A Moment of Truth for Health Care Reform
"A Moment of Truth for Health Care Reform" is an article from NY Times. This article is focused on making America a better place for everybody when it comes to health insurance. When I saw the title and read the article, I can say I am 100% for this to happen. I am in a situation where I don't have health insurance and if the Affordable Care Act is approved this will help thousands of people I'm sure. Lincoln Caplan and Philip M. Boffey are the gentlemen who wrote this article and I can say that I totally agree with them. On the other hand, there is more things that this article is about but I would like to focus on the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is also known as "Obamacare", it was signed into law by Barack Obama of course in 2010. What this could do is help everybody have an insurance.
This reminds me of how France handles things; France provides everybody with health insurance. Only thing is because of everybody being provided with health insurance by the government; the government is in fact, in debt. I feel that Obama has the mind to figure out what can be done for everybody to be protected, and he will make it happen. If everything go as planned, and everything works out in his favor, our government will not be in debt like France.
A Moment of Truth for Health Care Reform
I respectfully disagree with this student's argument because the reasoning seemingly only comes from the fact that she, as well as most, want people to have health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is controversial in many ways, but the controversy does not focus on some people arguing people shouldn't have insurance (aside from the argument that not all people want to participate in the health insurance market, and therefore should not be forced to). I think this blog post is simplifying the debate and missing the critical issues. The Affordable Care Act is potentially problematic due to constitutional and financial issues. The biggest problem seems to be the individual mandate and tax penalty issues, which this blog post did not address. The individual mandate and tax penalty imposed if one does not purchase the required insurance stem from complicated constitutional law issues, which seem to be the critical issues that the Supreme Court focused on during the case arguments; therefore, I believe that the debate really hinges on those issues, and how the Supreme Court decides the case. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this part of the debate too well because of the legal complexity, which is why many people are outraged because they just want healthcare. However, the way in which the legislation was written and the "penalty" it would impose seem to be the real issue. I recognize that many people are not digging into these issues because of their complexity, and due to the complexity, they are not readily explained and found in the media. I wish there were more educational articles about the Act that explain how the mandate and penalty are constitutionally problematic because then people wouldn't see those opposing the Act as people who don't want others to have health insurance, because that is simply not the crutch of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe student does mention the financial part of the debate, and how the Act raises concerns because it would increase the national debt. However, this part of the argument is also much more complicated, and requires a great deal of financial analysis. Also, the student didn't raise the main argument typically used here (and argued before the Supreme Court), that people who do not currently have health insurance are causing more stress on the economy and national debt because of the high bills that must be paid for by the government when they do seek health care. However, that argument also ties into complex arguments about whether someone can claim they "do not participate" in the health care market, and therefore, would not cause such stress on the economy, which is countered with arguments that everyone at some time in their life would use the health care system, so remaining uninsured ultimately will cause economic harm. I think this argument is also complicated because it revolves around more constitutional issues involving the Commerce Clause, which once again is not easily explained or addressed in most media articles on this debate.
Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act represents a complicated piece of legislation that is not easily understood by most Americans. Consequently, it has turned more into a polarized issue where people seem to take a simplified Republican or Democratic side, without really understanding the legal issues and why the law may be stricken, in whole or part, by the Supreme Court.