For this assignment you will be looking at some information on a website as well as watching two different short video clips. Click on the title of the post above ('Federalism & Health Care') to go to a website which presents some basic information about the issues involved in the Health Care debate, as well as some arguments for and against the law. Read through those 'pros and cons,' and I encourage you to watch some of the video clips or click on some of the PDF links, as well, for statistical data and other additional information. After looking at the pros and cons, consider the following questions:
- Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you AGREE the most strongly? Why?
- Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you DISAGREE the most strongly? Why?
- I realize the Health Care bill is a very complex and confusing thing and you may not feel like you know a lot about it (I freely admit to not completely understanding it myself), but based on what you've read and what you've heard, what are your general thoughts about this law, or in a larger sense, about the role of the federal government in providing access to health care for its citizens?
You're also going to watch a couple of video clips by clicking on the links below. The first is a Fox News interview with Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia who, on behalf of his state, is suing the federal government over the health care law, claiming it is unconstitutional. The second clip is an MSNBC interview with Thurbert Baker, the Attorney General of Georgia, who completely disagrees with Mr. Cuccinelli and therefore is not taking part in the lawsuit being brought by several states against the federal government.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4300526/virginia-ag-on-health-care-lawsuit-ruling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJq8kSumsA
The main issue is the so-called "individual mandate," which requires that all Americans buy health insurance, just like how you're supposed to have auto insurance if you drive a car. There are other controversial parts of the law, but this is the provision that's getting the most attention; the question is: does Congress' power to "regulate commerce" include a power to regulate a "lack of commerce?" In other words, can the government force a person to engage in commerce (buying insurance) if the person hasn't already done so?
I realize that these and other legal points made in the interviews may be confusing, but I think several of the issues or concepts that were brought up should have sounded familiar, so let's keep the questions relatively simple and straightforward:
- What terms or concepts did you hear in either video clip that sounded familiar based on what we've been discussing in class for the past week or so?
- Who do you think made the better argument, Mr. Cuccinelli ("the law is unconstitutional") or Mr. Baker ("the law is constitutional")? Why do you say this?
Your TWO (2) comments on this topic must be posted by 11:59 PM Pacific Time on Tuesday, February 22. Your 1st post should simply be your responses to the questions I've posed after looking at the 'pros and cons' website and watching the videos. The 2nd post should be a response/agreement/disagreement to one of your classmates' comments. Please be sure that all your comments are appropriate and respectful; you can criticize someone else's ideas or arguments, but any sort of personal attacks will not be tolerated. Good luck and have fun--I look forward to reading your comments! --Silvy :)
I most strongly agreed with a argument in favor of the right to health care. The fifth argument on the list given in the article states that by providing health care to all U.S. citizens, Americans will be encouraged to get regular check ups and exams. The overall cost of these check ups would be less than if the patient waited until a serious injury or became chronically ill. Thus, health care costs would decrease. I felt this argument was quite logical. I most strongly disagreed with the argument against the right to health care that simply stated that many Americans do not take proper measures to manage their health. Although I agree that, to an extent, it is an individual's responsibility to manage their health, this does not serve as a basis for why all Americans should not be guaranteed the right to health care. It is almost like punishing a whole classroom due to one student's misbehavior. Many Americans do suffer from diseases or injuries that cannot be prevented. Therefore we should not assume that everyone should have personal responsibility for their state of health. I felt that both sides of the debate made logical arguments. However, I think that the federal government should either take full responsibility for nation wide health care, or it should be left completely up to our free market economy, with little government interference. After watching the clips of the Attorney Generals of Virginia and Georgia, I felt that Ken Cuccinelli made a stronger argument than Thurbert Baker. Whereas Thurbert Baker simply stated that after some research of the bill and the Constitution, he couldn't really find anything wrong with the individual mandate, Cuccinelli made stronger, more concrete arguments and even included points concerning "liberty." Thus he appealed more to the emotions of the audience. Within both clips I heard the Attorney Generals mention the commerce clause, the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 and Judge Bolton, and the supremacy clause.
ReplyDeleteOf all the arguments given on either side, I agree most with the fourth con which talked about how it is the individual’s , not the government’s, job to ensure personal health. You choose the way you live and what you eat. Your health comes from those decisions, but I do understand certain exceptions to this because some people have illness that is hereditary, and some that come unannounced. But for the most part, we choose the way we live and it isn’t the government’s job to take care of us if we brought unhealthiness upon us.
ReplyDeleteOf all the arguments given on either side, I disagree with the sixth pro which talked about if everyone had health care, then they will live longer and be able to contribute more economically. This specific pro reminds me of the Lopez vs Us court case dealing with the commerce clause. I feel like this is sort of just another forced excuse. It makes sense, but even with them living longer, this bill will make them pay for other’s insurance, when they have been working their entire lives for it.
Overall, I am against the bill. I have grown up in a military family and have discussed this bill much with family and friends. I don’t think it is fair to those who have to work their butts off for what ever amount of years, to gain great medical care through working, to have to pay for others that decided not to get a job, or not carry insurance. People get jobs to provide for their families and make sure they are cared for, but what makes it right for the federal government to promote this bill and make people who have worked hard, pay for those who haven’t. Another reason I don’t like this bill is because I have also grown up with a mother who is a real estate broker, and her hard work and devotion to selling houses, is going to get cut off more pay because 3.2%, or something around there, is being cut to pay for this bill. I just don’t like those who have worked hard get the short end of the stick with this bill.
The terms and concepts that sounded familiar during the video were the commerce clause, the taxing power of the Supreme Court, and how the ruling was that the federal government should’t have the power to do this, but it should be the courts who decides the fate. Also, the New Deal was brought up, as well as federalism in general.
I think that Mr. Cuccinelli made a better argument compared to Mr. Baker because he brought up more valid points with how the system works, who has the power , and the clauses that will have to be looked at to see if this bill is unconstitutional or not. Mr. Baker, although he barely got a word in with the reporter, was relating back to the interstate commerce clause that gave more expansive powers, which he is using to defend himself. He is repeating the idea of this to show that Congress has the right to do what they are doing. Mr. Cuccinelli was proving how it needs to be looked over through various clauses and people to get the right decision.
The argument I most strongly agree with is number four on the cons side: It is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, cancer, stroke, and diabetes can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles. I agree with this because even with the governments duty to protect the citizens from a foreign threat, it is also, if not more importantly, the citizen's responsibility to protect themselves whenever possible. We know the risks involved with what we put into our bodies by the time that we truly need Health Care. I disagree most strongly with number seven on the pros side: Lacking health care can lead people to suffer from anxiety, depression, sickness, and stress, and other symptoms that affect not only individuals, but families and communities of that individual as well, because I cannot see a correlation between Health Care preventing any of these "symptoms" besides sickness. Almost every American suffers from stress, anxiety, or depression.
ReplyDeleteSome familiar terms from the clips were the commerce clause, the supremacy clause, and federalism in general. I think that Mr. Cuccinelli made the better argument because he had reviewed the bill, and made the arguments that it was simply wrong for the states to pass.
I agree most with the fourth and fifth con because I think that to some extent, being healthy is related to personal choices. Of course there are some instants of illness you can't prevent, however, there are also many that you can prevent. For example, you can chose to smoke which may lead you to suffer from lung cancer. So now, why should other people have to pay more taxes for someone's lung treatment when that person knew the risk they were taking when they smoked? Also, the government should not be able to force the people to be a consumer. This would take away from the idea of being a free market economy. I believe it would be better if rather than forcing people by law to buy health insurance, if instead to make it an incentive to buy it by lowering the costs. One way to make the insurance cheaper is to open more medical schools and therefore have more people studying to be doctors. This would make jobs of being a doctor more competitive so their service costs would go down. Another way to lower costs would be to have insurance companies be national rather than individual state companies. This would allow someone to have one insurance company there whole life, even if they move, instead of having to switch policies costing them more money. The only way to allow this kind of policy though would be if buying health insurance was done personally rather than being regulated by an employer's policy. If the government could make health insurance cheaper, then more people would buy it because they chose to, not because the law forces them to. I disagree most (or think it is a weak argument) with the seventh pro because the way I'm interpreting it, is that people get stressed out and depressed if they don't have health insurance. Honestly, if it's that big of a deal that you don't have coverage, then that's a personal budgeting issue that you would need to manage yourself by handling your money in a way you feel more comfortable with. I think Mr. Baker's argument was weaker than Mr. Cuccinelli's because for the majority of his response he would only restate that he didn't see anything unconstitutional with the law. I think his argument would have been better if he had stated the argument of why the law may be seen as unconstitutional and then give his opinion as to prove why the law was constitutional. I think Mr. Cuccinelli's was stronger because he was able to answer questions that involved what was happening now and what possible outcomes could be. Terms and ideas I recognized were the issue of the federal government's power and the commerce clause.
ReplyDeleteCLOE MOCTEZUMA
ReplyDeleteOut of all the arguments listed on both sides, I, surprisingly, agree most with a point made on the ‘Cons’ side. The point that I agreed with most was the point that by making health care a part of the national budget, it will only be further spending, which will increase the federal deficit. Now, all other components of the deficit aside, I believe that the government should be doing everything within their power to reduce our national debt without worsening the conditions of the public by taking away programs that ensure safety. And yes, having a health care program would increase public safety, but I don’t think our government should be spending money that they don’t have. If we can’t, they shouldn’t. To me, that’s the bottom line.
The argument that I most disagreed with was also on the ‘Cons’ list. I disagreed with the claim that an individual is wholly responsible for their health condition. I do not disagree because I think this is entirely false. In fact, I believe that a person is mostly responsible for their medical condition. However, there are illnesses that are simply genetic or that occur because of an unknown exposure to dangerous materials. Also, airborne and contact illnesses are almost unavoidable in everyday life. The factor of genetics and good old change are way too crucial in the final outcome of an individual’s health for the anti-health care bill to be making this claim. Yes, people are responsible for treating their bodies kindly, but one’s environment can cause an individual harm, sometimes without their knowledge.
I am very conflicted by my thoughts regarding health care reform. On one hand, I believe that the pharmaceutical companies are like well-oiled vending machines that steal your money. I think that they have too much power to price treatment drugs at any price they wish. They are the quintessential example of good intention poisoned by the sign of the dollar. It would be a lovely reality in which people could buy the drugs to care for themselves at reasonable prices. The idea that in individual wouldn’t even have to worry about having the money to care for them-self makes me extremely happy. It feels just. However, on the other hand, I don’t think that we can move forward until all parts of the system move forward. Increasing taxes and increasing the deficit by implementing this program before the country is fiscally prepared wouldn’t be doing the American people justice. I don’t think that we can get out of the hole only by digging deeper. I don’t know if I would consider the health care bill constitutional or unconstitutional. To be honest, I feel that the interpretation could be either, but I’m no expert. I think that the founding fathers of this country intended for the words in the constitution to prevent the government from taking the lives of its citizens without an entirely justified cause. But of course, like everything else, interpretation shifts with the age. I don’t believe that it was the Framer’s intention for the government to provide health for its citizens. But it’s entirely possible that if they lived in these times, they would see fit for the health care bill to be passed. Anyway, I don’t have a fully formed opinion on the bill, but I would definitely be in support of more pharmaceutical company regulations.
~ Sorry about the name. I created this account a long time ago and there wasn't an option for me to write my name. =[
[Sorry, I didn't realize that the two different sections of questions were supposed to be in the same comment!]
ReplyDeleteIn the video clips, I recognized the terms “commerce/interstate commerce clause,” “taxing power of the Supreme Court,” “the New Deal,” “federalism,” “power of the federal government,” “Constitution/constitutional,” and “impeachable,” “Congress,” “the supremacy clause,” and “Medicaid.”
Although I respect the way that Mr. Baker handled his opinion, I almost was bored listening to him speak. He didn’t really say what specifically in his research made him decide that the law wasn’t unconstitutional. He just kept repeating himself and saying that is was within Congress’ jurisdiction to deal with the health care bill because it was apropos to interstate commerce. Although I would tend to agree with his point of view, he didn’t make a convincing argument. So overall, I’d have to say that I thought Mr. Cuccinelli better supported his opinion with hard evidence. He explained his opinion and provided scenarios to back them up.
Out of all the pro's and con's, the idea that I agree with most is the idea that all Americans should have the right to health care as stated in all of the pro's. Most other developed countries are blessed with universal health care, and for all of America's stand out features, health care is not one of them. America co-owns the title of highest infant mortality rate with Hungary and Slovakia, and is 31st when it comes to life expectancy. Also, Americans are blessed with the concept of having "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence. And with this health care bill, American's own the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", because the right to health is beneficial to all three aspects of said phrase. Another pro for health care that I agree with is the idea that it promotes entrepreneurship. It does so by giving people who want to start their own business, health care, without the fear of not being able to afford it.
