This week's article is by Paul Krugman (Nobel Peace Prize Winner for Economics in 2008):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp
He argues (convincingly in my opinion) that we absolutely must enact universal health care coverage for all Americans. Do you agree with his point of view? If it's as obvious as he makes it seem than why is there such difficulty getting the bill passed? What are the ideological and practical issues that prevent the bill from being embraced by all?
Here's some additional information if you need it:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/how-to-control-rising-health-care-costs/
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/what-happened-to-a-public-health-plan/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amie - Ms.AuCoin (pd.8)
ReplyDeleteMr. Krugman makes some interesting points, many of them things I haven't previously considered. I thought his idea on what would happen if the healthcare bill did not pass was a perfect description. Not only did he include the economic consequences, his prediction of the "message conveyed" is so important. I especially felt strongly about this statement:
"It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform."
According to this statement, if we failed to pass the bill now, it might be too late and we may find ourselves in the "nasty debt crisis" Mr. Krugman describes in his article.
Perhaps the problem is not just the senators who still cannot decide whether or not to support the bill. I think awareness is always the number one reason why important bills do not get passed. The people need to get involved as well as lay aside their ignorance and know what is going on in their country. This bill affects everyone in the country and needs the support of everyone.
I disagree with Krugman’s point of view that there should be a universal health care coverage.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that free health care isn't really free.
Americans would have to pay more taxes for it, and the government would cut off other areas of spending such as education or social security.
Medicare and Medicaid is already taking a toll on the US economy.
“Universal health care” is just a euphemism for socialized medicine, which is both unfair and unrealistic. Why should healthy people who take care of themselves, pay for the consequences of those who smoke, are obese, etc?
It is better for the government to spend money making public facilities for people to exercise and more city parks with programs that would get people moving and having fun.
It is obvious that those who exercise, eat right, and take care of their health, have fewer health problems than those who smoke and are obese. Some healthy people never even go to the doctor, so they don’t find any need for health insurance.
Universal healthcare isn’t all bad, since it does cover over 40 uninsured citizens and help doctors focus on treating patients instead of insurance paperwork.
However, Universal healthcare would destroy the United States economy, society, and lead to political corruption.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to doedoepinknpillow's comment:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion. While it is true that free health care would bump up our taxes by an, as of now, unknown amount, but it isn't projected to be too drastic, i truly believe that it would be worth the tax rise to cover health care for everyone. Furthermore, while i understand that people who have bad lifestyle habits will also receive free healthcare, we shouldn't take away the possibility of having free health care for the people who do need it, like low income families who DO have healthy lifestyle. Basically, we shouldn't demonize free healthcare because people with bad health-style will also receive it.
An ironic fact of life is that, healthy people dont go to the doctor because they dont have health care so they are at risk of catching diseases and virus that are preventable. People without healthcare usually wait until their situation turns very critical and then go to the hospital. They are taken to the emergency room and given emergency treatment which is very expensive. These kinds of scenario, which are frequent, can be avoided if those people had healthcare because they would get pre-emptive care, which is much cheaper.
My final point is that adopting a universal health care will not cause the apocalyptic end to our economy. America, while it is going through a recession, is still a powerful and rich country. In fact, presently we spend more money in the healthcare business then most Western countries that have universal healthcare. The economic state of those countries are fine and not on the brink of destruction. For example, Canada is doing just fine with universal healthcare.
I agree with Mr. Krugman's point of view as to why we should enact universal health care. Not only will it bestow peace of mind to all in the American population it also decreases the amount of debt that America is in, because the money needed to keep these companies going takes its toll on the nations economy.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem as to why many are not agreeing with the new health care reform is that not many understand what the bill entails. By having universal health care, yes taxes will go up, but that in turn helps out the economy as the nations debt will decrease. And as one is in need of aid there will be no worries as to how it will be paid.
This is all assuming that the health care bill is not tampered with in anyway. But as a whole there is no real downside to this bill
I personally agree with Obama that universal health care a public option is the only real way to place health care costs under control. If a government run option existed, insurance companies would have to lower their costs if they expect to compete in the industry. I agree with the Article that failure of reform to pass would result in an even worse fate because health care costs would continue to spiral out of control and this would make the budget problems even worse. I also agree that the opposition is senseless propaganda. Universal health care is used by many countries and using it does not make a country socialist as right wingers portray it. If we always listen to socialist hysteria, reform will never get through, even if its necessary. Just look at Medicare, its health care by the government and its a very popular program. The bill has difficulty because lobbying from businesses and right wing fears are getting the way. The businesses will stop at nothing to kill the reform because all they care about is their money and they know that if this bill gets passed, it will hurt their profits and they lobby heavily to win over senators. Also, theres a socialist hysteria surrounding this reform, like there was for other reforms such as medicare. Right Wingers are overreacting to the idea because its out of the ordinary and for that reason are trying to demonize the reform so things don't change. I would say these right wingers also pressure many politicians into opposing the bill because if they support it, the backlash will make them lose their seat. Its political and business issues that are making the reform painfully difficult to pass, even if its necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Krugman. Health care should be universal; its our natural birthright, no one should have to die in the cold because they never had health care or because their insurance company stop providing, or because they lost their job and because of that also lost their insurance. We are all humans here, and dignity lays in preserving man’s health. Although, the bill will cost almost $100 billion to jump start it, but that’s the same as we are paying for with the war in Iraq. Furthermore, in the long run, health care costs will go down. Think about it; if an uninsured person goes to the hospital, the expenses fall to the hospital which eventually costs us, the consumers and insurance companies, but with universal healthcare, those that were uninsured would have to pay a 2%tax, thus lowering our expenses overtime. In addition, with universal healthcare insurance companies with compete with each other to get the most customers, their prices will lower and their quality will increase, maybe newer companies will arise, this will greater the economy and produce more jobs. Opponents of the bill are just petrified that it will lead to “socialized medicine” which would mean; doctors would work for the government, long lines/waiting for doctor’s visits, poor quality care. When in truth, none of this would occur. Doctors will work on a non-profit or profit basis, so there will still be private practices, controlled wait rooms, and better quality care from devoted doctors. The only downside is that the bill might cause more healthcare disparity within the system, where everyone would have healthcare but they would be divided and judged by the type of insurance they have, like private vs. Medicare.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that universal coverage for all Americans is very important. Not everyone in America can afford health care. There are many people, many families that live off from paycheck to paycheck. So if people can't afford to pay for it, then they can't have it? As Americans, we have this view that if you have money, then everything will be fine. So if you don't have money, does that mean that your out-of-luck?
