The tragic killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has sparked widespread debate across the United States, raising important questions not only about violence but about the deeper, moral issues embedded in America’s health care system. This tragedy has amplified frustrations long-held by many Americans about the brokenness of a system that seems to prioritize profit over people’s well-being. A growing sense of empathy for the assailant, seen by some as a folk hero of the health care crisis, reflects the deeper discontent with the status quo.
This incident, while tragic, offers a rare moment for reflection on the pressing moral dimensions of the American health care system. Nicole Hassoun, a philosopher and expert in global health and human rights, offers valuable insight into why so many Americans feel the system is failing them, and why a fundamental shift in thinking is needed to move forward.
Hassoun’s research sheds light on a sobering truth: when compared to other wealthy nations, the United States performs poorly in terms of health outcomes despite spending more on healthcare. According to a study by The Commonwealth Fund, which ranks 10 wealthy nations, the U.S. comes in last overall, spending nearly twice as much per patient compared to other OECD countries. Yet, in return, the U.S. healthcare system provides much less in terms of quality care and equitable access.
Although 90% of Americans have some form of health insurance, a significant portion of the population remains uninsured or underinsured. Around 10% of Americans have no insurance, and even those who are covered often face unaffordable co-pays, prescription costs, and gaps in coverage. Furthermore, stark health disparities persist across racial lines, with Black infants dying at nearly 2.5 times the rate of white infants, and Native American and Latino populations experiencing much higher rates of diseases like diabetes.
The situation before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was even bleaker. In a system where losing a job often meant losing health insurance, many individuals were left vulnerable to skyrocketing premiums due to preexisting conditions. The ACA brought hope to many by providing protection for those with preexisting conditions, but significant gaps remain, especially for the most vulnerable populations.
Nicole Hassoun is a strong advocate for the concept of health as a universal human right. In countries like Germany and Norway, the right to health is enshrined in their constitutions, ensuring citizens have access to health care regardless of their financial situation. The United States, however, has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which includes the right to health.
Hassoun argues that health care is a fundamental human right, but it is not simply about guaranteeing health outcomes. Rather, it is about providing the conditions that enable people to live healthy lives, such as access to clean air and water, adequate food, and social support. The system should be designed in a way that makes health care affordable and accessible to all, enabling people to contribute to society and live fulfilling lives.
The economic implications of the current U.S. health care system are staggering. Nearly half of the nation’s health care problems stem from preventable diseases. Yet, basic measures like ensuring access to medications for chronic conditions, or providing regular primary care visits, are often out of reach for those who need them most. The cost of this inefficiency is not only borne by individuals but by the entire system, as preventable illnesses frequently lead to expensive emergency room visits and hospitalizations.
A study published in The Lancet found that a single-payer system could save the U.S. as much as 13% in healthcare spending annually—approximately $450 billion each year. But the real question remains: what kind of society does America want to be? Will we continue down the path of inequality and inefficiency, or will we prioritize the health of all citizens?
Hassoun also discusses the concept of a “minimally good life”—the basic standard of living that every person should be able to access without sacrificing the well-being of others. This idea challenges us to think not only about what we, as individuals, need but about what others require to live dignified lives.
Empathy plays a central role in this ethical framework. Understanding what it means to live a “good-enough” life—and recognizing that, in an interconnected world, anyone can experience illness or hardship—can help us build a more equitable society. The question is not just what we can afford, but what we can afford to do for each other.
America stands at a crossroads, and the decisions we make about health care today will shape the future of our nation. We have the resources to fix a broken system, but it will take a collective commitment to embrace health as a fundamental human right. The moral imperative is clear: it is time for America to choose a path of empathy, justice, and solidarity, where access to health care is not a privilege but a universal right.
Read more:
- First Severe Case Of Bird Flu In The U.S. Raises Concerns Over Poultry Exposure
- Tennessee Woman Arrested For Distributing Counterfeit Weight Loss Drugs
- New Study Reveals Women Underestimate Pain During Medication Abortions
