So, as a practice to what I'll ask you to do at various times during the year, I'm asking you to post a response to this blog entry with your thoughts. Normally, these will be graded, but this time it will not be. But before you do anything, some historical perspective. Visit this link first. Then do your own research.
What do you think about the varied historical attempts to provide people with health care? Limit your response to a paragraph...and let's not get personal. This is history class, after all, not a chance to deride others.
~Gus
17 comments:
I find it interesting that people have been pushing affordable, universal health care for decades, bu it keeps being blocked. I don't really understand why people get so up in arms about certain pieces of legislation. It's not like forcing everyone to buy health insurance, or not, will destroy the country, unless I'm missing something. I mean, Massachusetts has had "Romneycare" for a while and we haven't become a totalitarian dictatorship, as far as I can tell. What part of this debate am I missing? I know that "Obamacare" being upheld as a tax is important, but I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, made it such a hotbed of debate in the first place. I guess I must be overlooking something important.
Well, that destroys my chances of becoming the dictator of Massachusetts! And you are missing something....remember back to "The Dinner" in our book Founding Brothers?
Universal healthcare, in my opinion, has never been seriously considered in this country up until now. That's because America has always been a country that has been more about personal economic gain than it has been about social equality and fairness. That's simply the way the country works, and people have gotten used to it. Now that there is reform, people who have historically been in a position of privilege are now opposing the bill because it would mean losing some of their economic power (the money for healthcare has got to come from somewhere) and social position. In the end, the argument over U.H. has never really been about government interference. It's been about whether or not certain people can maintain their social prestige without losing too many of the gains that they have made. Seeing this new health care reform bill indicates a shift in the American way of thinking. In my opinion, it's for the better.
I'm curious, Andre, if your time on the Continent gave you a different perspective of American health care or the European models of health care?
I believe the new health care plan is a good thing for the country. For a long time our country has been struggling with providing citizens with affordable and quality health care. For example during the Bill Clinton presidency the first lady, Hilary Clinton was working towards a health care bill but was quickly shot down. There has also been a problem with health care companies refusing to cover certain patients who have preexisting health issues. Under Obama's new plan, this will no longer be allowed. Part of Obama's plan is that every U.S. citizen who is above the poverty line is required to have health insurance and for people who are below the poverty line there most likely will be government/state-provided health care. To wrap it up, Obama's plan will make health care more affordable and available for Americans.
I completely agree with Rebecca. This is America...the least we could do is help our citizens when they are sick or injured. In my opinion medical care should never be a luxury it should be a right to every person in this country. Having required or government provided health insurance will make health care more affordable and accessibble to all. Some people argue that socialized medical care causes huge waits and this is true in certain situations but, Obamas plan is simply for required health insurance so the waits for medical services wouldn't happen and I really don't see what's so wrong with it.
I thought it was really interesting to see how much progress we've made in health care since the early 1900's but also to see how quickly, and where, improvement stopped. Americans seem fine taking small steps such as creating a maternity leave and making sure there's no racial discrimination in hospital access, but as soon as a bill offering national help to everyone is made people become more hesitant. The opposition to these more national bills are based off the same issue our country has faced for centuries now, federal government involvement. The Republicans in Congress feel that the government should not be able to force people to buy something even if it is for their own benefit. These opinions fit perfectly into the old anti-Federalist view which makes me think that that is the underlying problem. I think that as long as Congress is arguing over a topic that involves federal government interference there's going to be a struggle. In the end I believe having a National Health Care plan is more beneficial than detrimental for the United States but what it comes down to in Congress is which party has the majority at voting time.
Throughout history various bills have been proposed in an attempt to extend medical coverage to all Americans with mixed results. We had success in passing the bills extending coverage to some poor and elderly as well as children however any serious attempt at passing a truly universal health care bill is always met with a lot of opposition. Health care industry in this country is a “for profit” industry. The goal of the insurance companies is not to take care of patients but to make money by providing care in such a way that they make profit. Because of that, a lot of money is poured into the lobbying in order to prevent the passage of any bills which may threaten their profits. Another source of opposition comes from individual states asserting their power to maintain independence in this matter believing that it should remain outside the power of the Federal Government. Although many industrialized countries have universal medical coverage that is very successful, for some reason in this country people are afraid that the quality of the care may go or that there might be extended wait time to receive the needed care.
Universal health care has been put off for these reasons among others. Although I understand why someone might be against health reform I believe that health care shouldn't be a privilege but a basic right for all Americans.