ReplyDeleteUnder the 14th Amendment, it states that citizens of the United States have the right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't the health of a person essentially part of their life? Depriving them of the much needed health care would be like depriving them of a part of their life.
~Alina (Period 1, Gov)
health care or no health care, when a person gets sick, they go to ER, and if they have health care, the system will pay for it, and if they do no have health care, the government will end up paying for it because when the hospital do not get payment, they go bankrupt and the government will have to bail them out. the American government already spend 2 times as much money on health care compare to Canada even thought Canada have Universal health care. i agree that giving American universal health care will help get America out of debt. the bill is difficult to pass because of Americans, there is too many protest and opposition from the republican states and with the grass root effect, congressman are afraid to vote for the health care bill. what does not make sense to me is that most people oppose the health care bill are middle or poor people from south and such. those people do not work for cooperate companies, they mostly work for small business or work for themselves, so why would they oppose health care bill?
ReplyDeleteJia (period 1)
ReplyDeleteWe all deserve the security of guaranteed health care. I agree with Mr. Krugman, this is a big step towards our improvement and it is a very important one too. I don’t think health reform is an option, I think it must be done because there are many people who are in need of help. Some people can’t afford to see the doctor and so they avoid them. This is not fair, we all have the right to live health and quality life, and no one should be stopped from this right for any reason. This bill will be very beneficial, look at Canada, they have universal health coverage too and citizens of Canada enjoy their right, they don’t complain about paying their taxes. If paying slightly more taxes will give all of us healthier and better lives, why should we question it? The reformation of health care will also portray America as stronger and united as a nation. I understand we are going through recession, but if we can go through so much then why not a little more push that will actually benefit all of us. Also this way, the cost of health care will be in control and known. The cost will be certain, and the nation can work towards to meet that goal, and soon it will be stable and we will all have better lives. And no, the universal health coverage is not the road to tyranny; we are way ahead and advance now. It was the old times and fear of the past. We are the present and future and we must protect ourselves. If health reformation does not happen now it might not happen again for another who knows how many years. Last time it was proposed was pretty long ago, almost 16 years, next time it might not be proposed at all. We have the option of securing our health now and we should do it.
I think Mr. Krugman justifiably argues that for both the economy and moral purposes, health care is a necessity.
ReplyDeleteI remember last month in Ms. Aucoin's class we learned that, ironically, America, which does not provide full coverage to everyone, pays nearly twice as much as any other country on health insurance! This is ridiculous. The reason is that many who can't pay for coverage end up costing the government more than full coverage would because they go to the doctor when they have reached a critical condition.
Despite my stance, I think 'doedoepinkpillow' is absolutely right when he/she says that healthy people should not have to pay for people who cannot take proper care of themselves. My opinion- yes, they shouldn't, but losing thousands of people each year that are healthy and simply cannot afford insurance is much more significant that a healthy person having to pay a bit more for someone else.
Finally, the reason as to why health care reform faces such obstacles in America is because time and time again money tends to turn us away from moral conscience. Let's face it- there are many Americans that would rather hold onto cash despite KNOWING that there are people who suffer. Many right-wing conservatives will say things like "health care will significantly increase your tax" and "health care will raise the deficit" even though it is completely wrong. I remember Sarah Palin said that the new health care plan would KILL senior citizens because they consume the most money on health care. Unfortunately, people buy this stuff.
No, we probably won't have a health care bill by the end of the year as Obama wanted. But I do believe that we're making progress and will have one soon.
--Manjinder
I completely agree with Paul Krugman because the numbers have shown that America pays the most per person for health care, and compared to countries with universal health which have some of the lowest costs of health care per person.
ReplyDeleteEven though it is quite obvious that universal health care is necessary, many Americans are ignorant to the real facts, and simply accept the opinions that are presented to them. The more rural areas of America tend to be more conservative and therefore will have mostly conservative media outlets. This causes most of the southern and mid-western United States oblivious to the liberal point of view and they are complacent with not hearing it. If they knew the facts they would know that the elderly are already under a government run health care system.
DEREK Y.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul Krugman’s opinion on universal healthcare. From a social point of view, is it really right that a person needs to die or suffer, just because he or she cannot afford healthcare? Universal healthcare will help people like these, who cannot afford to be examined. Yes it is true that there are many Americans who are just plain unhealthy, such as the obese, and those who smoke, but there are also the millions of Americans who need to spend their money on rent, rather than pay their valuable money for a doctor.
Universal healthcare is something that is common in many foreign countries. That shows that their system is working, and that we need to catch up with the times. The tax increases will actually cause the country to be in a better economical condition in the long run.
In a couple years, all of us whom are covered by our parents’ healthcare plans will no longer be eligible for a family plan. How will you pay for healthcare then? This bill will be extremely helpful to the next generation.
Paul Krugman, in my opinion, is a very, very intelligent man. Usually when someone tackles a topic as controversial as health care, in order to convince people to take their side, they must show their opinions as well as the opinion of their opponent(s).
ReplyDeleteI do agree with him about passing the health care bill as soon as possible. In government class a few weeks ago we looked at a graph showing the costs of health care in developed countries around the world. It was amazing to see how much money the United States spends on health care when countries such as Canada, that have universal health care, are paying substantially less than we are. If we do decide to have universal health care, that wouldn't mean that we are becoming communist. There are many other countries that provide health care for their citizens and are not communist. Sure, it may go against the ideals of the previous presidents and leaders, but the United States has changed so much since it was born and we need to adapt to our unfortunate circumstances. If we do not have health care, we will not be solving our current economic crisis, and it is ignorant for Republicans to completely avoid the calamity we are facing.
Paul Krugman argues that the reasons for passing the health care bill are so obvious but it is difficult getting the bill passed. This is probably because there isn’t enough awareness about health care. Sure, people may know that we are currently debating over the topic, but perhaps they do not understand the advantages of passing the health care bill and how it will benefit everyone, not only their health but also our economy.
