It was once said that the government is morally tested by its approach to providing care to the elderly, needy, handicapped, and children. For me, this statement is true because it points to the very fact that actions and decisions of the government in treating those in need are the best representation of their promises. In this way, once it fails to fulfill its promises by not providing adequate support for the vulnerable populations, it does not pass the moral test and the population is disappointed with those elected hoping to reelect the government and give authority to those people who will treat them appropriately.
To prove this statement, it is essential to review the specificities of the U.S. health care system, especially the access to health care, to conclude whether the government has passed its morale test. Nowadays, for instance, uninsured people are commonly denied access to comprehensive care. However, they can still be treated for free in the case of emergencies or accidents. More than that, there are government programs granting opportunities for free vaccination and cancer screening for those in need, including the uninsured, the elderly, and handicapped people (Moniz & Gorin, 2013).
As for the elderly, they have limited access to health care due to the reduced governmental spending on the health care sector. Regardless of the governmental programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, the issue remains critical. Speaking of children, they enjoy more benefits compared to the elderly due to being covered by parents’ insurances as well as the existence of the Child Health Insurance Program, providing care to kids from poor families (Maville & Huerta, 2013). That being said, regardless of the overall relevance of the statement, as for now, the government should make additional effort to pass its moral test.
References
Maville, J. A., & Huerta, C. G. (2013). Health promotion in nursing (3rd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.
Moniz, C., & Gorin, S. (2013). Health care policy and practice: A biopsychological perspective (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.