Nationalized Healthcare Prescription or Problem

NationalizedHealthcare Prescription or Problem


NationalizedHealthcare Prescription or Problem

Thedebate presented by Dr. Emil and Dr. Van Mol highlight criticalissues affecting the U.S healthcare service in which the viabilityof nationalization is put to question. Focusing on the raisedquestion concerning three biggest issues facing United Stateshealthcare system, Dr. Emil focuses on medical ethics concerningphysicians advocating financial benefits rather than humanitarianservices to patients (Geyman, 2008). He further asserts that asignificant number of Americans have no or little access tohealthcare unless in times o emergencies. He estimates a deathmortality rate of 18,000 per year with those who are not medicallyinsured, to an estimated 44 million as per demography of U.S. Heargues that Americans have limited choices and freedom in health careservices.

Dr.Van Mol, on the other hand, pointed out on aspects relating to healthcare cost, insurance availability and financing of existinggovernment entitlements. With respect to healthcare cost, it isdiscussed the patient’s expenses to the services rendered areharmful. The surmounting cost of health care is 17 percent of theAmericans economy (Will, 2009). Insurance improvement is not realizedgiven the increased risk in the market that might eventually take upthe entire federal budget by 2050.

Howcan injustices best redressed concerning the healthcare? In thisrespect, Dr. Emil advocates Medicare for all whether rich or poorwith equal rates satisfaction, where nationalization willsignificantly address the challenge. On the other hand, Dr. Van Molcongratulates the U.S. government for not declining to any healthcareservices due to its inability to pay for universal treatment.

Ishealthcare a commodity? More often than not, healthcare is perceivedas a market-based approach. Dr. Emil strongly differs on thisquestion identifying that the most healthcare one provides to thedemography of the state the most financial one losses, in comparisonto other commodities whereby higher sales generates higher profit.Contrariwise, Dr. Van Mal differ with Emile ideas stating that forthe past sixty years, America health care services are profit drivenand still the country has remarkable results.

Dr.van Mol


  1. Dr. Vans’s arguments are well placed with accurate reference to data and biblical scriptures. He is seen quoting various chapters in the Bible and offering accurate numerical statistics on healthcare.

  2. He is optimistic and at the same time realistic when presenting facts – backed with convincing texts.

  3. His opinions suggest that he has a strong Christian background. Hence he asserts the need for creativity among the poor while at the very at the very least do their best to safeguard their health.


  1. Dr. Vann is supportive of the government’s approach to healthcare to an extent that some of his facts are false he fails to accept the fact that the US healthcare system has significant drawbacks.



  1. As a critique, Dr. Emil presents his facts as they are, he, therefore, views the problematic healthcare state of the U.S.


  1. Judging from his statement, most of his assertions are based on emotions. As such, he allows his emotions to take control. He is quoted advocating for a nationalized health care service yet the state cannot bear the present healthcare system this is not economically viable.

  2. His arguments lack a strong qualitative back up.

  3. He is not well versed in theology, hence cannot present biblical facts accordingly.


Geyman,J. (2008). The corrosion of medicine. CommonCourage Press.Monroe,


Will,G. (2009). A Health Reformer’s Scary Diagnosis. JewishWorld Review.Rerteived from