Not everyone wants to pass health care because it isn’t exactly free since it might increase taxes or decrease spending in other areas like public education. Also, the healthier citizens who put time and effort into taking care of themselves will have to suffer because they have to pay higher taxes to support health care for the people who are obese, do drugs, smoke, and overall don’t take care of themselves. Doctors and other medical physicians will no longer receive the same amount of pay which will most likely discourage students from spending eight years going to a university and medical school
We do need universal health care, not only because it's the nation's duty to take care of its people, but because it will help us financially. Medicare, which is paid for by the US government, is a great financial burden on our economy. Many who did not have healthcare when they were younger, which is true for many because of healthcare's high costs, did not get proper medical treatment for their illnesses because it's expensive without some form of insurance. Also take into consideration that unlike stated above by doedoepinkpillow, many are predisposed to illnesses like cancer, which they do not always have control over--getting sick is not always the person's fault. When they get older and need proper treatment, Medicare and the government are responsible for paying for it. Especially right now as the baby boomers get to retirement and Medicare age, our government will be responsible for paying for their health insurance and social security.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for the bill to be passed, because it seems so superfluous and costly for our current out-of-shape economy right now. Many, more specifically conservatives, are concerned about the possibility of corruption when the government gets its hands on healthcare.
I agree with his point of view. Many countries in Europe have universal health care. and statistics show that those countries spend less on health care than the US. I think most people are opposed to the idea because they are not used to it. To these people, democracy equals freedom of choice and competition on the market. And universal health care takes away both. What they don't realize is that trying new methods is necessary in times like this if the old ones don't work.
ReplyDeleteHealth care is such an important issue that people get lost in the waves of information and opinions. It can be difficult for some to decide while easy for others. The nice thing about the article is that it is straightforward and has the main information. Paul Krugman addresses the problems of current health care policies and convinces us the importance of a health care reform.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, agree with his point of view. We do need a health care reform because there are so many people without any health care and paying for hospital visits are costly, especially when people live on minimum wage. People take risks by not visiting the doctor's office whenever they are sick just so they could save their money to survive. Either way they are suffering, but if the health care problem is shut down then those people would have one thing less to worry about.
The problem is that there are politicians who care more about business and economy, so it will be hard to press for universal health care. They don't want anything that will meddle with corporate businesses since, I assume, they have the laissez faire mindset. Also, I think the idea that everyone will have to pay more in taxes is another problem.
Crisula Prassos pd 1
ReplyDeleteThe way in which Paul Kraugman expresses his opinion, it seems as though the answer is obvious; universal health care is the only plausible option. However its not so black and white to the conservatives, who associate universal healthcare with debt. In fact their argument that universal healthcare is costly, and ineffective has no solid evidence to support it. Matter of fact the system has been proven to be effective, take Canada, for instance. But the fact that universal health care is not so obvious to the skeptics s because they have misconceptions about the system. Some think that it will significantly increase the amount of money that comes directly from their pocket. Others seem to think that this system would mean that people get less medical attention, and that doctors will have to pick and choose which medical cases need immediate treatment, but that’s not the case at all. If people are really serious about getting this healthcare bill passed and in effect, then educating the masses and proving those preconceived notions wrong, should be a priority.
I agree with Paul Krugman, the Universal Health Care bill which in my opinion is a wonderful and progressive idea, that we (the United States) are late upon discovering and considering, lends itself t countless benefits in regards to US citizens, but not so much in regard to the insurance companies. During Obama’s campaign for presidency he received a lot of money from big businesses i.e. insurance companies. Now that this universal healthcare bill is being proposed, basically giving the government control of health care and no the insurance companies themselves, congress is hesitant in passing it because of the possibility of angering big business owners.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government, senators, congress needs to focus on the benefits instead of the personal interest of the insurance companies. In the end the concern for the countries citizens are what should be the driving force for major decisions such as this. We are in a recession, unemployment rates are high, and we need a solution we need to start saving money instead of spending it; though I think that the demographics of the United States pose a huge threat to this Universal Health Care bill. One of the privileges that the insurance companies have now and won’t have if, and hopefully when, this bill is passed is being able to deny someone health care because of their medical history. People with certain health risks or those whose lifestyles can instigate certain health complications are generally denied certain health care treatments. And being that the Unites States has a predominately obese population, we are basically a ‘flight risk”.
AJ pd 2
ReplyDeletePaul Krugman is right; America pays a lot of money compared to countries with universal health care. People need to stop being so ignorant and think about it as a whole. How can we move forward if one person just holds everyone back. Sacrifices need to be made so that we can all benefit in the future.
As a young adult, I will no longer be covered under my parents in another couple of years. What am I to do then? I will have to pay for college and for health care! Why must I suffer because people are so conservative, even to something that can only help others.
Why are we worrying about money when people’s lives could be saved? Are we not spending millions to find cures? Why can’t we just put in some more and save some more lives?
In Paul Krugman’s article, the basis for all of his assertions is the fact that a universal health care system would not be financially crippling, as many members of the GOP have claimed, but rather fiscally prudent and absolutely necessary. Paul Krugman is unequivocally correct in his assertions. I completely agree with the general assertion that universal is completely beneficial; there are no weak spots in this plan.
ReplyDeleteTo better elucidate what the universal health care system can be, it is best to say that the health care system would be a combo of expanded Medicare and more stringent enforcement of the spending of money. In other words, the proposed health care system is a Medicare 2.0 with little corruption as the flow of money will be regulated.
Additionally, Krugman supports his argument by explaining the economics of the health care bill. In a country where Medicare is debilitating the budget, many would think that making health care would amplify the financial problems. However, this would not be the case because the people who would acquire health insurance are relatively young and healthy. There would be little need to actually utilize health insurance. Also, better regulation of spending would greatly lessen the financial woes caused by Medicare and other health programs. This evidence is also accurate as 23 health care experts have agreed with it. The savings that the new system would bring are real.
Despite the convincing arguments for the passage of this bill, there are many stubborn Republican cynics that stand in the way of the bill. For example, Senator John McCain maintains that the health bill would cause severe cuts to Medicare; ironically, McCain proposed much bigger cuts in his presidential campaign last year. It seems to me that Republicans act not on providence or logical thinking, but on stubborn ideals that are only self serving. In a Republican party where contradictions and inflexibility are rampant, it is disturbing and must be extremely frustrating for lawmakers to have to deal with opponents of progress.
