking at an issue such as health care, we must look beyond the cost, and realize that the overall good of the country is what is most important.  The role of government is to protect the minority group of the country, therefore protecting those who cannot afford health care. When simple medical treatments would suffice, this protection does not allows people to grow ill and die.

            As of now, there is a harsh and noticeably separate divide between liberal and conservative Americans on the issue of health care.  Conservative Americans believe that as a nation we must limit spending on unimportant issues.  In all honesty, this is not a bad idea.  There are certain government programs to which adding funding will work toward the contrary of the desired outcome.  To preface, this essay is not an endorsement for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders but of his health care policy.  The program of expanding health care as a right to citizens and guaranteeing some form of health care to every American is the same model that is used by other "first world" nations.  Sanders repeatedly returns to the same issue within his beliefs.  Should health care be considered an inalienable human right or not. 

In an era where numerous nations have proven this to be an effective way of health care, it is obvious that the United States, one of the top overall ranked countries in world, is able to support a similar system.  One of the main examples of this system is the Canadian government implemented health care system.  This guaranteed health care expands to every citizen and allows them regular doctors appointments, hospital care and emergency room services if necessary.  In a video by Healthcare Triage, the individual discussing healthcare brings up a very valid point describing America's view on healthcare.  Within the video, he states, "in the United States, single payer health care is as American as apple pie if you're 65, but a communistic, tyrannical, end of freedom if you're 64."  Both America and Canada stand by the single payer health care system.  This quote references the breaking point between the US and Canada and the heath care system put forward within their respective countries.  The United States Medicare system covers only the elderly, and guarantees them the rights that every Canadian citizen is granted.  How does this make sense?  Clearly the elderly have a higher chance of getting ill than a young person, but young people still do get sick.  On a graph produced by the government health website cancer.gov, the statistics for all age groups under 65 combined show about 11,000 cases, where the 65-75-year bracket had roughly 15,000.  Clearly, there is a distinct difference between these. Younger individuals are less susceptible to disease, but this high number cannot be ignored.  This is also only a cancer statistic.  There are a plethora of diseases that young people get, through no fault of their own.

Even though disease statistics among the young may not be at the same level as among the elderly, a United States citizen deserves to be taken care of. One should not   force a family to choose between paying a mortgage, heating bill, or essentially any bill they have or saving a family members life.  According to current statistics of government spending, since the creation of Obama Care, national spending on health care has increased substantially to 1.5 trillion dollars.  Clearly, this is a large amount, but according to Forbes magazine writer Chris Conover, "under Obamacare, this ratio will experience its largest upward increase in the history of this country."  According to this, the 1.5 trillion spent on health care has been the largest increase in medical spending in history.  So how does other government funding for programs hold up against this?  After extreme military spending cuts, the national funding is at 0.8 trillion dollars.  Considering that no war is currently being fought, this makes sense.  Also, according again to Conover, "the ratio (of military spending to health care spending) by 2008 was still higher than it had been in 1994."  This was the first time health care spending was greater than military spending for the entirety of our intervention within the Middle East under George W. Bush's presidency and beyond.  Along with this, the amount spent on government pensions adds up to 1.3 trillion dollars.  Numerous other programs are listed, but the final statistic is "all other spending" including the few non listed programs.  This spending combined is roughly 1.6 trillion dollars, outspending the amount spent on health care. 

Clearly health care spending is currently high; but after a change in a system that is expected.  It is typical for spending to increase as a system settles.   Considering the amount of spending compared to how many individuals are being covered, the Obama Care system is relatively inefficient.  According to a research statistic provided by Conservative Blog, which describes the overall protection of Americans under the act. 55.7% of Americans have no coverage provided for a personal physician.  69.6% still have no easy access to medicines prescribed to them. 57% have fair to poor health, 78.5% have had activities limited due to their condition of health.  The most alarming statistic within the current system is that 30.4% of people still can not afford health care. 

Under the system currently in place, almost a third of those affected by the program change still cannot afford the price demanded.  This is simply unacceptable.  To claim to be a new system to help the country, the obligation of helping the poor is there. The issue is more than just guaranteeing health care for a few.  By simply decreasing other, less necessary government funded programs is one of the easiest ways of increasing health care spending.  Health, and life should be a guarantee to people world wide.  To begin this,  we must as a nation get behind this idea of it as a right, even the right wing.

Currently of all presidential candidates, only one wishes to expand health care to cover every United States citizen.  Those that wish to reform Obama Care, in most situations, wish to go back rather than forward regarding the idea of guaranteeing health care.  Bernie Sanders on the other hand would like to alter the current health care system, and push forward with helping every citizen who needs it.  According to an interview Sanders had with Good Morning America, "we are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of our people. The only major country that doesn't have paid family and medical leave, sick time for our workers or paid vacation time."  Basing his argument using statistics of numerous advanced countries such as Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada, Sanders has the strict belief that we need to expand government spending on health care.  This is not only to help our citizens but to keep up in a continuous race between nations. 