Shayna; An excellent comparison to the Federalist/Anti-federalist debates of the late 18th century. Certainly it is hard to reach consensus on such a large issue. One should be impressed when encountering such a unanimity of opinion that actually leads to systemic changes.
Yello, sorry for not getting to this earlier...I've been away for about a month. Anyways my take on the ACA (considering I haven't been following the issue extrememly closely but certainly watching for afar) is that MANY (or even MOST) who are opposed to the idea of Affordable Care are not opposed to it because of the actual legislational changes. I propose that the average citizen who opposes the bill is not fully away of the bill's logistics. These people simply pick up on nicknames such as "obamacare" and immediately form a negative opinion about it.
Whenever the US tries to do anything that creates a "larger government" the whole idea becomes "socialism" and opposition groups become enormous. And just like the term "socialism", "obamacare" is picked up on by many less-informed voters and is given the "no" right off the bat. -Nate M.P.
For decades many political leaders and healthcare advocates pushed for affordable healthcare for all Americans. It has been a long uphill battle, which resulted in the Universal Health Care passing. This now means every American has the option to receive proper care and at the same time not sink in debt from health care bills. But as a country we need to ask how do we fund the health care for those who can’t pay for it? Without question, everyone deserves healthcare. Now our government has to figure out effective ways to monitor and manage Universal Health Care and most importantly fund health care without increasing our already growing national debt.
In my opinion, when people talk about the government's role in health care, they don't always think about what it means. They tend to think about whether the presidential candidate whom they support, also supports Affordable Care. This leads to the question, what makes the government leaders oppose or support health care? I believe it should go without saying that every American citizen deserves, not only a right to health care, but a right to quality health care, so I can see where those who support it are coming from. What I can't understand is that the only reasons I can see for not providing this, are based on race, religion (contraception and abortion), or people who have the money to cover it not willing to pay for it; all of which don't make any sense to me. I don't know why this is such a strong topic, especially between Democrats and Republicans but it seems like it started out as personal preferences within Congress about the role of government in this issue, and has evolved into a battle between the two parties.I think that many citizens who can't afford quality health care, all look to the government to help them because it feels a national community where we all help each other. In addition I find it interesting that the people who can afford possibly the best quality health care, generally, aren't willing to do anything about those who can't afford it.
Hello...sorry for not getting to this earlier
ACA seems to get its oppponents from people who are not considering the act enough. People immediately shrug it off because the idea is a bit overwhelming because of its supposed vast change in America. Whenever a large change is proposed in America there seems to always be objections based upon the amount of difference or change it will make. The rumors that people will get less strong coverage and that getting into the doctors office will be much harder don't sound very logical and seem like an instant reaction without understanding the entirety of the act. That being said, there are people against the bill who have very logical reasoning and it makes sense for them to maybe not to have health insurance or they don't prioritize health insurance as something very important with the money they have.
Overall i understand how there can be much objection to the act as it forces people to get health insurance but I think its a solid idea and could help many people in the near future.
Throughout all the varied attempts to provide people with health care throughout many decades it seems now there is finally a heath care system that extends to children's health along with the elderly and the adults who have high income jobs who can afford it. But it is sad to see that we as Americans, who have built our country on the idea of equality can not enact a plausible bill to provide everyone in America with health isurance. Many people who are employed receive a health care plan from their jobs but in the past few years, as unemployment numbers have increased people with a liable health care plan have decreased. It is nice to see that people in the Military and all members of Congress along with their families are covered under a health care plan, but I think we also need to think about the poor families and the ones truly in need of health care. I went through the timeline on the link you provided and it seems presidents in the past have tried to enable more access to health care systems to help Americans establish secure health insurance for themselves as well as their families. It seems to me that the "Obamacare" system will be helpful to all Americans asside from the high expense in taxes. But Americans have always delt with paying large taxes and if your money is truly going to someone who deserves health care because they are sick with a heart disease or diabetes, why should it make people so angry?
I think that this new health care plan is good for many citizens in this country. For many years, politicians like Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Hilary Clinton, and Barack Obama have been struggling to introduce a system of Universal Health Care in this country, but they have always been shot down. People in the United States have been denied Health Care because of preexisting medical conditions, which is not fair. Things like this will not happen under Universal Health Care. Many people disagree with this plan because they believe it will lead to tax increases, but providing health care for Americans will decrease personal cost of healthcare for those who wait to see a physician until they are chronically ill, and have to seek much more expensive medical attention.
Post a Comment