- Rich C.C. Pd 2
Emily period 1
ReplyDeleteI too agree with Paul Krugman. Even though we don't know if it will fix the problems 100%, it is better than just sitting around doing nothing. The article says
"Unless there are major policy changes, expenditure will consistently grow faster than revenue, eventually leading to a debt crisis"
The consequences of not tackling this issue now could result in greater consequences. Its a chance we have to take, and the odds look pretty good. He says, "Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost) everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care dollars are well spent."
I think that this could work if the gov't looks more at the benefit of the plan as a whole, rather than the damage it may do to private companies. In times of change, in all these issues (climate change bill, health care bill, ect), there are always going to be winners and losers. We have to consider if the net gain is greater than the losses to evaluate whether or not the changes we make are worth it. And right now, there is already an economic crisis going on, so regulated health care could help out more people than damage few. In any reform or change, something, or someone has to get hurt.
And most people agree that our health care should not be entirely private; the government certainly should't have too much control, but neither should the private insurance companies. The government should be allowed to have metaphorically, 'one hand' in the whole insurance business. Our health care shouldn't be "laissez faire", cause if it is, they could end up just like our businesses back in the day with 'monopolies'. Government regulation could make sure that most people are getting the health care they need/deserve.
David G. Pd 1
ReplyDeleteMr Krugman makes an interesting argument, one thats in the minds of many americans today. Why should people who are not wealthy enough to afford health coverage be left to die in the cold, from something as simple as, say, a cold.
In my opinion the health care systems of other countries are the greatest because they are free and provided by thier government, but why is it free? Its because in the United States, everything is a lucrative business. If you have the means and the resources, and theres a group of people who need your services, you can make money, people's health is no different. The life of our country rides on our economy, our economy rides on private businesses, which run on making money off of people. If the government eliminates the competetive healthcare market, then our economy will surely suffer.
But perhaps the coverage of every american will outwiegh this setback. Skeptics of this plan argue that the quality of our doctors/hospitals will plummet. If some thought is given to this we can see that the most probable outcome is slightly more competetive private practices between doctors, in more controlled environments, where lines will be shorter and care available easier than ever.
Quality and quantity of service will increase, with the only potential setback bieng a fall of big business, which may harm our economy but help out those in need with money issues and health issues. Lets focus a little more on our health than what is cheap or profitable, because when we have nothing left we can always say "at least I have my health", and if we cant even say THAT, where will we be?
I agree with Mr. Krugman. At this point, universal health care is an absolute necessity. Many people are in need of it. The fact that people think it's ok to deny people health care simply because they don't have money to afford it is just mind boggling. I mean, I don't think the necessity of health care is determined by how close to bursting point your wallet it.
ReplyDeleteSo we have to shell out a little more cash. So what? It's worth it to get the health care that we need and deserve. Besides, it's either that, or let the costs of health care get the best of us. C'mon, people. The less of two poisons is clearly labeled.
Clearly this article is very biased and is in favor of the health care reform. Because I come from a well off family, everyone related to me can afford private health care. Therefore, I can't imagine what it would be like to have never had it, aside from larger costs. Furthermore, if this reform is passed, my family would not reap any benefits from it, only disadvantages. Taxes would be increased in order to fund such a massive reform, and the wealthy would be taxed more heavily. In the end, I am inclinded to say that I do not support this bill.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Krugman addresses other reasons as to why people would not support this bill's passage. First of all, Americans obviously fear that the cost of health care would rise. In addition, Krugman also addresses the psychological and political aspects of the health care reform debate. The idea of "socialized" health care would make one weary of it in the sense that it would have Soviet communist connotations. Also, people against the reform often turn to making the bill seem as though it is against senior citizens. Combined with other scare tactics, one cannot help but want to continue with the health care plan that exist now.
DA Pd 8
christine y, pd 8
ReplyDeletei agree with most of Mr Krugan's viewpoints. he believes that heath care reform does indeed hang in the balance because the decision on this bill will determine our future. he believes that this is the best chance to deal with it now because of Obama. many people believe that Obama is the change and progress we need and the martin luther king of change. he will get through this health care problem and fight until we reach an agreement between the demos and the repubs.
The Republicans put up a very weak argument because they use insured patients mostly seniors to back up their reasoning. like the article says, " if these tactics work, and reform fails...coney: it would signal that any effort to deal with the biggest budget problem we face will be sucessfully played by politcal opponents as an attack on older americans." obviously, their tactics are weak.
it is obvious that there will be controversy with getting the bills passed because of these republicans that adhere to regean's ideals. ideally, if we dont find a solution now to fit both of these parties, we are in deep trouble.
Jannat Lily, period 8
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Elaine said: the Health Care Bill has a lot of opponents because it seems like a costly and useless thing to do in the current economy. It seems to me that many opponents of the bill don't know much about it. The bill will obviously help the economy or at least keep it from getting even worse in the future. By not having Universal Health Care, the US is falling behind other countries, and some Americans are too concerned with accusations by political leaders such as Senator Ton Coburn to see it.
The debate isn't about health care, but about with party, the Democrats or Republicans, will get what they want. In Congress, and among American citizens, there is a solid line between supporting the bill, or opposing it. This all seems very unintelligent and pointless to me, because no matter what party you belong to, Universal Health Care will help every American in some way.
Maybe if the public was educated by solid facts instead of pointless accusations, Americans would be able to make a smart decision.
Shakira (prd. 1)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Krugmans assertion that this health care bill does infact need to be passed. Aside from the obvious HEALTH BENIFTS of passing a help care bill, The bill does make sense for several fiscal reasons. The major problem the Republican party is pushing is that, with the large numbers of elderly in America, and the health problems that go along with that, the bill will cost the government immense amounts of money. this would not have been a major argument if American's weren't so uhealthy in the first place. Mr. Krugman made a very good point when he wrote that many of the uninsured Americans the bill would give coverage to are young, and for the most part, healthy Americans. Focusing on this demographic, if young Americans can get health care under the bill, they would grow up to be middle aged Americans that are in good health, then elderly Americans that are in good health. Theses healthy, older Americans would no longer create such a high cost for universal health care, so in the long run, the bill would save money. Opposers of the bill are hesitant to pass the bill because it would cost so much money right now and we are in the midst of a finacial crisis. But Mr. Krugman is right again when he says that the country will be worse off if preventative and future measures are not taken.
I disagree because universal is very successfully in countries such as England and Canada. He makes his points obvious since the costs will increase for Medicare and Medicaid as there is more aging population. He said “If health care costs rise in the future as they have in the past, fiscal catastrophe awaits.” However the results may be the opposite. The ideological and practical issues preventing this bill to be passed are that this is a radical change in America. "It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform." Many people think change can ruin the balance and cause problems. But we must risk it for success.