ReplyDeleteThe argument on either side that I disagree with most is that "If health care is considered a right, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and doctor to decide." This seems outlandish to me as does the argument that the quality of care provided will decrease. Doctors take their jobs knowing that they must supply aid to the best of their abilities. To suggest that their care would decrease because everyone would be available to it is a little ridiculous.
My general thought on this law is that it should be a right of all citizens to obtain health care. I believe that it would make the United States a healthier nation, and it would help cover people who couldn't afford it before. I believe that because the United States isn't a healthier nation based on the people's own care, that the Federal government should have a role in providing health care. Also, the idea that no one should be entitled to Health Care and that it is a material good, seems crazy to me. That goes against the idea of man's sovereign rights as a citizen of this country.
The terms and concepts that I recognized from both videos were the Commerce clause/interstate commerce clause, the Supremacy clause, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act and Accommodation clause, and Mr. Cuccinelli briefly mentioned Judge Bolton's decision in Immigration law regards.
I agree more with Mr. Baker then I do Mr. Cuccinelli. Although Mr. Cuccinelli made some good points for why it is unconstitutional, I believe that Mr. Baker's ground for being constitutional was more secure. I believe this because his arguments for the constitutionality of Health Care seemed to come from a more level grounded approach rather then Mr. Cuccinelli, who seemed to exercise his political beliefs more then anything.
I think that this topic is a very important one in our country because, as stated in the article, the United States is one of the few out of all the developed countries that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. I agree most strongly with the 5th pro argument which basically states that we should have health care so that people can receive regular and preventive medical care and not wait until they are chronically sick to seek treatment when medical costs are higher. This makes a lot of sense because the costs of treating chronically ill patients are exremely high, and can somewhat be avoided if the person was able to receive treatment on a regular basis. When people have some access to health care, they live longer lives. Therefore, they can also contribute to society for a longer time. However, the health care provided on a regular basis should cover necessary appointments and procedures only.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I most strongly disagree with is the 7th con argument, which argues that providing a right to health care is bad for economic productivity because it is a form of charity, and distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity. I find this argument completely false. I think that people would work more and become less lazy if they know they are protected and have health care if something bad were to happen. The United States is often at the top when compared to other developed countries in economic categories. However, Americans have relatively poor health compared to people of these other nations. Americans who are healthy can contribute more to the economy and strive for excellence knowing that they will live longer with sufficient health care.
My thought is that health care should be a right of all American citizens. The videos mention that the interstate commerce clause can be broadly interpreted to make people buy health care. However, I feel that America is a country that should provide health care not only because it is mentioned in the Constitution, but also because it will reduce costs and contribute to a better economy as a whole. In the videos, they made use of the Supremacy Clause, the New Deal, and the SB1070 Arizona Immigration Law. I also think that we should take action on this issue soon because ignoring the problem does not aid the health care woes. Mr. Cuccinelli had a stronger argument by basing it on previous laws and incorporating looks for the future, saying it needs to be reviewed quite thoroughly in order to come to a conclusion.
For me, it is very important that all Americans have access to health care. An issue that wasn’t specifically mentioned, but is my main argument, is that it may help to prevent emergency room visits. My brother, Charlie, has a compromised immune system, and my family and I have spent quite a lot of time in the local Children’s ER. Charlie has homecare nursing, so if we’re forced to go to the hospital, he normally is extremely ill. Often, the kids preventing my brother from immediate medical attention are there because they lacked preventative care—for example, they had an infection and never got an antibiotic, so it now has escalated to critical condition, or a child with asthma needs to go to the ER because they cannot afford medication otherwise. In order to make the ER more efficient, it would be helpful to give people access to affordable preventative care via health insurance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don’t necessarily believe it should be mandated. There are economic reasons where it is cheaper for some people to go without health care, especially if they are not at risk. I think that, like car insurance, it is a useful precaution to take, it is also not the governments place to enforce it.
Article I Section XIII of the Constitution, however, does state that, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...” In essence, the government may provide for the “welfare” or health of its citizens. This duty of Congress makes it even more ethical that the government provide a source of healthcare to its citizens.
Per above, the debate does entail “federalism,” as mentioned in both clips. Does providing health care interfere with the states? I think that it is a parallel with the government’s provision of education. The states have some control, but it is government mandated. If I were to construct my own bill, I believe that having the health care issue become a “concurrent” power would be the most Constitutional way of providing a service that would be unethical to forgo.
I agree with CJ in that the people who are working hard to provide for their families and therefore can afford insurance now have to pay towards others, too. Not to say that people who don't have coverage aren't working hard or anything, but maybe they just didn't plan well enough or manage their money in a way that they could provide insurance; it's hard to say though because every family's situation is unique.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think that the government had the right idea at mind in trying to take care of the less fortunate; however, I don't think this law is the right way to do it because it also takes away from wealthier families, too. I also think the government shouldn't be able to force anyone into consumerism and that insurance should be an option. It would be better if the government could regulate health insurance companies more and reform them in a way so that they would be more available for the families that can't afford it. Looking at and changing the health insurance companies may lead to a solution that more people would see as fair. I am glad we are considering this issue and are trying to solve it, but I don't think this law is the best we can do. I think the government needs to look at more options before settling on this law.
First of all I must say right off the bat that I am in favor of health care for every citizen of the country. I believe that when thirty some odd million people in a country do not have health care that it gets to a point where it really doesn't become the people's fault that they don't have it and it develops into a federal issue. The reasons why those people don't have health care could be vastly different going from person to person, however I am sure you would find the most likely reason is because the people simply can't afford it. Now, why is the health care so expensive to the point where these people can't afford it? And it is pretty easy to see that it was because of the privatization of the medical field. Now, I am not saying it should be forever free however, it is obvious we need the most basic of services more readily available to everyone.
ReplyDeleteSo, the first reason why I am in favor of the bill, and the reason that is the strongest, is because we have so many people without health care. Whatever the reason may be the people need it to survive, and the government is supposed to provide for the needs of its people.
People say that people will begin to take riskier actions because they are given health care by the government. But why would they do this? People don't go out and want to hurt themselves they are still going to do what they normally do to stay safe. It will just be nice for them to have more options available in case they do get sick.
In the first video, from the attorney general of VA, we were told that it wasn't found unconstitutional but instead it was temporarily put on hold because of how huge it was. The A.G of Virginia wants to allow the states to decide on what they get to do, and they are hoping for even just one clause to be thrown out. This is because the fact that in this bill all the clauses are together, and are not considered separate like most bills. So, if they get one clause thrown out they are all gone.
I agree more with the Attorney State General of Georgia. He brought up the fact that the Interstate Commerce Clause is a huge clause that covers many different aspects and I think that is really what it will boil down to. Whether or not it is covered under that.
I agree with the con that health insurance is the responsibility of individuals. It shouldn't be the governments job to insure everyone has it. People make life decisions everyday and this is another one they have to make. If its important to them to get health insurance they should get it. I do however think it should be more affordable for families with lower incomes. All people also have different medical issues and everyone has different needs so determining how you deal with your health care depends on who you are. I also agree with the fact that the quality of health care could go down with more people receiving it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Pro #10 talking about how it will give equal opportunity to disadvantage people economically in our society. We need to look at why they are disadvantages because it could of been their lifestyle that made them unhealthy and the government should not be responsible because they decided not to take care of their body properly.
Health care will also put higher taxes on people and that's unfair to people already having health insurance and will our economy how it is right now I don't think that is the answer.
I didn't specifically look for which pro and con I liked I just wrote down the gist of it. One of the pros that I agreed with was that by opening health care up to all of the citizens of the U.S. it would combat the spread of diseases like the swine flu. If the shots to prevent the flu were open to everyone then the flu wouldn't be able to travel along because everyone would be vaccinated from it. Another point that I agreed with, on the con side though, was that it might spread doctors to thin. If people were coming in all the time for treatment doctors would have to be working a lot harder and they also wouldn't be as readily available. Patients with more severe injuries might have to wait longer as well because people with less intense injuries would already be with the doctor. I think that is a valid fear. Something that I did not agree with was a con saying that changing your lifestyle would be enough to help your health and prevent cancer and diabetes. In some cases that is true but in cases where the diseases are hereditary that is not true at all. Changing your lifestyle to one that is healthier will not make you immune to all diseases.
ReplyDeleteI really like this health care bill because I do believe that everyone should have an equal oppurtunity to health. I heard it mentioned that some of the citizens are complaining that they will have to pay for it but I think the costs will even out. I think that if the federal gov't doesn't open up the free health care to everyone in all the states it will hinder the states who do have open healthcare. Because then citizens from different states would be going to the free states and hurting the economy of the doctors in the states where you have to pay for healthcare. And if that happened then the federal gov't could claim the commerce clause and they would have to deal with it federally anyway.
Some of the terms that I heard mentioned in the videos that sounded familiar were interstate commerce, commerce clause, supremacy clause, appealate court, impeach, and taxing power.
I think that Mr. Baker made a better argument because it seemed like he had done more research and called into the conversation many examples and terms that supported his argument. He brought up examples and cited different areas that supported his argument. I think overall he did better.
Although I am against the bill, Alex Bookout made a very good statement of how our nation is very low in some aspects such as health care. I do agree with him with how America can work on this, I just think that this bill isn't the right way to do it. Everyone should have healthcare, I don't disagree with that, but I think that the government could find an alternative way to help others set up a medical system that doesn't effect people who have managed their lives accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the pro of the bill. It will definently give equal chances of survival to people in poverty. Alot of people cannot afford the high priced health insurance which is needed in this country to get medical treatment. Accidents happen all the time and its misfortunate when it happens to people who cannot afford to be treated medicly. That shouldnt be the case, the government should pay for our medical treatments but should keep the medical field a private business. Our tax pays for it, but the medical field is still private. We should really not give our medical papers to the government.
ReplyDeleteThe people shouldnt have the responsibility to make sure that if struck by lightining they'll wish they hadnt been saved because if they were they wouldnt be able to afford it. Health Care is something everyone has a right to, no one should have to deal with having to make sure they can afford it. But doesnt really matter what we say there is a plan, on where it is heading and no vote wil stop with what the Agenda has intended for us.
Universal Health care reform has been debated and rebutted throughout Congress since FDR proposed it in 1938 and now in 2011, President Obama is tackling this issue. The arguments for and against these are strong and as with most reforms presented to citizens of the United States there is going to be heavy debate and nice YouTube videos for students taking government to think about and agree or disagree with. Of all the arguments given on either side, I agreed most strongly with the opponents of the Universal Health care being a right because it presented the most non-speculative arguments for the reform. In the article Right to Health Care ProCon, I want to support my argument with the con side’s #4 and #10, which state that it is the individuals responsibility and history has shown that health care as a right would lead to greater government deficits. I understand that #4 is a bold statement to make for this health care argument, but as we’ve seen around us and on TV there are heavier people and even shows like “The Biggest Loser” and “Heavy”. I do believe that people can prevent most mainstream health problems by exercising, eating right, and not smoking and drinking to excessively.
ReplyDeleteNow, with the arguments that I disagreed with the most on the Con side was specifically #5 and #7. Ensuring that all Americans have the right to Health Care would not necessarily decrease health care costs because more people could go into the hospital for problems that they wouldn’t necessarily go into if they had to pay for it themselves. The private institution of health care creates a sense of priority for medical cases. Plus The US already has the highest prostate and survival rates in a Concord study of the world. We do want a person to live the longest, which is the ideal goal. However, I do not believe that it should necessarily be a right, as stated in #1 of the Pro Right to Health Care. There is too much ambiguity for this goal.
Universal Health Care sounds good to everyone, but when you look at the big picture this goal is going to have too many different parts that will be hard to classify for the long-term. This somewhat parallels with the creation of the constitution when the framers were trying to create a constitution to cover everything. There is always going to be “loose” constructionists and “strict” constructionists. The pro rights to health care arguments are more of a loose constructionists and the con right to health care arguments are more of a strict constructionists. In this day and age, I believe that the federal government should learn from the history of this universal health care in different countries and take a more strict approach. The federal government should work on the other problems the country has such as the $14,140,479,138,989.70 deficit, and then try to create a more reasonable approach to health care.
The terms and concepts that sounded familiar in both of the video clips were commerce clause, impeach, the conflict between the federal government and the state governments, the Civil Rights Act, the supremacy clause, and federalism. I think that Mr. Baker (“the law is constitutional”) made the better argument in the interview because he made good points such as the Congress having the power to pass important laws like this, as they have done in the past. He was confident in spite of the governor trying to impeach him. He did a good job overall and the debate was efficient and interesting on both sides.
