Answer

“San Francisco has an Obligation to provide Locals with Health Access”

            San Francisco’s HSF (Healthy San Francisco) underlines the local authority’s obligation to improve healthcare via different means including access. In fact, HSF represents an innovative technique to tackle the challenges linked to the uninsured population at the local level. The development of this plan demonstrates crucial factors in the improvement of healthcare that are crucial at the local, state, as well as national level. Worth noting, is that HSF represents a culmination of a multi-year strategy to address the challenges associated with healthcare system in San Francisco beginning with Measure J policy of 1998 (Chi Nguyen & Miller, 2008). In fact, the area of Sam Francisco have passed a number of ordinances seeking to expand healthcare coverage as well as offer affordable services to the disadvantaged. This follows past reports that implied that the area of Sam Francisco was being left behind, and the local authorities and government sought to improve the situation, as it is their obligation. Indeed, HSF is founded on the foundation of the existing healthcare policies including a large number of healthcare treatment centers as well as Sam Francisco General hospital. In this case, the government plays the crucial role of reinforcing perceived areas of healthcare in which Sam Francisco was lagging behind. Healthcare improvement in Sam Francisco and around the country calls for continued evaluation to ensure that dysfunctional components are identified and put right. HSF plan represents such a step and government needs to be commended for identifying the much-needed boost in Sam Francisco. 

            HSF plan increasingly targets the large number of Sam Francisco residents without insurance. The local authorities rightly felt that it was their obligation to help such persons. While most persons have confused the plan with other insurance plans around the country, HSF must be purely understood as a system of providers, which seeks to utilize Sam Francisco’s superb healthcare system including community hospitals, neighborhood clinics, as well as public clinics. In essence, HSF plan does not intend to replace already existing plans such as Medicare but is designed to help Sam Francisco residents who do not meet Medicare requirements. Without a doubt, many persons around the country slip through the fingers and it is local government’s responsibility to oversee that the situation is rectified. This is reflected in HSF’s eligibility criteria, which seeks to expand healthcare access for thousands of uninsured residents aged from 18 through 64 years (Gendlin, 2012). Most importantly, the plan operates regardless of one’s immigration status, employment status, or her/his pre-existing medical condition. It effectiveness and local government’s determination to improve healthcare is mirrored in the fact that the plan helps to place persons eligible for federal programs in appropriate plans. This evidences that it is government’s obligation to take measures that will enhance healthcare provision to its population regardless of their social status.

            HSF emerges as a moral duty for the city and this is true if one considers that it seeks to help the disadvantaged in the society. For instance, anyone earning below $10,830 in a year joins the plan free (Chi Nguyen & Miller, 2008). As well, the sick can get affordable healthcare, which represents massive step towards providing healthcare to all. Most healthcare programs across the nation have been accused of failing to have an open door for the sick to receive care at the time of need. Yet, HSF overcomes the problem by ensuring that eligibility requirements are at a minimum and those in need of care but unable to get it are helped to do just that. This is government’s moral duty and even as detractors point out that the plan ultimately means raised taxes, it is difficult to argue that it is not meant for general wellbeing of Sam Francisco and its residents. More so, the government plays a crucial role in leveraging healthcare costs to ensure increased access by all persons. In can be said that the government plays the role of a leader as it directs disadvantaged persons in need of healthcare towards improved services. Often, citizens seek alternative and dangerous treatment option because quality care is unaffordable and HSF is designed to ensure Sam Francisco residents do not take that route.   

            The balance between personal freedom and the regime’s obligation to provide health to its citizens has not been eroded. More so, citizens retain their right and always have the option to take up or decline whatever the government provides with respect to health and welfare. The government is not overarching, but just attempting to accomplish its obligation by providing health and welfare to its citizens even if it sometimes means curtailing ones freedom. Worth noting, is that the government has a mandate and thus exercises its power to oversee common good among its population. Bayer (2007) notes that it would be more honest if opponents of government intervention acknowledged that such a practice may be needed to safeguard citizens from their dangerous behavior. In sum, personal freedom and government’s obligation to provide health and welfare is a trade-off and the effect at a population level should always triumph.