ReplyDeleteI can't disagree with Krugman because it's obviously a good idea to have a universal health care. And I have to say right now it seems too costly in the current economy but instead of arguing what's right and what's wrong we should be compromising.
ReplyDeleteMy family is in a decent status middle class. And we all have private health care but now what I worry about is not my healthcare but my parents. Next year my father will officially be an senior citizen and we need all benefit we can get. Especially since my father already had open heart surgery and I have only one working parent.
SO universal healthcare can wait for now...
It's disheartening when we see how truly uninformed America is, especially middle America, where conservative media outlets, and right wing periodicals flood the area and tend to encompass all of the easily available information to people living in these areas. When you see people at rallies and town hall meetings questioning Obama's true nationality, and his religious beliefs, and his political beliefs, honestly I feel shamed and dissapointed.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with
What I am truly fearful of, however, is that in order to get this bill passed, senators will have to water the bill down in order to please those few senators theyll need to vote for the bill who are waffling. If we were to simply pass a "token" bill, that doesn't bring the amount of sweeping, widespread change we need, than I feel we will be to content with the bill as it is, and won't try to change it until once agains, our healthcare short-comings become as grossly evident and clear as they are now.
So let me give you a scenario...There is this one person at your school who has a contagious, but does not have health insurance. They cannot get the proper coverage and treatment that they need and are risking exposing the disease to everyone else. They come to school one day, and the disease passes and passes to everyone in the school. Some people have health insurance and easily can get their situation taken care of but others do not and continue to spread the disease on.
ReplyDeleteThis could have easily been corrected with universal health insurance. That one person could have gotten the cure and not risked spreading the disease but that was not the case. There is so many people in the United States that do not have health insurance that it is saddening. If you really think about it, not having health insurance is compromising your safety. It increases the odds that diseases and viruses can spread and get people infected. Yes, if you have private health insurance they you can go to the best hospitals and get the best treatment but life cannot be lived in a bubble and eventually you will catch something.
I completely agree with the idea of universal health insurance. Every single person on the world, deserves to be able to obtain the proper medical attention that they may need in the course of their life and this cannot be expected to happen unless everyone has health insurance. There is much opposition to universal health insurance though, some people believe that it will rise taxes and effect the wealthy who already have health insurance in a negative way. All of these arguments can be disputed because taxes increase are expected but its simulating something much more important. Also, people shouldn't be so self absorbed in themselves in this day and age. So what, if you are well off already think of others. A lot of people are less fortunate and don't have the basis necessities in life that are needed. What are we just supposed to forget that these people exist? No, help others. Pass universal health insurance and protect the future of the American people.
I agree with Paul Krugman. Although the short term consequences, like a slight rise in health costs, are a bit harsh, this is a great bill to be passed because the long term outcome is what's more important. As Mark McClellan declared, this “will reduce long-term deficits.” We are so caught up with the issues we see in front of us and are so afraid of change that we tend to forget about the long run.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Republicans are just concerned about money. However, this isn't the issue at hand. For a small price of losing a bit of money, everyone can gain universal health care. I think it's pretty low for the Republicans to attack this bill by aiming for the elderly.
"It would be a long time before anyone was willing to take on the challenge again; remember that after the failure of the Clinton effort, it was 16 years before the next try at health reform."
--As you can see, we are afraid of failing, but this shouldn't stop us from trying to make things better. If we don't pass this bill because we're afraid that it'll fail, then that's just sad. In turn, this will probably turn into an issue similar to that of the climate change; we won't take action until we're deep into our problems, or in this case, a "nasty debt crisis."
Universal Health care should be available for everyone. It would be very costly for Americans, as we would have to pay extra taxes and the government would definitely cut various fields of spending such as social security and education.
ReplyDeleteHealthy enviornments and healthy bodies go hand in hand. Having people go for regular check ups will show any symptoms earlier as well create less havoc in hospitals when people go only in case of an emergency.
Studies show that those without healthcare will normally not go to hospitals only when conditions are severe. This means that that costs are very expensive. Unviersal healthcare may even be a benefit for America because it allows us as a country to join t he other countries in "promoting" health. A country like ours can definitely afford. It should be essential for every American.
SY (Pd 2)
ReplyDeletePaul Krugman made an interesting debate, in
my opinion. I had a discussion with one of my friends some months ago, and she told me that she was against the health care plan. I asked why, and she told me that we would have to pay extra money for the foreign people we bring to America, like relatives in other countries. Who would pay for the increasing budget? We would, and taxes would rise. After she made that point, i was also somewhat reluctant to get the health care plan passed.
However, having read what Krugman wrote, it had changed my persepective on the health care issue. If we don't pass it now, it will be a long time when we're in a deeper mess, that we will try to get it passed again. By then, it would be too late. The money wouldnt be such a big problem as I thought it would be because the average American is healthy. It's only the older Americans that fear the price of health care, which is only going up. If we grant free health care to everyone, it would destory the fear of having to worry about paying for health care, and bring America one step closer together.
I can somewhat see where people's reservations about free healthcare come from. Although American healthcare cost is high, sometimes it is the most effective when it comes to serious medical issues. There are many people who come to the U.S for medical attention they cannot get elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Mr. Krugman's points. A generally uninsured population adds to the future Medicare/caid costs. The problems that are not cared for now will grow exponentially and can potentially turn into something that requires more money and resources to care for.
I feel like everyone should be insured, just because it makes sense. And if people can afford more expensive health care and wish to do so, they should be given that freedom to.
One of the main points of the health care bill is that the government will not pay for any treatment that is deemed unneccessary. In states such as California, where all seniors have health care, large amounts of money are being wasted because of unneccessary treatments and checkups. By having the ability to not pay for these costs, the government will be able to pressure Americans to not have unneccessary treatments or checkups.
ReplyDeleteThe main opposition comes from the "demagogues" who advocate against health care. They are able to spin the new health care bill as something unpatriotic and not democratic. People who still believe that things like communism and socialism are greatly influenced by those advocating against the bill. By giving free health care to all, it is seen as if Obama is trying to turn the country into a fascist, communist society. Many businesses are also fearful of the costs and lost of profits associated with change.