I have to agree with Casandra Fisher with her comment about people working hard and getting quality health care insurance, while others who might work decently get the same quality of health care for free, under this bill. It sounds very barbaric and almost dog eat dog like but I believe there should be a level of competition and one's individual responsibility to keep healthy and stay active in both the work force and their own life. I also discussed this bill with some members of the armed forces and one pointed out that for a dental treatment (crowns) it would take a waiting time for three months. I understand this isn't necessarily an urgent medical treatment, but if this was the case for people who need procedures done in America there would probably be a long waiting period too as mentioned in Con #6. It has been proven in the past and the future in countries such as Canada and the Uk. Universal Health Care is not the solution to our problems.
ReplyDeleteFIRST SET OF QUESTIONS:
ReplyDelete* Of the arguments, I most strongly agree with #11 on the pro side ("Health care services are crucial to the functioning of a community, just like trash and water services, and should therefore be guaranteed like these services are to all Americans")--it is a genuinely convincing and interesting argument. Why is it that the government will regulate the cleanliness and beautification of our cities and states but not provide for the health of its people?
* The argument I most disagree with, however, is #1 also on the pro side ("All Americans should have a right to health care because the Declaration of Independence states that all men have the unalienable right to 'Life,' which entails having the health care needed to preserve life")--since when do we count the statements put forth in the Declaration of Independence as law? Unless the same argument can be made in relation to the Constitution, this argument doesn't hold much weight legally.
* Personally, I find it surprising/amusing that so many Americans seem to have such a deep-rooted fear and distaste for socialism. What's so terrible about socialism, truly? Many highly successful nations with very satisfied citizens are socialist or socialist-leaning nations (Sweden, anyone?). Aside from this, however, it seems to me that the ideas behind the bill seem to be sound, though I have not attempted to weed through the nitty-gritty, of course.
The idea that a government should help to ensure the health and prosperity of its citizens seems highly logical to me and I find it surprising that the existing system, which is clearly flawed as the statistics support, should be so highly lauded despite its shortcomings. If the current system (not federally controlled) has not been successful, why not try a system with more federal involvement?
SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS:
* Attorney General Cuccinelli's mention of Johnathan Turley's quote about federalism obviously sticks out ("If the states lose this case, it's the end of federalism as we've known it for 220 years"), as does the mention of the Interstate Commerce clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in the second video
* It is my opinion that Attorney General Baker made the more compelling argument--his reasoning was clear and he seemed logical and relatively unemotional. Attorney General Cuccinelli's description of the bill as an attempt by the federal government to regulate inactivity seems a little misleading and his discussion was more based on the structure of the bill (lack of severability clause) than its unconstitutionality.
In response to Braydon's opinion of the pros and cons, I feel the need to disagree with his disagreement with Pro #7. Though I do think that this point was worded a little strangely and/or vaguely, Braydon's assertion that anxiety, depression, and stress cannot stem from a lack of health care is a little shaky.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that waking up every day worried that you or your family might become sick but won't be able to afford to visit a hospital because you and your spouse both work minimum wage (think of the movie "30 Days: Minimum Wage" from Econ) would be extremely stressful! I'm getting a little anxious just thinking about it. =) Even though health care can only "cure" sickness, the lack of it can definitely cause anxiety, depression, or stress.
I agree with Christina in that the government should learn from other countries and take a more strict approach when it comes to dealing with the health care issue. I also agree with Ali on that fact that everyone has different health issues, so health care should be made affordable depending on the circumstances. The people who can afford health care shouldn't have to pay large sums of money in taxes to help others who could not adquately take care of themselves. Therefore, Universal Health Care is not the answer but there should be some amends made so that it is more affordable and the US deficit does not increase.
ReplyDeleteBefore I answer any of the set questions, there is something I need to discuss that I can't believe hasn't been discussed already and I'm surprised there isn't a question concerning it. You see, I consider myself a member of the hard left. I flip between msnbc and cnn almost the whole time I'm watching television. I cannot believe I missed such a disturbing event on msnbc. No, I'm not talking about the way Mr. Baker's eyes and pseudo charming smile seemed to peer directly into one's own soul. It is something that I could not ignore during the video and based on my experience since (I watched that one first, of course), will not leave my mind's eye for years to come. I am talking, of course, about two simple words. Words, that, by themselves, are harmless and innocent, but together, will wreck havoc on ones soul. I refer to, of course....
ReplyDeleteGeorgia
(Im)peach
Msnbc, you should be ashamed of yourself. After seventy five years of reliable left-wing journalism, you flush it down the toilet with this filth. What was it? Were ratings down? Did you think you could win hot, new viewers with this garbage? I don't want to know. Msnbc, you have lost yourself a long time viewer and fan, and it will take a lot to win me back. From now on, I am a loyal cnn viewer, and I don't even know if I can trust them, either. They've only been around for about seventy two years! This has made me rethink my life, my priorities and my beliefs. I don't know what to do with myself anymore, and I don't know who I can trust to shovel me over the face with what I'm supposed to think.
As to the original question: Yes.
After once again reading the comments and, god help me, watching the videos again, I have to say something. Angelo, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. That is all.
ReplyDeleteOf all the arguments presented on both sides of the issue, the idea that I most agree with is that health care should be considered a right for every American citizen. Having grown up in Spain where a universal healthcare system is present, I have always felt that no citizen should be denied the medical treatments that they need. Although there are individuals who have indeed contributed to the demise of their own medical conditions, I do not believe that other citizens who are victims of chance should be denied the best possible treatment that can be made available to them. Also, I think that one of the most important provisions of the health care bill is that coverage will be extended to everyone. Right now, health care costs are unaffordable, especially for individuals who are faced with terminal or potentially terminal illnesses. I feel that these Americans should not have to face the decision of whether to go bankrupt to pay for their treatment, or to live in constant pain.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I disagreed with the most was that guaranteeing health care to all Americans would lead to a “moral hazard”. In my opinion, this statement seems to be grasping at straws. People will always partake in risky behavior, and people are always going to get hurt. However, I think that this type of behavior has more to do with the attitude of an individual, and not whether they have health care coverage. I do not believe that knowing that an individual has health care coverage is going to dramatically alter their lifestyle and urge them to suddenly start seeking out life-threatening situations. In my mind, that argument simply does not make sense.
My general thought on this issue is that health care should be provided, or at least made to be more affordable, for every American citizen. Although I am not well acquainted with the intricacies of the health care bill, I truly believe in the concept of preventative medicine. Because many Americans are not covered by any form of health care, they often delay going to the hospital when something is bothering them, simply because they do not have the financial resources to pay for a visit to the hospital. It is rare that a medical ailment will go away if left alone. More likely, these individuals will find themselves in the emergency room later, because their minor ache or bother has escalated into a full-blown medical condition. If they had seen a doctor sooner, the problem might have been detected, and the $300-$400 price tag on a trip to the ER could have been avoided. In my opinion, it is more economically efficient to provide Americans with preventative measures by making personal consultations with doctors more accessible and affordable. To do this, at least some type of health care reform is essential, whether it be what is proposed in the Obama health care bill or not.
The terms and concepts that I recognized in both videos were the Supremacy clause, the Civil Rights Act, the Commerce/ Interstate Commerce clause, the New Deal, the concept of impeachment, and a reference to Judge Bolton and the Arizona Immigration law.
In my opinion, Mr. Baker made the more compelling argument. Although Mr. Cuccinelli made various valid points about why he disagrees with the law, he seemed to be largely appealing to the emotional side of the audience. In stating how this law would “change the entire concept of federalism” and how it is “a threat to liberty”, he relied on dramatic statements that overshadowed his real argument. Mr. Baker’s composure and level-headedness seemed to be more effective to me. He calmly and rationally explained why he believes the law is constitutional under the Interstate Commerce clause.
Multiple comments above address the idea that some people don't deserve equal health care because they put themselves into a risky setuation. I believe that sometimes this can't be avoided (hereditary/child of parent with poor habits/impoverished), although it clearly can be an issue in some cases. Perhaps the bill should be structured on a sliding scale: For non-essential medical expenses (plastic surgery, teeth whitening, etc) you must purchase your own health insurance. For surgery and ER visits you can buy into a cheap nation-wide plan. For basic check ups/cold meds everyone is covered. Then simple health problems can be cured before they cost the system more money, but people are still encouraged to work/pay for the larger expenses and the wait time won't be as long.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing most with number 4 on the cons list that states "it is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health". The government could do all that they can to provide the opportunity for the best healthcare, but they can only do so much. I do think residents of the US should be open to working with the government by engaging in a healthy lifestyle when a benefit like this is provided. I don't see how the government would directly end up making health decisions, as stated in number 11 on the cons list. Perhaps I need to be given a specific situation or am biased by my support, but I think that universal health care would ultimately give people the freedom of choosing the best medical treatment with little to no financial hassle in return. Overall, I am in favor of a health care reform because of the economic benefits. I realize that it would effect much more of our lives than our wallet as well, and I am weary of this too. But I am optimistic.
ReplyDeleteI recognized the mentions of the commerce clause, federal level of control, ruling parts of a bill as unconstitutional, federalism, a parallel with the Civil Rights Act, and the supremacy clause in the video clips. Mr. Baker's arguments seemed more solid to me than Mr. Cuccinelli's. Although Mr. Cuccinelli provided some factual support of his views, Mr. Baker brought up points that I saw as less debatable and more open to agreement from anyone on either side.
I agree completely with maddyblaire. If we based all of our decisions based on the minority few who don't fit the standard then we would be harming the majority who deserve healthcare. In Economics we watched 30 Days on Minimum Wage and during that time the main characters had to go to the hospital. They put it off and when they finally went their bill was way more then they could afford. The price of their hospital bills would have pushed them far into debt if they hadn't only been working on minimum wage for 30 days. If we had had open health care to everyone like Canada has then those who have to try to survive on mimimum wage, or a middle class income, will have a better chance of doing so. They won't be afraid of going to the hospital when they are hurt and will therefore be able to work better. I agree with the health care bill because I think it will help those on low incomes with their bills.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I would mostly agree with would be number 8 of the pro column. Health care in the US is very expensive and can be a huge blow to families finances. If this health care plan has the ability to lessen the cost of doctors visits, or hopistal and sugery bills, then I'm for it. The argument I would mostly disagree with would be number 13 of the con column. It should be considered that this health care plan would either add to the nation's debt or increase taxes. And that the federal government has to decide between increasing debt for the American people and access to health care for all its citizens. But I don't see how putting money as a priority over the health of American citizens is benificial to America. It just seems to me that people pay their taxes, they live here, but when they are in need, its a struggle to get proper health care from insurance companies. And that the government is very happy to recieve revenue from it's people but now with the resistance to this health care plan, it seems that they are very hesistant to give back to its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI recognized the interstate commerce clause mentioned in the interview with Mr. Baker.
I think Mr. Baker made the better argument that the law is constitutional, becuase he had done plenty of reasearch on the Consitiution and was acting in the best intrests of the people to not waste tax dollars investigating and debating and trying to declare the law unconsitutional.
In response to Lindsay's comment: "I agree with the health care bill because I think it will help those on low incomes with their bills." I agree. My only issue with that statement is if the United States is capable of supporting those people who need the support with our current debt. If we shove more money towards spending, we will continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole, so to speak. And what happens when Health Care for everyone can absolutely no longer be afforded? If it could be done with fewer repercussions to our financial stability, then I would support it, until then, I can't
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I most agree with is the pro’s argument that people should not have to choose between financial ruin and medical treatments. Medical services can be extremely expensive and can take a toll on those who do not earn much money. In the “30 Days on Minimum Wage” video we watched in Econ, the couple’s medical expenses were very high, and they were already pinching pennies before then. Had they continued living on minimum wage, they would have had to make even more sacrifices to pay off their medical bills. No one should have to choose between health and economic security.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I most disagree with is the con’s argument that providing health care will cause people to become lazy and will inhibit productivity. I understand how this argument could relate to other issues such as food stamps, but, regarding health care, I do not think it is applicable. People will not become lazy or unproductive simply because they have been given health care. If anything, providing health care will increase productivity by creating a healthier workforce.
Overall, I support the law. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to health. I also think that providing health care for everyone will help create a healthier and more productive nation. Regarding the federal government’s role in this issue, I believe the federal government should provide health care to all Americans because everyone has the right to health care.
Some terms or concepts that I recognized in the videos include the commerce clause, the SB1070 Arizona Immigration Law, FDR’s New Deal, the Civil Rights Bill, appellate courts, and the supremacy clause.
I believe that Mr. Baker made a better argument than Mr. Cuccinelli. Mr. Baker supported his idea that the health care law is constitutional with many examples of federal government powers, such as the commerce clause and the supremacy clause. Mr. Cuccinelli appeared to be relying on invoking an emotional response, as opposed to providing logical evidence.
We are...what we eat. Now of course I am being metaphorical, for I am not saying that if one were to consume a Domino's™ Pizza he would become a Domino's™ Pizza, that's just ridiculous. It is no laughing matter though, for more and more people each year "pig out" on heart stopping, artery clogging, gut bursting amounts of what we in America like to call.......food. This "food" leaves not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but MILLIONS of people in such bad condition that they need mucho mucho medical attention to survive! And catch this, they feel like it is not their fault when the health insurance companies say not yes, but NO to insuring them! It is now that I finally understand the saying "You can't have your cake.........................and eat it too". So now you may understand why I am CON to the right to Health Care. I CONcur that I may have CONveyed myself as CONceded, but I have CONceived the CONcepts that CONcern the CONcise CONditions that CONdemn those to the CONdors who CONfide in CONsciously CONgesting themselves without CONsidering the CONsequences. i.e (If we give them free health care, they won't ever think twice about it). So I hope you see where I am coming from, I hope I didn't CONfuse you at all, but it's all for the greater good really. See ya later!
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to Alex Bookout. You had some okay points, but maybe you should break a "book out" and do some more research, because it's "all ex"plained in the text.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cloe’s idea regarding the argument that individuals are responsible for their own health. There are circumstances in which an individual caused their own health problems, but there are also circumstances in which the individual had no control over their health problems. The con argument states that the government should not be responsible for people’s medical conditions because many of them could have been avoided by “individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles.” However, there are many diseases or ailments that cannot be avoided this way. Therefore, it should not be solely the individual’s responsibility.
ReplyDeleteOf all the arguments given from both sides, I agree mainly with the idea of providing free health care to every citizen in the United States.I completely disagree with the statement that people should find a way on their own for health insurance,becuase some people arent as lucky or have as many opportunities as others, and cannnot just pull money out from the money tree in their backyard. Yes, "everyone" in America has equal opportunity, but really, open your eyes and look around at all the homeless, sick, and dying people of this nation, and tell me you have no sympathy or desire to help stop this selfishness. I understand the point that it is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to grant anyone health insurance, so that is a legit point. So then this would be considered a State decision, considering they run the decisions on peoples morals and everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteThe States should then all allow free health care, or the Federal government should use a categorical grant, or a condition of aid. With this they could possibly get the states to provide health care for all their citizens. I consider it extremely ignorant and cold hearted to say "whatever, it's their own fault they dont get insurance, or dont have it". When really you should be asking yourlsef what if it was you, or someone you cared about without health insurance who was dying or extremely ill. Then would you want there to be free health care? People need to take their heads out of their own selfish egos, and think of the people in their country who need help.
I would disagree with Jenilee's comment, beucase i think the simple fact is to then have the State governments provide health care for their citizens. As you can see, we are one of the only countries to not provide health care for out citizens; what is that saying to us? We are too concerned with our own benefits and our own welfare, to even recognize the pain and suffering that goes on in this country, becuase an uninsured person cant go to the hospital to treat a simple cough without being charged thousands of dollars.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot sit back and watch people of this country slowly die off, becuase of our own greed. A question to ask yourself would be "what if it was you sick, or someone you loved sick? What would you want then?
I don't really think that the arguement is even remotly about he question of do I believe everyone should have medical care. Hopefully no one is against a health care system that can supply everyone with good and safe medical care. The real issue lies in whether the health care system can be carried out affectively, for even the consideration of a obstacle like this to be true you need to take the buisness out of the health care system. No big buissness is going to want to stop making money from health care. Yes either side can argue that they have the right interpretation of the constition in the end it will be decided by a court case. The main issue is the republicans don't want to see there precious money go into something that might possibly end in failure and can easyily be profitable in the private sector. Profitable by the explotation of many for the financial gain of the few. While the democrates are trying to push through with a program that realistically is going to be so hard to put in place and could be vastly easier to structure on a small scale for individual states or counties. If a realisticly priced system were to be put in place where the people were not overally taxed and the system did not get sent into a spiral of debt it would be a monumentous step in American history. The points on both sides are easily understood from the varying points of few. The democrates believe everybody should be entitled to healthcare as a citizen of the United States. While the republican are just like bruh I am just really not trying to pay for all these people to get free health care.
ReplyDeleteBut yes you might say on what level can we judge someones worthiness of health care, for example should someone who has spent the last 10 years of their life eating themselves into a nonmobile position should they be entitled to health care. Would self endangerment be a crime since in theory when putting yourself in danger in a situation where you would need to go to a hospital due to a health issue that was your own fault, is that jsut the same as stealing money from the govt. If the person isnt contributing to taxes then is he cheating his way through the system? It a arguement that each side can become very confident in there point of veiw so each side believes they are truely correct. The only way i see this system coming into place is on a small scale where money is given to states then broken down to lowerr levels where hospitals can provide for a smaller group of people on a large scale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that cristina is saying some really real stuff when it comes down to the exploitation of a system of this type would encounter. Pretty difficult to try and stop millions of people from abusing a system.
ReplyDeleteSo much money goes into the medical system that a lot of people don't realize. Growing up with a surgeon as a father, I've learned a lot about how a hospital works and about what is needed to do certain things, such as harvesting and artery.
ReplyDeleteI do believe, however, that everyone should have some sort of health care. It should not come down to whether or not one can afford to go to the doctor to get a valve replaced, because that is something that will need to happen just for that person to live. You shouldn't have to pay astronomical amounts of money to save yourself. You should be getting as much help as possible.
On the flipside, though, surgery is expensive. And if you aren't paying for it, then who is? Every time surgery is performed, they need new instruments, gloves, masks, anesthesia, and other various things that aren't cheap..Taxes would be a lot higher to pay for everything that everyone is having done to them.
Although I believe that one should not be denied healthcare, I do not think that people should be forced to get it either. I feel it's a personal right as to whether or not you want healthcare. And I don't think that people should have to fight to get the best healthcare possible.
In response to CJ Fisher:
ReplyDelete"I don’t think it is fair to those who have to work their butts off for what ever amount of years, to gain great medical care through working, to have to pay for others that decided not to get a job, or not carry insurance. People get jobs to provide for their families and make sure they are cared for, but what makes it right for the federal government to promote this bill and make people who have worked hard, pay for those who haven’t."
I mostly agree with this statement above. Plus, if someone was choosing NOT to have healthcare, why would we want to pay even more money for someone who doesn't want it?
Healthcare in general is expensive enough as it is.
Of the arguments given for both sides, I think I would choose to not make health care a right for everyone. I believe that the strongest argument against health care is that it is an individual's responsibility to maintain their own health. It's not up to the government to control and observe every single person in the United States; as the article stated, ensured health care would lower the quality and availability and I think that would be unfair to the people who work hard enough to have higher health care. I disagree with the pro that states that people without health care will suffer from stress, sickness, anxiety, etc. because each person has the choice to make better lifestyles, and if they made a bad decision it shouldn't be up to the government to pull them out. I think passing this law is meant to do good because every country wants to provide the very best for their citizens, but I don't think it should be a forced law, especially when the economy is suffering already (like ours).
ReplyDeleteIn response to CJ Fisher and Sammy Hemp, they bring up good points that if there are people out there who don't even want health care, we shouldn't be spending OUR hard-earned money in the economy to go to waste. It goes back to decision making as well; I don't think someone should complain about their lack of health care if they made poor life choices in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI agree the most with the pro point 8. “Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance”. This should not be the case. People should not be bankrupt because of medical bills. People should be able to have access to affordable heath care. No one should have to give up anything because they are ill or hurt. I disagree the most with the con points 1. “Health care should not be a right because it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to happiness or free medical services.” The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land and the bill is not about free heath care, it is about everyone having access to affordable heath services. I agree with the heath care bill. I do not understand why people are so resistant to the federal government running our heath care. It gives everyone an equal opportunity for treatment, and it relives stress to those who could not afford health care. “Since 2000, health insurance premiums have risen three times faster than wages.” We are one of the few developed countries that does not have nation wide heath care. I think our government should be in a major factor in providing for our heath care. In the videos the concept that sounded the most familiar was the commerce clause and how much power the federal government should and does have. I think Mr. Baker made the better argument. As he said sense 1937 the U.S. has been clear that congress has a very expansive power with the commerce clause, therefore making the bill constitutional. Yes there are debates on other issues related with this bill political and economical, but it is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Braydons argument to con number 4. “It is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, cancer, stroke, and diabetes can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles.” Yes some people could live healthier lives but not all of these things are preventable and someone should not be denied treatment because they cannot afford it. Also if someone is ill because of their choices, does that mean they should not get treatment at all? That’s what the heath care bill is about. Providing heath care accessible to everyone and having everyone contribute. Also with the heath care bill people can go in for more regular check ups and try and prevent these things from happening.
ReplyDeleteI most strongly agree that the right to health care should be measured as a civil right. The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution states the purpose to “promote the general welfare” of people, so citizens should have the right to health care, just like all Americans have a right to an education. Not only that, but I also agree that people should not be discriminated against for being ill. No one should have to go through the heartache of deciding between financial ruins or staying alive.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement: “no one should be entitled to health care because it is a service and a material good that a person must pay for to obtain.” To me, this makes health sound like a luxury. I do not believe that people who can afford health care should be the only people who can obtain health care. I don’t think that it is fair to the people who cannot afford it.
In general, I believe that everyone should have the right and opportunity to get the health care that they want and wish to receive. Health is incredibly important and crucial in everyone’s lives. I believe that all Americans should have the right to health care. The United Sates is one of very few nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage.
Some terms and concepts that sounded familiar were the commerce clause, the New Deal, federalism, and the interstate commerce clause.
In my opinion, I think that Mr. Baker had a more convincing argument because he stated the Constitution, the commerce clause, and the supremacy clause.
I definitely agree with Bailey. Health care costs should not be bankrupting families who are in desperate need of quality medical care. It seems almost immoral to charge such ludicrous amounts when individuals are genuinely sick. I do not think health care should be considered a "luxury good". Whether or not I agree with every aspect of the health care reform bill, I definitely think that every American citizen should have access to affordable health care.
ReplyDeletemost strongly agreed with the argument for healthcare which stated that it is the job of the US government to promote the general welfare of its people. What better way to promote the general welfare of an entire nation of people than to provide healthcare. Health is one of the most basic aspects of life and if the government has the power to assist in providing in ways that are more affordable than from the private sector, then it should become law. Too many people in this country cannot afford healthcare or don't see the benefits as outweighing the costs. I feel that the government should take steps not to completely control healthcare, but to simply make it accessible to more people which would in turn lower the costs since patients wouldnt wait until a serious condition arose to see a doctor. I most strongly disagreed with the anti-healthcare argument that illness and disease are brought upon oneself and therefore, you should pay for your own healthcare. While it may be true that certain diseases like diabetes are caused by eating and exercise habits, I think a huge majority are related to aging and the general way of life that modern society provides. I don't think its fair to people such as elderly cancer patients to simply say that their predicament is a result of an unhealthy life, and that healthcare won't be provided. However, I do think regulations should be in place to prevent people like the obese diabetes patient from taking advantage of tax payer dollars to pay for a condition that really was brought on his own.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of whether or not the federal governmetn should be able to regulate the healthcare system, I believe they should be able to. I think mr. Cuccinelli had a stronger argument than Mr. Baker who never offered a strong basis or any specifics about his reasearch on the healthcare bill with which to say that the law was NOT UNconstitutional. He only stated that Healthcare could be related to interstate commerce and that it was therefore an issue that Congress had the power to regulate over.
My overall thoughts are that it should be a right of all people as included in the pursuit of life and general wealthfare. Congress and the federal governmetn have constitutional backing to regulate and pass the laws. Not only is it legal, but costs would be reduced and money would not be flowing out of consumers pockets into the hands of pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
i think this shows the "control/corruption" of corporate controlled healthcare.....
Insight Journal:
Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex 250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%
in response to Willberto's post, I think he made a good point that most countries arent the size of the US and providing healthcare through a single, federally run entity for millions of people is a logistical nightmare. Most countries aren't even the size of a single US state, which makes the organization of a healthcare department much more streamlined and easy to manage. He said that lenidng money to states, but ultimately leaving the federal government in control and with the power to regulate the system is the only way to do it. I agree that this will allow for more adaptive responses by local and state healthcare providers and allow them to give specific treatment for the conditions they see the most of. A problem that this might encounter would be how much power to regulate would the federal government have and how much would be state reserved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bailey Goodwin that people should not become bankrupt because of medical bills. 62.1% of all United States bankruptcies should not have been related to medical expenses, and people who had medical insurance should not have filed 78% of these bankruptcies. I also agree with Helen Hejl: “I don’t see how putting money as a priority over the health of American citizens is beneficial to America”. The government should not have to decide between increasing debt for the people and accessing health care for everyone.
