Massachusetts has one of the best healthcare systems in the country. From their rehabilitation programs to pharmaceutical industry, Mass has it all; and seeing how the former Governor of Massachusetts is running for President, the Massachusetts Healthcare model of universal healthcare has come into question once again.

Healthcare is one of the most pressing issues of any modern society. As such, it should come as no surprise that it is highly contested in the current election cycle. With liberals screaming that the Government should provide for healthcare and conservatives yelling that the private sector is best, many bystanders find it difficult to get the facts related to which is better straight — a government run healthcare system, or a privately run healthcare system?

Let’s take a look at both of these arguments starting with the conservative appeal. Conservatism in the United States has been loosely based on the concept of States rights since the formation of our Republic. In this scenario, any law not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution is automatically reserved for States to decide on their own accord. For instance, Massachusetts can determine how to administer driving tests differently than California might.  This is allowed because there is no Federal law establishing a the licensing of driving permits. Similarly, there is no Federal law about Healthcare. Therefore, it should be left to the states to decide which is best for their individual states. This argument seems to make sense because it’s possible to imagine each state having different healthcare requirements for its population and therefore sweeping legislations might be inappropriate given the populous. For example: Vermont’s healthcare system has vastly different requirements than that of California. And so Conservatives, who favor states rights, naturally are opposed to federally run health care programs because they feel it’s a violation of States’ rights.

On the other hand, the liberal argument is based on a more compassionate pitch. Liberals have historically considered certain issues as naturally guaranteed by the state. For instance, Education should be guaranteed by the state, national defense should be guaranteed by the state, and local police and fire authorities should be provided for by the state. This is because these are basic provisions of a society – everyone benefits from this. Similarly, liberals believe healthcare is a basic essential that governments should provision for its people; after all, governments fund K-12 education, how is that any different than funding a healthcare program?  Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the Federal Government has a responsibility to its people for providing for the healthcare of its citizenry.

Now, it’s important to understand that both sides of the healthcare debate want healthcare for everyone. Trouble is how to implement it. And unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

I hope this article has helped shed some light on the origins of the healthcare debate!


John Doen is a medical practitioner with ten years of experience. In his spare time he writes for his blog at  <a href=>Mass Rehab</a>, where his most recent posts about Rehab Addiction can be read at  <a href=>Rehab Addict</a>, and Universal Healthcare critic.