I do not believe there is one political party in America that would be more supportive of financing national public health initiatives than the other would. This assertion is particularly true for the main parties in America (Democratic Party and the Republican Party) because both parties would choose to support the funding, or defunding, of national health programs depending on how they align with their interests. For example, Republicans are likely to defund a national health program that promotes abortion, while democrats are likely to support increased funding for such a program. This difference has emerged in recent attempts by Republicans to defund the Planned Parenthood Program because of concerns that it promotes abortion (Huetteman, 2016). However, the Democrats have been steadfast to block such attempts. Based on the fundamental differences in philosophy between both parties, I do not believe that one would be more supportive of financing national public health initiatives than the other would be.
Although people choose to justify the funding of public health initiatives differently, I believe there are unique criteria that Democrats and Republicans use to justify the funding of public health programs. For example, Republicans are more inclined to support the funding of public health programs that strive to support conservative ideals of the society (Getzen, 2013). Conversely, they are likely to oppose the funding of health programs that promote a liberal view of social and health issues (GOP, 2016). The opposite is true for Democrats because they are more likely to oppose the funding of public health programs that promote conservative values in the health care system and are equally likely to support those that promote liberal views on health matters (Democratic Convention, 2016; GOP, 2016 ). To demonstrate the different criteria used by both parties, we find that most Republicans are “pro-life,” when debating issues relating to abortion, while Democrats are “pro-choice” when debating the same matter. Consequently, their choice to fund public health programs demonstrates the same split (Getzen, 2013). The same difference emerges when we analyze how both parties approach health insurance issues. Democrats tend to support programs that increase government involvement in the sector because they want health care to be more affordable to all people, while Republicans argue for health programs that have minimal government involvement because they believe excessive government involvement would compromise health care quality (Democratic Convention, 2016; GOP, 2016). These differences demonstrate that each party uses selective criteria to justify the funding of different health programs.
There are unique situations where the funding of health programs is unjustified. One of them is when a public health program poses a national security threat. This view stems from the premise that citizen safety is of primary concern for the American government and any action that seems to threaten it is unjustifiable (including the funding of health programs) (Ginsburg, 2008). When the cost of financing is more than the benefits that would accrue from implementing a health program is another situation where the financing of a public health program is unjustified (Getzen, 2013). This is a fundamental economic principle in public health programs, which is premised on the fact that the resources used to finance a public health program should yield more benefits for the people, compared to its cost (Weinstein & Skinner, 2010). Comprehensively, this paper shows that different criteria justify health care funding in America.
References
Democratic Convention. (2016). The democratic platform. Web.
Getzen, T. E. (2013). Health economics and financing (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Ginsburg, P. B. (2008). High and rising health care costs: Demystifying US health care spending (The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Report No. 16). Web.
GOP. (2016). Why are you a republican? Web.
Huetteman, E. (2016). Funding planned parenthood, or not, may be key to keeping the government open. Web.
Weinstein, M. C., & Skinner, J. A. (2010). Comparative effectiveness and health care spending—Implications for reform. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(5), 460–465. Web.