ReplyDeleteTo start off I am in favor of universal health care for all but not necessarily in favor of this bill. Now after reading each of the pros and cons I feel that of all the arguments on either side of the health care bill, the one I actually disagree with is the seventh pro that an individual can suffer from anxiety, sickness, or stress because the government can’t prevent that in any individual and if they are suffering from it then the individual should be able to obtain there own health care. Now health care should be cheaper but you can’t actually use that as an argument to justify this bill. Also, I didn’t feel that the first con and the first pro about the declaration of independence were justifiable either because it just wasn’t a valid way to prove a point since it is all about how you interpret the words that were written. Now the one that I agree with the most is the forth con which states that American citizens should have to take care of themselves because obesity, cancer, and some other diseases like that can be prevented by living a healthier lifestyle. However, I feel the government should make it easier to get access to health but this health care bill isn’t quite what they needed because it has too many flaws to it. I believe that Mr. Cuccinelli made a better argument than Mr. Baker did because he gave more thorough reasons as to make the viewer more convinced with his argument, however I feel Mr. Baker had valid opinions but he just wasn’t able to convey as well as to why the law would be constitutional and didn’t say enough about his research. Some familiar terms I heard were the Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, and the New Deal.
ReplyDeleteI think that the right to healthcare in the U.S is an argument that should have been discussed and settled on long ago, mainly due to the fact that our country behind as it is one of the very few wealthy, developed nations that doesn’t guarantee health coverage. I can think of a lot of specific examples that argue both sides of the debate, but the health coverage bill is aimed toward the general public, not specific people with specific circumstances. So after reading the pros and cons, I decided that all Americans should be entitled to health care. Although both sides make effective arguments, I mostly disagree with number 7 on the Con side which states that “distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity.” I can see how distributing money to upper-middle class families will in a sense make the rich get richer, but to the majority of lower-middle class families a healthcare plan will ease the burden of finding a job specifically for heath insurance. I don’t think that this bill would make people become lazy and not search for a job, and I don’t think it would make anyone quit their job just because they will have free health. Also, this con claims that a right to health care will be bad for the economy, but pro number 6 argues this point, and I happen to agree with this point the most. It says that a right to health care will be good for economic productivity, and that “the cost of bad health and shorter life spans of Americans suffering from uninsurance amounts to $65-130 billion annually.” If Americans live longer and healthier lives, they will be contributing the economy for a longer period of time. Our economy can’t afford to lose this much money, and if everyone could get medical attention when needed than this deficit would hopefully be nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteIn the video clips, I heard several things that sounded familiar based on what we have been learning. Mr. Cuccinelli referenced the commerce clause and his opinions on federalism. Mr. Baker mentioned the supremacy clause in which “federal law supersedes state law.” From what I saw, Mr. Baker made the better argument because he used references to the Constitution that he clearly researched whereas Mr. Cuccinelli seemed to be repeating the fact that everything about the case is “unconstitutional”. He also says that if the states lose, then it will be the “end of federalism”, which I believe to be a little extreme.
I agree with Maia Feliu in her belief that universal health care would not lead to a "moral hazard." Just because people are given health care would not mean that they would go out and hurt themselves to exercise said health care.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the pro of the bill. It will definitely give equal chances of survival to people regardless of income. A lot of people cannot afford the high priced health insurance which is needed in this country to get medical treatment. I’ve been just got medical insurance last week after having none for five months. Ironically I got sick and injured a lot during that time period. However my mother still doesn’t have insurance because the insurance company is questioning her thyroid problems. It hasn’t been a joyous occasion at all. Insurance should be an option to all, regardless to issues or income. They should have a social security number, a home address, and a tax record; those would be my requirements for insurance.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement on the pro side number nine: “Guaranteeing the right to health care will encourage entrepreneurship, which is good for job creation. Currently people are afraid to start their own business for fear of losing the health insurance provided at their existing job.” People abuse the unemployment system; I personally deal with this through my mother and the constant questions she gets from the unemployment office. Sometimes you pay extra for the better insurance from a better job. Because the state will pay for insurance for a person on unemployment doesn’t mean they’ll think “Yay one less thing to think about now. I’ll go look for a job.” People say they’re looking when they aren’t.
I agree with Sammy Hemp’s comments on where the money goes. It’s good to a have a little further insight in what you’re trying to understand
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cassandra Fisher that it would not be fair for hardworking people to pay for an unemployed person’s health insurance. For example, a person working 8 hours a day to raise and support a family would not want their hard earned money to be taxed for coverage of an unemployed drug addict’s treatment in a hospital. I think this bill would definitely need to be worked on to find a plan that would prevent unfair treatment of individuals, yet at the same time would give everyone an equal opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Braydon on this bill because I too feel the same way about the health care bill and agree with his statement of the “if the bill had fewer repercussions to our financial stability, then I would support it.” I feel this bill does have a threat to the financial security in the country which is already doing poorly economically. Now although we are no longer in a recession the economy is far from fixed and once we are able to fix our economy and really get it booming again, that’s when we should start to focus on providing health care for all and taking care of everyone in the country.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that I agree with the most is that we the people should be responsible for our healthcare, not the government. A majority of American's health problems are self imposed; for example, those who smoke can develop lung cancer and those who eat tons of junk food such as McDonalds and Burger King, can become fat/obese and have heart problems or other health issues. Many of our health problems could easily vanish if we only had healthier lifestyles. I think that those who live unhealthy should not be "rewarded" with free healthcare. The argument that I disagree with the most is that by ensuring all Americans the right to health care will decrease healthcare costs. Although the logic behind this is reasonable- the more frequent and regular visits will prevent people from waiting until they are chronically ill to seek treatment, when by then it is extremely expensive. However, by making our government now cover ALL Americans, I am sure the costs will be going anywhere by down. I do think that it is/should be the government's job to be in charge of healthcare. I personally don't think that the government should have to provide health care for everyone, however I do think it should be their responsibility to set rules, regulations, guidelines, etc.
ReplyDeleteSome things in the videos that were brought up that relate back to what we have been learning about are the issues/struggles between the power of the national and the power of the state governments. They mentioned how the national government is trying to use the commerce clause to enforce people to buy health insurance. In class we have been learning about different cases where the national government uses this clause to give itself more power and create laws in their favor. The videos also brought up the term "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" when they were discussing whether the national government is allowed to make a law that requires Americans to buy health insurance. I think that Mr. Cuccinelli made a more persuading argument because it doesn't seem justifiably right to that the government can punish people for not buying something; he also mentioned that if the government wins this case, it's going to give them a whole lot more power, which isn't necessarily good
I agree with Bailey about disagreeing that the con point #1 doesn't seem just. “Health care should not be a right because it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to happiness or free medical services.” Just because it isn't explicitly stated the in the Declaration of Independence that we should have healthcare, doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Our government isn't completely spelled out in the Constitution; we have put our own spin on things and have interpreted things in different ways; therefore I think it is ok to give healthcare to Americans even though it doesn't say to in the Declaration of Independence.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, health care should be available to every American citizen, but at this point in time it is simply unrealistic to attempt to build a federally funded multibillion dollar industry while the U.S. is, as of January 20, 2011, $14 trillion in debt. That being said, I disagree with the con “no one should be entitled to health care because it is a service and a material good that a person must pay for to obtain” because not only is that cold-hearted and inhumane, but also it does not even comply with the regulations of the current system. Under the current system, hospitals are legally bound to administer the best health care possible to any person entering the ER regardless of whether or not they can pay their bill. Granted it would be much better if people could receive healthcare before their ailments progressed to such dangerous levels, but who is supposed to pay for this? Medical studies and equipment are expensive. The only way to fund such a program would be to drastically increase federal income taxes which are already approaching 40% in the top tax bracket (keep in mind that most people at this level are not millionaires--and that this figure excludes state taxes). That being said, I understand that health care has soared and is too expensive for most people. There should be some sort of health care reform to cut the unnecessary costs, but the federal government should not under any circumstances direct a national health care system. As listed under the cons, “If health care is considered a right, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and doctor.”
ReplyDeleteNot only is it unaffordable given our country’s current economic state, but the creation of such a system would expand the federal government more so than any preceding bill. As Mr. Cuccinelli stated, such a bill would actually consider doing nothing an economic activity. It would also be a major blow to states’ rights. I also agree with his statement that such a system is beyond the outer limits of the commerce clause and taxing power and therefore is unconstitutional. Do we really want such an expansive federal government? The more services the government provides, the more people grow dependent on the system as can be seen with the growing reliance on Social Security since its inception under FDR’s New Deal in 1935.
Because my mother’s side of the family lives in Switzerland and my father is a Doctor in the United States, I have seen and experienced two very different health care systems. Federally regulated health care works well in Switzerland, but not only do they have much higher per capita income and a much lower unemployment rate than in the U.S., but medical care in general is much cheaper (and just as good if not better quality-wise as indicated by their high life expectancy and infant mortality ratings) due to a less litigious population, cheaper drugs, fewer machines, and lower pay for doctors . Also, their population is around 7 million, a number requiring much less management than 300 million; therefore, their successful system of universal health care may not be implementable in the U.S. To solve this health care problem, we need to cut the costs where we can for the time being and implement universal health care at a later date when the U.S. is not so indebted and unemployment is not so high.
* the universal health care system i mentioned last refers to one controlled by the states, not the federal government
ReplyDeletei personaly dont agree with the proposition. it is not that i dont like the idea of everyone benefiting helth care or greed of tax money, but i feel like there would be an abuse of this benefit. the good side of this proposition is all the benefit everyone would get, being a equility right. people that are in need of medical care but cant aford helth ensurance woul be atended and the death rate could drop. however it would promote lazines out of people who dont take care of themselves and dont want to pay for themselves. people who work hard to keep up a healthy life would get reduction money out of their taxes from those that dont work hard and dont take care of them selvese. furthermore it would socialist to promote this proposition.
ReplyDeletemoreover, this bill recalls to the topics spoken on class how it might be constituional or not, depending on how it is red.the constiution can be implied to both sides. it promotes the right of "life", however this is a right that the persuded, a person has the right to persude their life by taking care of themselves, and its not up to the government to be keeping up with this, is up to one selve. it's up to the judge how to imply these constitutional right.i thinl that it is not something that would be considered unconstiutional, however i dont thin its something that it is obligated or suported by the constitution, it is just something it should be done or not up to the government. i, like i sed before, do not agree so much with the bill. i dont understand it very well, but from what i know im no so much about it.
The point I agree with the most is that all Americans have the right to be given health care, and that, as stated in the Constitution, the federal government is supposed to "promote the general welfare" of its people and protect their rights. I think it really says something that the United States is one of the only developed nations that does not guarantee health care to its people. I disagree with the argument that people should not be given health care by the government because it is a person's responsibility to care for their own health, and that a lot of health problems, like cancer and diabetes, are usually the person's own fault anyway. I feel like this is incredibly unfair, because most illnesses are completely out of the victim's control, and although a select few can be attributed to lifestyle, the majority are not. We should not discriminate against people just because they were unfortunate enough to be sick and not have enough money to pay outrageous health insurance premiums. I generally think that this law should be passed, and that it is mostly the federal government's responsibility to carry it out. Not because I think the federal government should have too much power, but because, as far as I can tell, it is the only institution in our country that has the ability to reach everyone fairly. If this power was given to the states, health care could potentially unfairly favor some citizens over others because the states would have different policies.
ReplyDeleteSome familiar terms and concepts I heard in the videos were the supremacy clause and the commerce clause. I think that Mr. Baker's argument, that they could not find any just means to call this law unconstitutional, was better, because he seems to have looked at the law more objectively and was respectful in his argument. However, I do agree with Mr. Cuccinelli in that there is a lot at stake in this ruling, and I believe that a decision must be approached cautiously and with a lot of deliberation. As much as I agree with the health care law, I don't really think that the federal government should be able to regulate inactivity, and force people to buy health care. If the federal government is allowed to do this, it could potentially open the doors for many other cases to arise and to reach a similar outcome, just like how the ruling the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States broadened the power and scope of the commerce clause.
respond to Polo$tar11:
ReplyDeleteyou have a strong point that the bill is suported by the constitutional right of wellfare and Life. however i dont think helthcare is something that should be force by the Constituion; it is sertainly not something unconstitutional, unlike what mr.baker said. but these also show how much government contol there is from the federal government or the states. should it be something provided by the govenrment, or should it be a corporated benefit? the goverment should have as less contol as posible, these bill is socialist, and hands more unecesary control back to the government. however, if passed, i do agree with you that there should sertainly be restriction for people not to abuse of these right and not take care of themselves as well as they should.
