The debate over universal health insurance has been the talk of the town recently, thanks to the elections. Should we adopt this type of plan or not? Everyone is at odds over the situation.
Massachusetts is a prime example used by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama to encourage the idea of universal health care. According to an article in The New York Times, written by Kevin Sack, "Massachusetts reduced its proportion of uninsured adults by nearly half in the first year of manadatory health coverage and made gains in the share of people recieving routine preventive care." Employers are offering employers more benefits, and everyone is realizing that health care is important.
Now this all sounds fine and dandy, but it does come with some negative effects. The most obvious one being cost. How can the U.S. afford to support a program that covers the costs of health care for the low-income and poverty-stricken families? The government always turns to taxes. Sure, tax the wealthy people that can afford to pay, but is that really an ethical solution? Okay, now everyone has insurance, but what about the supply of doctors? There are currently not enough doctors to see all these patients in a timely manner, which forces some patients to resort to the emergency room. And once again, health care costs rise.
Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of giving all Americans equal access to healthcare, but I feel at this point in time, the U.S. is not stable enough for this. We need to rethink our strategy before jumping in and starting a domino effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment