http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/health-reform-mandate/index.htm?iid=SF_E_River
The main topic discussed in the article is whether or not the Affordable Health Care Act will be ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court this week. The act would allow people to get affordable health care insurance. The argument for the mandate is that a majority of Americans will be insured and it would reduce the costs imposed by the uninsured on everyone else. This is the argument because when uninsured individuals go to the emergency room to seek treatment they most likely will not pay for the care they received. This cost is taken on by the hospital which the hospital passes on to the insured by raising the cost of services that they use. If the court finds it unconstitutional then the whole law could be struck down or the just the mandate could be repealed on its own. Should the government play a role in health care like other countries like Canada and Great Britain or should the market decide who is going to be able to pay for health care services?
5 comments:
I think that the government should help create an affordable healthcare system in the United States. I think that making sure everyone can afford health care will decrease corruption because it could crease less tension between the social classes.
The health care reform would reduce the externalities imposed by the uninsured on everyone else who pays for health insurance; however the reform could actually be more costly for the individuals who pay for insurance already. This may be the case because as it says in the article insurers would have to offer everyone coverage regardless of their health status. Therefore, group health insurance costs could rise with the increase of unhealthy people in these groups. Additionally, if the health care reform forces everyone to purchase health care, how would low income and people in poverty afford to pay for health insurance? Wouldn’t this also increase the prices of taxes or government spending on health insurance and actually make us worse off than where we started? Even though it would be beneficial for everyone to have health insurance in the United States, this would lead to more rationed services of health care, which would not make Americans happy either. No wonder this is a hard topic to decide on!
Morally, I believe that everyone should have the right to health care. The government, as a distributor of resources, should ensure this. However, in our current economic climate, I wonder if it is smart for us to be increasing the public expenditure of our government. This is a difficult topic that will likely be debated for years to come.
I think the government should provide health care for all. I believe this plan is a moderate step into the right direction. As for the Supreme Court, if they rule as they have in other cases, they should find the law constitutional. Insurance clearly crosses state lines; therefore, it is a thing of commerce and the national government has the power to govern.
While there are many benefits to everyone having free health care, (and it seems that it is easier said than done)we can't disregard the effects of coverage in countries like Canada. There, health care is widely "overused" which has led to rationing and long waiting lists to get services. It makes me uneasy to think that people may have to wait over a month for some services, and I also wonder about the effect on the quality of services we have here in the U.S.
Post a Comment