While I believe that Americans should have the opportunity to obtain health insurance, I agree with con 13, primarily because I do not think that now (right after having an economic slump) would be the time to make decisions that will not only affect the national economy, but also individual economies. While an economic boost in the Health Care industry may be plausible, passing such a bill would drastically affect families in the insurance business, government employees, and it will also take away attention and funding from other areas in need of improvement, such as public education.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I strongly disagree that health care should be mandated. Not only is the federal government pushing its boundaries of constitutional powers, but it is also an overreach to punish people in making their own personal economic choices. Thus I agree was Mr. Cuccinelli.
I agree with Maddie in that I think that the federal government should commit to providing nationwide health care, or leave it up to the free market. It is too complicated and raises too many arguments to have bits and pieces of federal legislation without any really concrete decisions. I think that the time should be taken to make sure that the laws passed are constitutional, but this cannot be accomplished if every little detail is passed and repealed and passed again, and if court and congressional decisions are not respected.
ReplyDeleteI like how Sally said that health was made to sound like a luxury in the cons of healthcare being a right. I also believe that healthcare should not be solely for people who can afford it- the job of a doctor is to treat the sick, and their financial standings should not affect that.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I understand what Katie said about my comment. I do support healthcare being a right, and easily accessible medical treatment. I haven't considered healthcare being provided at a state level rather than the federal level though, and I am open to that idea.
The argument that I agree with the most is that the state governments should have the power to delegate healthcare, rather than the federal governments. Under the healthcare bill, everyone will have to buy healthcare for themselves. To me this seems highly unreasonable. For example, pretty soon all of us will be off to college and not too long after that we will be graduating and moving on to another stage in our lives. If the healthcare plan takes over we will have to spend a lot of money on insurance straight out of college; insurance that healthy, young adults do not necessarily need right away. That is money that would be better spent going to rent or other things like car insurance. Also, it is much cheaper to just pay the money when you get injured rather than have a whole health care plan to pay for.
ReplyDeleteThe government thinks that if more people have to buy healthcare, our free clinics will not be as crowded as they are now. The fact, however you may want to spin it, is that generally-but not always- the people who go to free clinics are illegal immigrants or citizens who are too poor to buy healthcare. Making people pay for it is definitely not going to help that situation.
The fact of the matter is that there really is no basis for the government to get involved in healthcare. I personally believe it should be left up to the states. You cannot stretch the commerce clause that far. I agree with Ken Cuccinelli’s standpoint because I too believe that this is “more about liberty than healthcare”. I am a firm believer in a little government intervention as possible. We cannot regulate every little thing, and waste hard earned tax payers dollars doing so. I do not want the federal government to have “ultimate power” over me and my decisions, because I can tell you right now, unless I am terminally ill when I am 21, I will not be buying healthcare until I absolutely need to.
Some of the things in the video clips that sounded familiar were the opposing positions of federal government versus state government and the idea of the commerce clause. Some people believe that this argument is well within the range of the commerce clause while others believe this is unconstitutional. I’m not sure that it is unconstitutional, but I do agree with those who believe it is out of the reach of the commerce clause. I can’t help thinking that the government is trying to stretch the clause to fit their needs, and to me that is a little selfish. I know that their intentions are probably honorable, but they are completely unnecessary. I think state governments should have the final say on whether or not citizens of the United States have to pay for healthcare.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think that both parties made very good arguments. Everyone is just trying to do what they believe is best for our country. I think that impeaching the Attorney General of Georgia is a bit drastic, but that doesn’t mean I agree with his idea that Congress has the power to make healthcare regulated at the federal level. I agree with Cuccinelli’s comment that the government doesn’t have the authority to make citizens pay for healthcare. When I sit back and really think about it, I can’t see how it would be a good thing to MAKE people pay for something like unneeded healthcare. Yes, of course there are many good things about the bill, including the fact that people who are terminally ill will not have to worry about coverage. The idea is a good one, but the amount of money going into it and the way it would be executed right now is not good. I can see something good coming of this in the future, but not now considering our economy and all the problems between the federal and state governments in this country. It seems to have become a moot point because of the governmental conflicts of interest.
Overall, I can’t decide whether I agree with the idea of the Government providing all Americans with health care or not. Both sides made compelling arguments, and I strongly agree with number 9 in the cons list that “Guaranteeing health care as a right will lead to an increase in demand for health care that will decrease the quality of care because health care professionals will be overstretched.” Though it seems like it would help thousands of Americans for the Federal Government to provide healthcare for all, I agree that the quality of the care we would be provided with would decrease dramatically. When you think about it, doctor’s offices as well as emergency rooms would be uncomfortably crowded every single day. Doctors and nurses would be working ten times harder than they already do and they would not be allotted the proper amount of time that they would need to look after their patients. In addition, if everyone was provided with healthcare, the demand for doctors would amplify and hospitals would most likely lower their standards in order to meet that demand. However, I am conflicted because though I am sure that the quality of care would decrease, for the millions of families that do not have health insurance any care is better than no care at all. A point that I strongly disagreed with was number 13 on the Pro list, “Coverage of all Americans would best counter or contain the spreading of epidemics such as the H1N1 flu (swine flu) or smallpox.” I think that that’s a huge judgment to make and that even if healthcare did help counter spreading of epidemics, it would take years for the numbers of those effected to decrease even by a small amount. In addition, if a disease such as the H1N1 were to strike, large masses of people would be going to the same healthcare centers, thereby spreading the illness easily to others with lowered immune systems in hospitals. Viruses spread and are caught depending on the person. Every person is different, so saying that a health care plan can actually help contain the spread of such sicknesses is ridiculous. In general, I am not sure how I feel about this bill. It could help millions of Americans avoid bankruptcy, however it could also raise taxes so much that Americans would be taking the same financial blows they are now. It would be wonderful to see the people who normally have to wait hours at the free clinic be able to get the care they need, however I think that allowing the government this kind of power over American people might lead to citizens being taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the two videos, I recognized the mentions of the interstate commerce clause as well checks and balances in the first video in which the judiciary branch exercised its power and denied the motion to dismiss a Virginia healthcare lawsuit, thereby challenging the president’s (executive branch) new health plan. I think that Mr. Baker made a better argument because he provided the audience with more factual evidence that made his case more believable.
I agree with Will Burroughs's comment that it is not a fact of whether or not your agree with the bill but how it is executed. I think that if the government as well as the citizens of America remain responsible and do not abuse their power of the new health system, it could be a great thing. However, if the general quality of care decreases and taxes rise dramatically, than the plan would not be a good idea for America.
ReplyDeleteThe "pro" I agree with the most is right in the beginning of our Constitution. The Preamble states that one of its purposes is to promote the general welfare of the people. I consider health care to be for the good of the people hence it should without a doubt be a right.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that it is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. It also states that health problems such as obesity can be avoided. I find that hard to believe when you can find five McDonald's on the same street in any given city. Another "con" stated that the Constitution only said to promote welfare not provide it. And yet junk food, cigarettes and other health hazards make up a large majority of advertisements and media. If its job is to "promote" welfare, then it should at least promote healthy lifestyle choices.
Overall, I definitely believe that universal health care should be provided to all citizens. The simple fact that the United States is one of the few, if not only, countries that does not provide it is shocking. How is it possible that a country like the U.S cannot provide a basic necessity to its people?
Some terms I heard in the videos that we had studied in class are the supremacy clause, interstate commerce, and the concept that federal law overrules state law.
I think that Thurbert Baker makes the better argument. He explains the interstate commerce and how Congress has a vast power in this area. He also states how federal law overrules state law. He predicts that this lawsuit would just be a waste of money.
I agree with Christina Stewart in that a federal health care system would not necessarily decrease healthcare costs because it would induce more people to go to hospitals for problems they wouldn't otherwise seek medical attention for. Although most people would not abuse the system this way, enough people would so as to create a major burden on the tax payers who are funding this system.
ReplyDeleteI do not, however, agree with several posts that basically say people bring on their sickness through poor health habits. Granted obesity is a huge problem in the U.S. and people need to make better decisions about what foods they eat and how much they exercise, but the majority of illnesses/hospital visits occur independently of lifestyle choices. Serious problems such as cancer, aneurysms, strokes, organ failure, etc can happen to anyone no matter how often they exercise or how many vegetables they eat and trans fats they don't eat. Also, just because someone cannot afford to pay for healthcare does not mean they are lazy. Many people have faced hardships most of us can only imagine (mental illness, abusive relationships, residence in dangerous areas with high crime rates), and must start from the absolute bottom of the socio economic scale without the support most of us have had all our lives whether it be in the form of financial support from parents or just the comfort of having an emotional support group. It's a greater challenge for someone under those circumstances to do something that seems so normal and essential to most of us. However, that is where the often cliched "American Dream" comes in. In our society it really is possible to come from the bottom and work your way up.
I strongly agree with the statement “Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity. Socialized medicine is comparable to food stamps, housing subsidies, and welfare--all of which is charity. Distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity”. People looking for a free handout did not create America; it was hard working people that built America to what it is today. If the federal government provides healthcare to all of its citizens it will give people even more of a reason not to work hard. What I really dislike is the argument “Health care costs are unaffordable and bankrupting Americans. In 2007, 62.1% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and 78% of these bankruptcies were filed by people who had medical insurance.” Everyone knows that healthcare is expensive; there is no denying that. What people sometimes tend to not realize is that socializing healthcare will not make that price go down. Someone will still have to pay those bills, and throwing more debt onto the federal government is not what we need. In our economies current state I seriously doubt that we could have a good healthcare system that would improve the lives of Americans. The federal government has proven many times that they cannot spend our money well, so why would we give them more of it. Nobody likes taxes, and socializing healthcare will definitely raise taxes on the wealthy. America should not become a place where people can sit around and be taken care of by the government; people should work for things such as healthcare. I’m not saying I want to see people suffer, I just believe that our government can’t keep spending money the way it has. If anything healthcare should be up to the individual state governments. For people that still think we need to provide healthcare to everyone, think of this situation. Jimmy is a hard working 10 year old, his brother Timmy is very lazy and likes to sit at home and play video games. Jimmy gets a job mowing the neighbor’s lawn and is paid 10 dollars. However, when Jimmy gets home he finds that Timmy has broken his thumb by gaming to hard. Their mom tells Jimmy he has to give up 2 of his dollars to pay for Timmy’s medical attention. This is obviously not fair, and so is socializing healthcare.
ReplyDeleteThe videos reminded me of the whole debate over what powers should the federal government have, and what powers the state governments should have. It was interesting to hear both men present their arguments about the healthcare bill, and what was even more interesting was how they interpreted the law to fit their point of view. While I do agree with the first video, Mr. Baker did present a very respectable argument about why the law is constitutional. Whether the bill is constitutional or not I do not know, but I do think the courts should examine this law further to determine if it is really what our country needs right now.
I completely agree with Mr. Oval. I think it is difficult for people to make decisions that are for the good of the people as a whole when they only have their own perspective to base off of. Like Alec said, "30 days on Minimum Wage" is a glimpse at some peoples' daily struggle. It isn't always a choice for some people to have or not have health care. Of course, there are many facilities that help families through it but quality can get lost along the way. Having to choose financial ruin or high quality health care should not even be an option. It should be a given.
ReplyDeleteI agree most strongly with the side of the argument that says that government should control health care, to an extent. America is one of the world’s richest nations and therefore we should have no problem with the costs of keeping all our fellow Americans healthy. With nationwide healthcare, our country would include more individuals who are excelling at their highest possible level. One aspect that many people who are for this side of the argument is bring forth is that our infant mortality rate is ranked #162 in the world. There is no reason that infants should be taken away the right to life that is guaranteed in our constitution just because their parents can’t afford health care. I don’t think any child should have to be born outside of a hospital just because of their family’s financial situation. I disagree most strongly with the argument of those who oppose the health care bill that says the constitution says it will promote the general welfare, not provide for it. I find this ridiculous because the constitution also says citizens are given the right to life and that it is the government’s job to protect its citizens which is exactly what nationalized health care would do. Personally, I think that health care should be partially individually mandated and partially paid for by the government. A basic level of health care should give the low income earners protection against life threatening illnesses and diseases and higher levels of the health care would include everything that those who now pay for it get when they have top-notch insurance. The more you pay for insurance on top of your basic health care plan which is provided for everyone would determine how much care you get and how good it is. Basically, this would combine both sides of the argument while essentially giving everyone health care which is the most important thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Delaney Luna and her argument that health care for everyone would be a great thing for our country. Nobody can determine what kind of insurance they need until they are in dire need for care and it may be too late. If one can’t afford any sort of health insurance and they get a deadly disease that is not their fault and they can’t pay for the necessary operations, we would let them die under the system we have now. As the best nation in the world, we can’t be a role model for developing countries if this is what we do to our lower income citizens. I also liked what she said about how the federal government should control the care and not the states because unbalance between care in the states could disrupt the natural bell curve of incomes among working individuals in our country.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Polostar'11 and their argument that a federal healthcare system will bring prices down of medical bills and get rid of corruption. Just because the government controls healthcare would not mean that prices would go down, rather prices would go up. Imagine right now, do you know how much your electric bill is? Probably not because you don't need to know, because you dont have to pay for it. If people don't have to pay for their healthcare they won't care how expensive it is. Someone could charge $20,000 dollars for an x-ray and people would shrug and say "whatever, i'm not paying for that". If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till it's free.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with CJ and Sammy's comments. Although I do not agree with this bill it does have good intentions. Everyone should have healthcare, but it shouldn't be put on the backs of those that have worked hard to take care of their families, especially if their money is going towards the healthcare of someone that made the decision not to get a degree and a good job, thus not having the financial ability to support their medical costs. Also, there are those that don't want healthcare. Thus, it should be a personal choice of whether or not a person has it, not something that is forced upon them causing others to pay for something they do not necessarily want. Braydon also made a good point. We are in a lot of debt right now and the government supporting the costs of everyone's medical care would only dig us deeper. We should be working to dig ourselves out of our huge deficit rather than make it larger with the addition to healthcare.