I agree that there should be a Universal Health Care System.I also think doedoepinkplilow's comment is exaggerated:it's not a matter of spending money for people who deliberately don't take care of their health , it's a matter of solidarity.At anytime anybody can have an accident and may suffer financially so a Health Care System is a sort of insurance. It's obvious that rich people will be in good shape because they can afford to, but not everybody can. There are seniors and poor people who can't pay hospital bills.I think Health Care is as important as Education.It's a way to create a society of equality and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteBut,all through the article the journalist points outs the fact that Health Care will be an economical burden for America,that people will have to pay more tax.It's clear that there will be benefits for poor people and disadvantages for those who have to pay more tax as Daniel said.But, I also think that it's better to use Americans' tax to work for the society providing public facilities, building schools , encouraging Education and Health Care than to use them to finance wars.
I truly believe that that it's impossible to have a perfect society but a society of opportunity that embodies the American dream is possible.Everybody should be able to live decently.
I also think Krugman is too pessimistic: a Health Care System is not fatality,he seems to be perfectly sure of that. This
article might frighten people.For instance, in France people contribute with their tax to finance the Social Security System and I don't think that is what gets the government
ruined.I think a Health Care system deserves a try in the US before being criticized.If everybody unites and thinks of what's good for everybody( not only personally ) things will be much better.People should remember America's precious such as solidarity, brotherhood and unity, it's the whole nation's battle to become better.
Lee says:
ReplyDeleteI have real problems with Krugman. Sure he has Nobel prize and perhaps that makes him bright but he writes a column on his own personal philosophy. He has no more expertise on whether we ought to redistribute than he does on how we should dig ditches. We should examine everything he says through the lens of he is a bright guy pontificating his person beliefs not that he is writing about something he knows more about than the average person. Just because health care is important does not mean we should have universal health. Shelter is important and the government should not pay our rent. Food is important and the government does not pay for our food.
I'll outline some thoughts: they are all interrelated so it hard to order them.
Our country is founded on going to work and paying for your essentials and using leftovers to purchase luxuries. I have no idea why we need to change the model now. We had a legendarily successful century with capitalism.
(0) I am not sure why you think "obviously it has to do with lobbies" even has meaning. Lobbies represent groups. The insurance industry and drug companies and doctors may all be hurt and you may not care about these groups, the people they employee both directly and indirectly or you may feel that these groups have too much influence. But then say "I think doctors despite their 82 years of school and their 100K+ insurance premiums" get paid too much or I think drug companies get paid too much for creating drug that merely save peoples lives. Don't bash lobbies; they are not the issue. Some groups that I would like to see hurt might get hurt like (anti-abortion groups if abortions were paid for which they won't be) but again lets say a nice feature is that abortions would be paid for.
(1) Healthcare is insanely expensive (see medicare and social security and is crippling our country) and I really object to this country increasing our debt (when we are currently in a crisis based on having too much debt). To me this is exactly the wrong time in history to create new massive entitlement programs.
(2) The idea that we can cover more people and pay less is a joke. (I mean if it were true why don't we give everyone 10 health plans and see if the bill on healthcare can be zero) The tax deductions that are going to be used to back this simply mean that the massive expense will need to be paid for in other ways. The billions to trillions of dollars of cost do not go away. It just means we have less revenue and more obligations. Simply this concept will add the largest new entitlement program since FDR and the Democrats actually claim it has a negative expense. I disagree with those who say it is worth the cost but that is a legitimate argument. It is being presented in a way that it just dishonest (far more of a lie than Bush and Iraq). Politician love to pay for things with tax deductions because the cost is hidden. It actually adds to inefficiency because we do not look at the purchase price when he decide to do things.
(3) Many people do not get healthcare in their jobs because their productivity is worth less than minimum wage plus healthcare. These people do not become more productive because the government mandates healthcare. It means certain jobs will not be done (low end people will lose their jobs, get fewer hours so the do not need to be covered or jobs will be outsource). When I was kid they always talked about how their was no incentive to work in the USSR because there is no way to advance and everything is already paid for -- well this is a giant step toward losing the Cold War.
Lee continued
ReplyDelete(4) The government has certain positives but efficiency (whether it is in healthcare, schools or the military is not one of them) There is no reason to think the government can provide healthcare cheaper than the private market. The government must decide what coverage they will and won't pay for. Whether advances in medicine and their increased cost will be covered. If we keep having advances, then costs will increase. Health insurance bankrupted the Big 3 automakers. Why go down the same path?
(5) The government can decide to pay doctors less (and watch them stop seeing medicaid patients), they can pay drug companies less (which also hurts employers, stock owners including pensions, pharmacies and ultimately patients if it leads to less R&D), they certainly will not encourage more people to see doctors and this will increase wait time to see a doctor -- far more damaging to a person like myself who can get sick but then want to see a doctor than has to worry about not getting health care. They want to tax high end plans so people with good coverage will get worse coverage (truly the insane result of searching for equality over quality.
Simply the number one effect of the plan will be that most people (5 in six people have insurance now) will pay more and get a worse product. Waiting times for 100% of Americans will be longer. Taxes for 100% of Americans will be higher. People who have high quality insurance (like teachers) will be considered luxury plans and will get banged again in taxes and eventually will have less coverage. I am always amazed when liberals (who want everyone to vote because they feel it will give their side more votes) react negatively to people who are against something that is not in their self interest). This stupid bill will pass but (1) wait time to get an appointment will increase significantly (2) taxes will increase (3) people with coverage now will on average have worse coverage.
(6) Even if we do this moronic idea, we could get some good by forcing certain expectations that we really want done anyway. We could have real tort reform now. It would actually make this country more efficient. Democrats will not ever do this because trial attorneys are in their pocket. We could decide that the government will not pay for future care of some type if it is too expensive (even if saves life). It seems likely that future life saving techniques could cost 250,000 per operation or more or $1000/ pill for the rest of ones life. We can make decisions now that could limit future costs. Of course no one wants to do that either. The government's insurance will probably be available to illegal aliens. We could require citizens to meet eligibility requirements for things that it is inexcusable for all Americans to not have done: high school diploma or enrollment in classes, citizenship, willingness to work, willingness to stay drug free, proof of filing taxes, proof of registering for the draft (male and female). But politician would prefer to tell us everything is free and we expect nothing in return. Perhaps that is why they have such a high approval rating.
