I agree with the first sentence. As to the second, we elect officials to represent our interests. They in turn vote on laws that affect how we organize society. Of course, this ideal breaks down all the time, as elected officials are influenced by powerful corporations and lobbying groups, so that legislation is often not the will of the people, but the best for corporations.Back to the first sentence, in the case of health care, the current system is leaving 50 million people without health insurance. Many people cannot get insurance because of a preexisting condition. Charity is great, but we have that as a voluntary option now, and that is not solving the current crisis in health care. Individual donations do not allow the uninsured to go to primary care doctors or dentists on a regular basis, or to pay for prescriptions over the long term. People who get very sick and don't have insurance rack up bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and private charity simply can't cover all of that. As a country, we can decide to reform the current system in order to save money for everyone, both the insured and uninsured.
Kara, Congrats on starting your first week of grad school! Hope you're enjoying it!People already know how I feel about this particular subject... (to lower the actual costs of health care, we need to increase competition among providers AND insurers through price transparency and separating the "getting your health insurance through your work" standard) so I'll leave the debate to others.I agree that the federal government could reform the current system and in doing so, COULD give more people better care for less money than is currently being spent (if you somehow protect the system from corporate/government fraud/mishandling which I have little to no faith in.)But, I not only believe there is a better way (above), I also believe the constitution does not give the Fed any right to intervene in such a way.
Post a Comment