ReplyDeleteConsidering all the arguments for both sides of this controversial issue, I most strongly agree with the idea that every American has the right and should be provided with health care. A statistic that supports my view is from a poll saying that, "64% of Americans say health care should be a right." It seems only logical that every citizen get a low, affordable health care plan. Health and life preservation should be the most important goal of our population. Number one on the PRO list states that, "All Americans should have a right to health care because the Declaration of Independence states that all men have the unalienable right to "Life," which entails having the health care needed to preserve life." Although some people argue that providing everyone with health care will "amount to socialism," and decrease the availability and quality of health care, I believe it will not if we choose a completely different plan. We should allow every citizen to have access to affordable health care, but people who have more money or work harder for their health care can upgrade to a better plan. This allows for flexibility, but also gives even low-income families the ability to be covered. I also agree with number five that states, "Ensuring that all Americans have the right to health care will decrease health care costs by allowing people to receive regular and preventive medical care and not wait until they are chronically ill to seek treatment when medical costs are much higher." This makes sense because people who do not have health care will let their condition go unchecked and eventually need emergency treatment costing much more than if they had been seen earlier.
ReplyDeleteI disagree most strongly with number four on the CON list. It states, "It is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, cancer, stroke, and diabetes can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles." There are too many exceptions for this statement to have any leverage. So many diseases and illnesses people are born with or are hereditary. It is unfortunate when people are living with pre-existing conditions and it would be wrong to say that it is solely the individual's fault. I believe that it should be somewhat of the Federal government's responsibility to give its citizens the ability to have health care. The Federal government should play a role in providing Americans with at least a low cost plan. Health is too important to just say that people who cannot afford insurance cannot have it. Also, number thirteen on the CON list says that, "Providing health care to everyone is a huge expense and may result in tax increases thereby further harming the economy and individual pocketbooks." This should be up to the citizens themselves. A statistic even said that "57% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance."
The terms and concepts in both videos that I recognized from what we have been studying were the Commerce Clause, court decisions, the judicial branch's power to rule things unconstitutional, Franklin's New Deal, Federalism, the Constitution, impeachment, and SB-1070. To me, Mr. Baker seemed to propose a better argument, which was that the health care bill was constitutional and that he didn't join the lawsuit. Mr. Cuccinelli seemed very one sided, with little to back himself up. He was a good speaker, but overall his argument didn't have the same effect that Mr. Baker's had. Mr. Baker seemed relaxed and confident in his view because he looked through each law and didn't find anything unconstitutional. Mr. Cuccinelli was overly dramatic in his argument.
I agree with Meg on multiple points. She mentioned that healthy Americans are the ones who are going to contribute to the economy and strive for excellence. How could you disagree with that idea? If you are not with sufficient health care, and you have an illness, you are most likely not going to be able to supply the world with greatness. I also liked how Meg said that receiving treatment on a regular basis is going to lower medical costs, because it's true. If things are treated when they are young, then the chances of becoming fatal are very low. The last point of hers that I agreed with, I think she stated very well. She said that she felt America should provide health care not only because it is mentioned in the Constitution, but for real reasons that will affect the world now.
ReplyDeleteIt would be easy for someone to say that they don't want this health care plan because it is going to cost so much money. It would also be easy to say that everyone deserves free health care, it is our moral duty. I do lean towards the forth con, which discussed how a person is in control of his/her health. They regulate what they are putting into their body, and how much they exercise. We don’t have people checking in on us making sure we are making all the right health decisions. Many people could easily abuse the free health care by not taking care of themselves and making everyone else pay for it. It is understandable that some things are inherited and you just have to live with it. Two of the pros I disagreed with were number six and seven. In number six pro it discusses how the free health care will allow people to live longer and contribute back to the economic system. This economic system is doing the best that it can. Every job that is out there seems to be filled because the unemployment rate is so high. If there was a job to have people would be fighting tooth and nail for it. How can you guarantee that someone will live longer also? Does this bill come with a crystal ball to look into the future and see that people will live longer? As for number seven saying that the lack of health care will lead to all these things such as sickness, stress, anxiety, and depression, I think all of these things are occurring even when people have health care. They do not just appear when you don’t have health care and disappear when you obtain health care.
ReplyDeleteThings that sounded familiar were the Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, taxing power, and the New Deal.
Mr. Conccinelli made quite a few points that really struck a chord. He helped explain and made clear to me as the view of who really would be in control, how everything would work, and the underlying contexts that make this law unconstitutional. He commanded a presence and was able to answer the questions clearly and completely.
I agree with what Delaney said, "The point I agree with the most is that all Americans have the right to be given health care, and that, as stated in the Constitution, the federal government is supposed to "promote the general welfare" of its people and protect their rights." This healthcare bill allows is something that the American government should have provided firsthand, although the manner in which it is given out. I truly do believe that Obama is on the right mindset for wanting all Americans to have healthcare, but the implementation of his plan is the real problem, not the healthcare bill itself. Making the American people have to buy healthcare has the potential of negatively impacting American citizens by forcing them to pay for something that could become costly on top of other expenses they already have. Also making the citizens pay for healthcare during a recession, or after a recession depending on your viewpoint, can negatively affect how people view their government as well as potentially destroying families financial wise.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with PoloStar11. A federal health care system will do the exact opposite of lower medical cost. If we are paying for the people that cannot cover their own bills, then somehow money is going to have to be generated. Those that can pay will be charged more and those that cannot pay will owe nothing. It sounds like a nice idea, to give everyone free health care, but long term it is just going to make things much worse. Everyone wants to pretend like they want to help those who do not have health care until it is time to pony up some money from their own pocket.
ReplyDeleteMostly, I agree with the third pro statement. I believe everyone has the right to health care and although it is true that staying healthy is the responsibility of the individual in certain cases (like obesity, diabetes, lung cancer, etc.), as sated in the fourth con statement, many things cannot be controlled like cancer and other diseases. Of course, this isn't a black and white topic. There's no yes or no answer, but for the most part I think that everyone has the right to shot at healthcare in serious situations. Even if everyone were to get a small healthcare plan, I think that would suffice. It's a lot of money and it could be risky depending on the people, but I think it's worth it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone should be limited or denied the opportunity to help themselves because they can't afford it. Maybe not everyone will take care of themselves, but it's important to at least supply the minimal amount of help to anyone, giving an equal chance.
I think Cuccinelli made a stronger point because he seemed to use more references to the Constitution and he made sure to prove what he believed to be wrong or right.
The videos talked about federalism in general, the Supreme Court's power of taxation, and the supremacy clause. Also, much concern over the question of constitutionality was shown.
The government controlling our health care would indeed be an act of socialism. I agree with this con of the Health Care Reform (con #7). Yes, it would be nice if everyone could have health care. However, if the government were in charge of this, they would be running the hospitals and being the ones keeping us alive and to some degree we will therefore owe them our lives. I do not believe our country's government would exploit its citizens' lives, but health care over everyone is a huge power and responsibility that should not be in the hands of our government. Ultimately, it's not like we would become slaves, but the federal government would indeed be gaining more power which it wasn't supposed to be doing since the beginning of its existence.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone could be provided with their own health care, the health care prices would most definitely find themselves rising (thus, my disagreeing with pro #5). I find this true because here is how our world works: The more people involved in any kind of field of interest whatsoever, the more it becomes a business. Everything at some point in time, becomes a business. And if every American citizen were given health care, so many more different kinds of health care would come to exist that it could be considered as a new Wall Street. I personally do not like the idea of everything becoming a business, so I'd rather not have the well being of my life become one.
All in all, I tend to see the good in both sides of an argument (unless one side is complete b.s.) So as usual, I am torn between the two sides of this reform. It amazes me how much of a "Black and White" world we live in. You're either one thing or another. A liberal or conservative. One of the main things I've come to learn is that no matter what, there will always be an exception to anything. I mean, if this reform doesn't pass, there will still be people dying in the streets. If it does pass, we'll lose more of our natural rights as human beings. I dunno. I just wish grey was a more pleasing color.
I strongly agree with Sarah Dunseath, especially on her points concerning other people's circumstances. Honestly, we can hardly fathom hardships that other people face, which is why I disagree with con 7--"Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity...Distributing charity to society makes people lazy." While I can see this in some cases, there are many factors that contributes to a person's health that is not entirely of his or her doing, such as their genetics and other circumstances that Sarah had mentioned previously. But as she said, it is overcoming these challenges and actualizing the "American Dream" that makes America so great.
ReplyDeleteI should probably go back to retell my point of view since it may have been cloudy before. I am all for health care for the entire nation if we can find an affordable way to do it. By that, we need to find a way to spread the cost out to all of the people instead of just the working class. We need a way for everyone to help pay for it. If we find a way to accomplish this I will be all for health care for the entire nation, however if it goes how it probably will, the working class incurring most of the cost, then it will never work. We need the people in the higher tax brackets to help pay more because most are making so much money that they are just throwing it around.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Jenilee:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand that Jenilee was somewhat cautious in her agreement with the idea that an individual is responsible for their welfare, I still feel compelled to restate my opinion that this is not always the case. For me, this hits home. My cousin has Hemophilia, a condition which prevents her blood from clotting when she gets a bruise or a cut. Any bleeding of any sort can't be stopped. She has to receive medicine (Factor 8), in order to survive things that the rest of us take for granted. She will be, for the rest of her life, dependent on medicine that her medical insurance company almost did not cover. If it were not for my family's persistence with the insurance company, it would be impossible to pay for the missing factor in her blood. Claiming that people are entirely responsible for their medical conditions and needs is irresponsible and flimsy. It simply does not take into consideration all of the individuals who have suffered the cliche "Sometimes bad things happen to good people."