In times such as these, Universal Health Care would get us out of the economic crisis we are in now. Compared with other countries in the world that have UHC, we spend at least double the amount on health care, if not more, although not everyone has health care. Therefore, by establishing UHC, we would cut these costs at least by half the amount. The downside to passing a UHC bill at this time is the rising of taxes. In a time where 1/8 people do not have a job, and the other 7/8 have suffered from cuts or are suffering from the rising costs of oil and other things, rising taxes would prove to be detrimental.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the debate over this issue is not over money, but over parties. This has become a Democrat vs. Republican debate where regardless of an individual's opinion on this issue, that individual will stay loyal to his or her party. This may be why people are losing faith in their government because it has become less and less about the people and more about contradicting one another and "winning" in the end.
-- Sarah Aly; Period 8
Le sujet de la sécurité sociale est un sujet assez délicat à mon avis. En effet, en tant que bénéficiaire du système français et donc de la sécurité sociale française, je me suis rarement posée la question de la légitimité de ce droit à une sécurité sociale.
ReplyDeleteEn effet, c'est depuis peu, en m'intéressant réellement à l'actualité et aux problèmes que rencontre aujourd'hui notre société que j'ai vraiment pris conscience du fonctionnement de l'Etat Français contrairement à d'autres.
En réfléchissant au problème j'en viens toujours à la même conclusion : il est normal de pouvoir se soigner, de bénéficier des soins adéquates en cas de maladies dès que l'on est citoyen, que l'on rempli ses devoirs de citoyens, que l'on travaille, que l'on paie ses impôts... Toutes ces choses de la vie quotidienne, tous nos apports à l'évolution de notre pays , tous nos efforts pour que la vie s'améliore et pour être en harmonie avec le monde dans lequel nous vivons, nous donne, de fait, selon moi, le droit d'être soigné, le jour où nous ne sommes pas en mesure de faire face à la vie.
Je trouve révoltant que des hommes, des femmes et des enfants meurent pour une question d'argent ou d'assurance maladie. Il y a peu, je travaillais sur un article concernant la sécurité sociale aux Etats Unis et il était question d'1 américain mourant toutes les 12 minutes faute d'argent et par conséquent de soins... Tout simplement choquant !!!!!!!
Certains avancent comme contre-argument la peur d'une chute de l'économie américaine...D'accord, mais d'autres domaines coutent tout aussi cher que la sécurité sociale, par exemple l'envoi de nouvelles troupes en Afghanistan.
Il faut faire certains choix dans la vie et peser le pour et le contre. Je pense qu'une personne qui travaille (cumulant parfois 2 emplois) devrait être en paix et envisager l'avenir avec sérénité et non pas avec la peur de tomber malade car la maladie pourrait renvoyer à la mort.
C'est aux personnes compétentes de mettre en place un système qui fonctionne et non pas à des citoyens innocents de payer la cupidité de certains...¨Même si le sujet n'est pas simple, c'est là le défi d'un empire comme les Etats Unis de relever ce défi avec intelligence mais surtout en pensant à l'avenir.
Joanna xxx
Health care system is a pretty difficult topic for me because i don't know exactly how it works in Usa. However, as Nisha said health care reform is more a matter of solidarity than a matter of money. Everyone even if you don't have a great job should have the possibility to have efficient cares. i had the same text than joanna and i was really surprised and shocked to learn that in a great economic power as usa every 12 minutes there's someone who die because of the health care system who is not well -organised , in this text (it was an article from the nyt) there was even the concrete case of a woman who died of a cancer because she couldn't have cares letting her 13 years old daughter. In my opinion trying to well- organised the health care system is totally normal and even legitimate so i was also shocked to see people marching against something that could be beneficial for all the society before the white house , describing the government suggestion of socialism. Fortunately we don't have this problem in France, even if the "sécurité sociale is not always well organised everyone can benefit from cares even people who don't work , and all other vulnerable people of the society thanks to the CMU ( couverture médicale universelle) the principe is based on the fact that those who work pay for those who don't even have a living- wage this is a principe of solidarity.
ReplyDeleteIt could seem strange as the two opinions are diverging but I agree both with Nisha and doedoepinkpillow. It is necessary to be realistic. What the government will spend in health care, it will take it back elsewhere. Otherwise, the threat to fall into a debt crisis will always exist.From this point universal health care seems to be an utopia. However, i cannot prevent myself from remembering Obama's speech about the modest people he met, saying blankly that no one should fall in bankrupcy to be healed. Moreover I reckon that no one gets ill on purpose... The strain created by this topic can be easily felt. On one side, we are not far from attempting to human rights if we consider that a health care for every one cannot be achieved. What if you dared to announce this to the modest people unable to afford a health care whereas they deserve like every human being to have a decent life? it looks like a natural selection in which only the young healthy people are allowed to survive. And then, who cares about elders? This would be shameful, now in the XXIst century whereas we are supposed to have reached some superior level of tolerance and progress about ethics.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, indeed, talking about an "universal health care" sounds like an utopic speech. I agreed with the point showing that all this would lead to a "socialized medicine". But i'm wondering if it would really be a bad thing to see a "socialized medecine". I admire the impressive efforts made by science to improve constantly the human condition. But I also know that science is a question of financial means too. It would truly be wonderful that people benefited of the same efficient health cares. And in a fair world, it should not only be a dream made by modest people while struggling to earn their living. I really tried not to be pessimistic about this matter but I realize that I remain sceptic. I can only say that I dare to hope that Obama's policy about health care will improve everybody's condition as regards health care. I dare to hope that his project about health care, although still complicated and misunderstood by people, will eventually reach some achievements.
je pense comme Johanna, selon moi il ne devrait pas y avoir de discriminations en matière de santé car tout etre humain doit assurer sa survie que se soit en mangant, travaillant ou ne soigant.
ReplyDeleteje trouve cela complètement ridicule que quelqu'un puisse etre pris en charge selon les 0 de son compte en banque.
je pense également qu'il y a dautres domaines qui demandent plus d'inversttisements telles les guerres , les écchanges.
Selon moi je gouvernement dépense plus en détruisant sa population en voulant toujours etre le premier en matière de technologie ect mais ne se rend pas compte que ces millions dépensés seraient bien plus utiles dans des domaines qui feraient progresser le pays de façon humaine c-a-d de s'assurer que tout le bonne ait plus ou moins une bonne santé , une bonne éducation pour former les futurs cerveaux du pays.