Certain nations, as previously mentioned, currently supply health care to all of their citizens.  Even doing this, these nations typically pay a smaller percentage of their GDP for health care compared to the United States.  According to the OECD Health Statistics report of 2014, with the system in place that the United States had, the United States was out paying every other recorded nation's significantly.  The US paid 16.9 percent of GDP on health care; eight percent each on public and private health care.  Examining the Canadian model, which is a prime example of universal health care, they paid 10.9 percent of their GDP on health care, roughly the same still on public health care.  Therefore, by effectively making a system that guarantees health care publicly, and by executing it efficiently, we as a nation would be able to actually overall pay less on health care.

By realizing this, it is understood that the United States can spare to lower cost within the private sector toward health care, raise taxes to replace that lack of private health care spending and put it toward public health care in an attempt to guarantee universal health care. By raising taxes, limiting private sector spending and expanding the public sector's funding of health care, the United States will actually be able to lessen overall health care spending without furthering the debt.  This is the ideal  Bernie Sanders wants for all Americans.  He believes strongly, that by doing so, we can have a better, more efficient health care system to protect all of our citizens.  Within the opening statement of Sander's campaign, he makes a statement to defend his credibility.  Sanders mentions within his health care plan "the Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance."  Sanders was a member of the U.S. Senate committee that designed the ACA plan and helped to carry it out.  This act effectively, and rather efficiently expanded health insurance to millions of poverty stricken American citizens that would otherwise have had no health protection due to the old system. 

Although ACA system helped many Americans, there is still much work to be done; and Sanders references this within his campaign.  Sanders states "but as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people."  In this regard, Sanders understands the needs of the people and also denotes universal health care as an inalienable right. 

 When an individual looks at Sanders' increased support throughout the campaign, it is clear that Americans believe in this point as well.  According to Gregory Krieg of Policy Mic, "The Democratic presidential candidate from Vermont, whose underdog campaign has turned him into a folk hero among progressives, capped off an up-and-down weekend by hosting 5,000 supporters at a rally in Houston on Sunday night. Hours earlier, in Dallas, the crowd count came in at around 8,000."  Sanders notably hosted more supporters than most of his opponents in a state that does not even support him well.  Within a graph also supported by Krieg, comparisons within amount of attendees at rallies are made.  Cruz and Sanders are both tied for the largest rally capping at 11,000 attendees.  Sanders follows with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth most supporters at a rally, ranging from 11,000 attendees to 5,000; 5,000 ties former secretary of state and opposing candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.  This clearly depicts Sanders as a more followed individual. His supporters  are passionate about his plans, specifically health care.

One of the major arguments against this system of expanding health care is the lack of motivation for individuals to become doctors, therefore limiting the possibilities of places to receive medical attention. The premise is  this will eventually raise prices of health care.  Canada depicts the opposite of this trend within the system.  Contrary to the belief that doctors will have less motivation to go through the process of receiving their medical doctorate, another graph from the OECD Health Statistics report of 2014 shows that Canada has 2.5 doctors per 1000 population.  So if the United States system gives excessive motivation to make extra money as a doctor, why is it that we are also only at 2.5 doctors per 1000 population.  This doesn't even account for the fact that other countries such as Switzerland and Sweden, which have similar systems to Canada's,  have an average of 3.9 doctors per 1000 people.  This higher number of doctors in those countries than the number of  doctors in America clearly shows there are other motivating factor behind being a doctor than being paid more, and through the private sector.

When one studies the issue of health care and tries to formulate an opinion, as mentioned previously, they cannot just view the details as price.  One must realize the issue is one of helping our fellow man, and fellow American citizen.  As citizens of the United States, our duty is to help one another.  This is mentioned within David Craig's Health Care as A Social Good: Religious Values and American Democracy.  This text deeply analyzes the issues surrounding health care, and our moral standing as a nation.  Throughout, Craig brings up the valid point that, generally, conservatives base their values within religious beliefs.  The stereotype of right wingers being extremely Christian or religious to a degree is rather valid in todays society.  More and more, republican candidates use "Christian values" to defend their points.  For example, most recently in this election, past candidate Lindsay Graham from South Carolina put forth the argument that abortion is against Christian values and therefore should be illegal.  Craig's argument therefore is that more republicans should back liberal beliefs of health care.  Liberal ideology can only come true with financial support and therefore must be backed by both sides.  It is more than possible to expand health care to universally help the nation.  This follows religious beliefs of most religions by helping one another.  Therefore, if an individual judges the argument based on their beliefs and not solely by their party, an individual would realize the importance religiously, and morally in general of expanding health care.

In order to compete with other nations, we need to have a country with long life expectancy, lack of disease and a better, more 21st century health care system.  Opponents of the universal health care idea in some cases lean toward regressing to a health care system of previous generations.  This is just simply illogical.  In a generation where technology is evolving at a rate faster than ever, diseases are constantly being cured and new treatments are being produced normally, we need to expand not only our technologies and cures, but also expand to who can receive those goods.  It has been roughly one hundred years since the United States have even resembled a laissez-faire style of capitalist economics.  It has been nearly seventy-five years since the first government programs were create by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  These programs helped the nation at a time of need, and led to the best years of American society where the United States was overall one of the highest ranked nations in the world.  Regressing would do no good for this nation, expanding health care realistically is the only option in order to keep up with countries worldwide.  The question is, will we as a nation morally come to grips with what we need to do in order to succeed, or will we be blown away and left in the past as other nations continually experience growth and prosperity?