Je trouve que l'argument selon lequel l'économie dimunurait ne tient pas la route car si il ya a des millions de personnes qui meurent qui travaillera pour faire avancer cette économie s'il n'y a plus de consommateurs?
C'est pour cela que je dirai que la question de savoir qui a droit ou pas à la sécurité sociale n'est pas valable le gouvernement doit s'assurer du bien etre de sa population et cela passe en premier par l'égalité dans tous les domaines.
This is Cindy
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the health care plan ; indeed , I think that the society , in particular the American society can' t let the poorest people hang back.
I believe that, in our modern society , everybody has to be in a position to benefit from health care if he needs . In fact, they work to have a decent life , and to have good living conditions , so , that's why I think that it is perfectly normal that people receive help in order to pay their medecines ;Moreover, people have the duty to pay their taxes ,various and different taxes such as income taxes , and local taxes ,consequently , I ask me why they must pay out all this money ?? Of course , we have to pay attention to the economy , mainly to our economic system in order to preserve our jobs ,and our wealth; and as said a Simon' friend , nobody would like our money to be given to all these immigrants who only want to have the best social situation and who don't do anything to deserve it ;And also , I really believe that we have to know what is the more important !so, must we follow living in the best conditions , forgetting the poorest or must we help the poorest taking the risk to give money to these impostors ? Personnally , I choose the second solution !
But , in reality , I think that the government has to make good decisions not only to protect our money from the impostors , but also to protect it from the crisis !! we haven't the right to deprive or abandon people who are in need , but we can't let our money waste !
As a conclusion, the equality and the right to the health care are values and rights that we have to defend and protect above all because we don't know when we can find ourselves in a bad and difficult situation.
I choose to express myself about this topic because in my opinion , Health Care in the United States and not only , is a very important subject .
ReplyDeleteI'm also happy that in America some politicians begin to raise the problem of Health Care because I really thought that this issue would stay like that for many other decades . Now I'm a little more hopefull, even if anything has been voted .
In my opinion ,the American society should pass the Health Care system because it's a very good way for me to reduce inequalities and to constitute a more fair society . In fact, all the Americans can't afford health care because of their insufficient income ,what creates considerable disparities .And I think it's inhuman and revolting to let people die just because they can't afford an insurance . I think the government has to take care of the most deprived people and take his responsabilities because the rôle of a government is to improve his citizen's living conditions . In my opinion Health Care should be a right because all the Americans are ,before all, citizens and as every citizen in every country they have rights . Furthemore if the American government doesn't help the poorest people , who will do it ? That's why I think as the journalist that Health Care should be universal . On the one hand I don't agree with doedoepinkpillow when he says universal health care shouldn't exist because today we haven't a better solution to face with this issue which concern million of Americans , but on the other hand I think he isn't completely wrong when he says that health care won't be free because ,for these cares Americans will have to pay taxes, and in my opinion that is a true abberation , because you can't ask poor people to pay taxes whereas they can't afford health care ; Consequently the only solution would be and will be make the richest people pay these taxes ,what may creates tensions between both categories of people . I 'm not really satisfied of this solution , but for the moment it's much better than let people die because they haven't enough money .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree agree with Mr. Krugman. America should adopt universal health care because it is the right of all people to have a guarantee that they will be treated if they get sick and that money would not be an issue. With regards to the economy, I think it is more important to keep Americans safe before thinking of ways to protect an economy that is already deteriorating. In the long run universal health care may protect boost the economy because there would more more circulation of money due to an increase in tax on Americans.
ReplyDeleteNushra P. pd 2
I think that healthcare system is a really hard subject for us because living in France we didn't really have to think about theses problems. Moreover, I think that everybody should be able to go to hospital, or have a right retirement and so on even if they're not rich. In my opinion, people shouldn't have to DIE because they can't look after themselves.At the top of this I do think that indeed the american economy is detoriating BUT I'm just wondering why still send people in a war in Irak that costs so much and after claim that healthcare system or reforms for the environement would the american economy. I think the "economic " is about every single country and that even here in the small countries we feel it, but I will also argue that it takes part of a democracy to assure people'safe and good living. If you're not able to take care of yourself if you get sick, how could you be able to be interesting into politics and so on? My point to conclude, is that what Joanna said about people who died every 12 minutes it's shoking and should make people realize (even if it's already done, because we now speak of healthcare system reform), but act.
ReplyDeleteOceane said:
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting article in Le Monde which explains all the aspects of the Health care reform issue, in french (http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2009/08/21/etats-unis-une-reforme-de-la-sante-qui-passe-mal_1230857_3222.html).
American's health care system is the most expensive in the world, and American people spend more on health care then in other countries. That's whay Obama works on his policy, trying to give a coverage to more than 94% of the population and save up more 2 000 billion of dollar in 10 years.
However, opposition against the reform is real.
Health care limits are shady, and the opponents pretext it to show Obama doesn't really control the issue. That's why he is obligated to organize some meeting, trying to break up opponent's policy.
Moreover, Republican'arguments is to denunciate the reform as a "socialized medicine", until reach the "Godwin Point" and compare him with Hitler (that 's obviously make no sense ! ! ).
Je partage complètement l'opinion de Joanna. Il est clair que la médecine et les soins ne peuvent pas êter prodigués gratuitement et à tour de bras, cependant, leur accès doit être abordable pour tous, selon les besoins. En prépa, on a peur de tomber malade et manquer des cours trop longtemps ; en Amérique, on a peur d'être malade parce qu'on peut tout perdre, parce qu'on peut mourir faute d'argent !
Je pense que l'on vit dans une société "speed", où tout va vite, où il faut être sur tout les fronts en même temps pour mener sa vie du mieux possible. Savoir que si on tombe malade, on peut être soigné, est déjà un confort qui permet d'aborder la vie plus sereinement (je parle de la prise en charge des soins, pas de la gravité de la maladie en elle-même).
I think Paul's idea about universal healthcare is very interesting. Universal healthcare will help the people with better benefits and care for the sick. He also states if we dont pass it now no one will be able to bring about this issue again. However, is passing the bill going to make the mass better or just going to "motivate" the mass to not take care of themselves. To say motivate i mean not caring about ones health as much as they did when they didnt have healthcare plan.
ReplyDeleteBut more and more i believe people should get involved rather than arguing over the issue.
-d.c pd 2