-CLOE MOCTEZUMA
I agree with Bailey because it's true, right now healthcare just needs to be accessible to the people. Who are we to judge whether or not someone deserves help? Yes, keeping up with how healthy you are is your own responsibility and not that of the government, but you can't control everything. Because you have messed up doesn't mean that you should be rejected like nothing. I think everyone just deserves an opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the con side of the argument, because I believe it is the citizen's responsibility to get health care by working hard in a job, and that the government should not just hand out health care to everyone, because I do agree that this would promote laziness. The right to health care is never promised in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, therefore it is not the duty of the government to decide whether or not every U.S. citizen should receive health care. I strongly agree with con number 2 which says that the job of the government is to "promote" general welfare, not provide it, because if the U.S. starts issuing laws that requires everyone to have healthcare, there is no way to know what else they will require. The pro that I disagree with the most strongly is number 11 because health care cannot be related to trash services. This is a ridiculous comparison because cleaning up trash costs a significantly less amount of money than health care and is something that probably 100% percent of Americans agree is necessary, as opposed to the 64% of Americans that believe health care should be a right. In the videos, however, I think Mr. Baker made the better argument, solely due to the fact that he constantly said that he didn’t want to waste the tax-payers’ money, which is something people can relate to. In the videos some terms that I recognized from the unit were commerce clause and the supremacy clause.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Article makes many points for and against Health Care as a right of citizens of the United States, I don't feel it truly addresses the entire issue. Whether or not all people should have a right to health care is far from the idea that everyone should be required to have it, and that conflict isn't really discussed in the article. I agree with the idea that as life is an unalienable right of the people, they should have access to health care, which is in line with Pro #1 of the article. At the same time however, I fear that Government run health care could lead to some of the issues seen for example in Canada (Con #6), such as when the Premier of Newfoundland came to the US last year for heart surgery unavailable to him in Canada. My least favorite points in the article were the early points on the Con side, such as Con #1. The argument that the Declaration of Independence says the right to "pursue happiness" rather than the right to free health care doesn't prove that it shouldn't be a right, merely that that statement in the Declaration of Independence doesn't guarantee it as one. The right to pursue happiness also doesn't explicitly say the right to say whatever you want so long as it isn't harmful to others. Basically, I think that it would be great if health care was available to those that wanted it, but at the same time I don't believe that the Government should be able to tell everyone that they have to buy health insurance. I believe that should be their own decision, and if they choose not to purchase insurance and then have an emergency of some sort, they should be left to pick up the tab.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the videos were concerned, much of the discussion of the supremacy clause, commerce clause, and supreme court rulings regarding it were similar to discussions we have recently had in class regarding federalism and the balance between state and federal powers. Personally, while I don't entirely agree with him, I felt that Mr. Baker made a better argument for the Constitutionality of the law. That however I felt was a function of the interview--Mr. Conccinelli's comments pertained more to the issue of how the lawsuit came to be and what implications it could have depending on which direction it goes than the straight details of why it isn't constitutional. One issue that I did see in Mr. Baker's logic was using the approval of Massachusetts' health care mandate as an example of why the federal government should be able to. Massachusetts is a state, and thus relies on the 10th Amendment for the right to regulate health care, which is completely different from the commerce clause used for justification of the federal government doing so. Ultimately, while I don't necessarily think that the federal government should require citizens to purchase health insurance, I'm not yet entirely convinced one way or the other in terms of whether or not it has the right to, as I see logic on both sides of the argument, and I haven't yet made up my mind as to which I think is stronger.
You see, here's the bittersweet thing about this Health Care thing. In the post above, I basically argued that we'd lose more of our rights to the government. But ultimately, I think I'd be willing to give those rights up for a all-encompassing health care system. I agree with Maia and Dluc (Dylan) mostly because of the fact that I know that they've both been hospitalized before just like me (probably along with and handful of others I know and a lot more I don't know) and I have no idea how stressful it might have been for our families without health care. Though it would be controlled by an arguably messed up government, I would never try to go against a plan that would help out the people I hold dear. And why should it just stop there, y'know? And this point is on a completely apolitical level.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Braydon that ultimately, people first and foremost should be responsible for ensuring that they remain healthy, and I do agree that people's personal choices have a lot to do with how healthy they are. However, there are many health issues that aren't preventable simply by making good lifestyle choices, so I do believe that it is important that people do have access to health care.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brooke Bernardy because she makes a good point that it is pure speculation that people will live longer and therefore contribute to the economy with the help of health care. Also, I agree that a great deal of diseases and health problems do come from people abusing their bodies and not living healthily. It is not our country's duty to support these people and their unhealthy lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteI most strongly agree with the “for” argument regarding helping to contain the spread of diseases such as H1N1. If everyone is required to have, or provided with, health care, then all the federal government has to do is tell everyone to visit their health care provider and the disease is on its way to being contained.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I most strongly disagreed with was the “for” argument regarding one’s unalienable right to “life.” This right to life is meant to free the people from the hands of a tyrant, not be used in the case of health care. I believe that this view on the Declaration of Independence is a stretch.
I feel that this law is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about providing health care to all citizens. If it were to be passed at all I feel that it should be at the state level. In the 10th amendment, the states are given the rights not guaranteed by the constitution to the federal government and I feel that the Congress is simply using the “commerce clause” to circumvent that.
I recognized a few concepts, such as the impeachment of a state official. I feel it is ridiculous to try and impeach someone simply because he doesn’t follow the masses. However, he probably won’t win the election for governor.
I think Mr. Cuccinelli made the better argument simply because Mr. Baker just stated numerous times that he couldn’t find any reason why it wasn’t, he could have countered some of the opposing viewpoints or added in some more concrete evidence in my opinion.
I agree with Heather in that health care should be provided and that many Americans are willing to pay for health care also that it provides greater flexibility and that there are many instances where people can't really have control over their lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteAffordable healthcare in my opinion is one of the most important things that Americans can have. Through the videos and websites I found I agreed more with the pro side than the con side. What I most agreed upon was that we as humans have the right to life, with easier access to health care this right can be fulfilled. I disagreed most with was: It is the individual's responsibility, not that of the government's, to ensure personal health. Diseases and health problems, such as obesity, cancer, stroke, and diabetes can often be prevented by individuals choosing to live healthier lifestyles. While there is some truth in this, I feel that in our society we make it easier to fall into these problems. Smoking is often glamorized in the media, often targeting teenagers to young adults. Fatty foods are often of easier access and cheaper than the healthy alternative. Some people are just genetically more inclined to suffer from an unhealthy lifestyle, which can make it harder to recreate a healthier lifestyle. Some things are really just out of peoples hands. Overall my general thoughts on the law is that it’s good in that its promoting easier health care, but at the same time it’s very complicated trying to determine if it is something that should be handled federally or state run. Even deciding whether the law is unconstitutional, or if people should be morally responsible for others. I think that having the federal government give health care to the citizens is good in that we aren’t having to be worried about the bills being so high, to me it’s like, what’s the point in surviving something if I’m always going to be bound by debt.
ReplyDeleteI recognized the commerce clause, and based on the commerce clause I feel that this is what allows the federal government to force people into buying the insurance. I also recognized the supremacy clause, federalism, and the civil rights act.
I feel that although I am pro for the health care bill, that Mr. Cuccinelli made some sound points, he felt that the law should be looked in several different ways rather than Mr. Baker who really just seemed to use the commerce clause as his reasoning behind it being constitutional.
I agree with Griffin's statement that the article does not fully address the entire health care debate. The right to having health care is a far different argument than the requirement of health care, or the "individual mandate" issue. Many may support the right to health care, however, when they are required to buy it, they may feel that other rights and privileges, such as a free market economy or the ability to choose investments, could be stripped away. Thus, the health care debate does not stop at the unalienable right of life, but instead addresses many more rights and responsibilities of the individual and the national and state governments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caleb's argument. Health Care is expensive and socializing it would only put our government into debt. Even if this law were to be deemed constitutional, I feel that the government should wait until we are out of debt before passing it. A few flaws in his argument, however, were his appeal to patriotism, which any valid argument can do without, and I feel that his metaphor was a little off. The metaphor would be better off if Jimmy's mom and dad were in massive debt and were having a power struggle with Jimmy's older brothers and sisters on who should be able to tell Jimmy what to do with his money.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the argument that makes the most sense is the idea that health care is a right In our society, we have decided that certain services should be guaranteed to us, and thus we pay taxes to the government so that they can provide these services. An example of one such service is education. Everyone, regardless of whether or not they have a child in the education system, is required to pay taxes towards schools, teachers, etc. We have come to the conclusion that education is a right so fundamental that the government is required to provide it for us. Society has made the decision that education is essential in order to produce citizens that will better society. Isn’t healthcare just as necessary? We believe if our citizens are not educated, certainly they cannot be expected to further society. The same should be true of healthcare: If our citizens are not healthy, certainly they cannot be expected to further society. While I am not trying to diminish education in any way, how can we place it above health? In the current situation we have now, healthcare is falling further and further to the wayside. If we keep our existent system, which is way to expensive, more and more people will be unable to afford healthcare at all. Thus, fewer people will have it, forcing health institutions to raise prices to cover costs and we will continue to fall further and further down this increasingly slippery slope.
ReplyDeleteConcurrent with the previous point, the weakest argument against universal healthcare is that healthcare is not a right, and therefore should not be provided by the government. The government provides many services not listed in the Bill of Rights; water, electricity, and education, just to name a few. This argument is incredibly weak because the government does not base and/or limit its services according to what the Bill of Rights has laid out.
The fact remains that healthcare is just to expensive and is impossible for some people to afford, which really should not be the case. Though there are some definite drawbacks to universal healthcare and many things to consider before implementing the system fully, it would be much better for the American people than the current system.
I believe that it is not the federal governments duty to provide healthcare for all the uninsured. It is not an enumerated power given to them by the constitution. I disagree with the argument that people have the right to healthcare according to the constitution. It is not mentioned in the constitution in any way. Only the preamble states that the government is supposed to promote the general welfare not provide it. If anything, it would fall under the 10th amendment and be a duty of the states or the people.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the health care bill is unconstitutional. The “individual mandate” is the main reason. As mentioned in the blog post, does Congress have the power to regulate a “lack of commerce” The government should not have the power to force people to pay for insurance or pay a penalty fee. If people can’t afford health insurance, they shouldn’t be penalized for it. This is what The attorney general in Virginia, and two dozen others, are arguing is unconstitutional. The bill doesn’t even have a severability clause, so if the lawsuit is won, the entire bill will not go into action versus only parts on a bill with severability clause. However if the states lose, a bipartisan professor at George Washington University, it will change federalism as we know it. The federal government will gain an enormous amount of power. In the past, governments who provide healthcare have much greater deficits. With the government $14,142,687,147,061.85 in debt, a bill for universal healthcare estimated to cost $940 over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, this is a mainly unfunded mandate. States are required to reform current health care plans, and give more money to programs than they have in the past.
I have heard several terms used before. Words such as federalism, mandates, the right to regulate commerce, the constitution. I believe that Mr. Cuccinelli made the better argument. He had very valid reasons. While it is an idea founded on good wishes, it is not the right of the federal government to provide healthcare or force its citizens to buy it.
After watching the two video clips, i thought i had a clear decision on which side i agreed with. But after looking at the pro/con list, im not so sure. This arguement really isnt black and white, because although it may not be "constitutional" for the federal gov't to pass the law, it is still very beneficial to the US citizens. I think health care, although it involves the entire country, should be left up to the individual not the federal government or even the states. The law is unconstitutional because it is never really listed as a power the government should have, it is merely another commerce clause or elastic clause that the federal gov't is trying to stretch. It is not within their authority to establish a national health care plan, that must be followed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with with cons 4 and 5 that health care is a material good, not a right and it is our personal responsibility to take care of ourselves, not the nations responsibility.
I disagree with pro number 11, it is not "crucial for our society" to have health care benefits for everyone, we have been functioning just fine without it thus far.
Overall it would be nice if everyone in the country could have health care and afford it but that is not reality, it is something we have to work for; to pay for it or to avoide getting sick in the first place. It is not the federal governments responsibility to force the citizens into buying health insurance.
I agree with Cassandra Fisher. People have a responsibility to take care of themselves, and the federal government does not need to interfere with people's life choices. If the federal government is able to regulate a "lack of commerce", where does it end? With such a wide scope, the federal government would be given the power to regulate almost anything, as even the most loosely connected action or non-action would be able to be connected to Congress's ability to "regulate commerce". The loss of liberty this would bring is a sobering thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with what sara has just said. and she reminded me of something i forgot, that Mr. Cuccinelle made the better arguement on why we should not have this bill passed, whereas Baker only had one invalid point. As sara said it is not the federal governments duty to provide health care and was never mentioned specifically in the constitution, therefore it should be passed on to the states to decide what health care reforms they want individually.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with CJ's comment that people should be able to afford healthcare if they are working hard enough. There are situations where parents are working as hard as possible to provide healthcare for their families but circumstances beyond their control have made this impossible. I agree that competition should be encouraged when it comes to making profit, however our healthcare should not be a part of this gamble.
ReplyDeleteWoops and here's that last part : The terms that I recognized were the Commerce clause/interstate commerce clause, the New Deal, and the Supremacy clause. I found Mr. Baker’s argument to be more logical and certainly easier to understand. After watching Mr. Cuccinelli’s interview twice, I still couldn’t fully grasp what his reasoning was because I felt he did not actually answer any particular question. Perhaps a different speaker would have been more convincing, however I agree with Mr. Baker’s position
ReplyDeleteIt is clear to me from observing both sides of this argument that there are strong and valid points from both sides of the fence. The strongest arguments from both ends were those that gave direct quotes from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I tend to agree with the PRO argument of "promoting the general welfare" of the people. The Constitution purposes our government for this goal and I believe that providing healthcare is how the government should be promoting its people's general welfare.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the argument that healthcare should be a right. It is not given as a right in the Bill of Rights and it is a service. Yet I still do not believe that our government can't provide this service to "promote the general welfare" of the people. I feel that the arguments that are most appealing to me are the one's that give a direct example from governing documents because they are less disputable because they are in writing. In order for a society to work there has to be rules and standards that everyone in that society collectively agrees on. If 46.3% of Americans did not have healthcare then it is clear to me that the general welfare of the people is not being provided for.
The acceptance of the power that Congress is given by the "commerce clause" seems to be one of the main points of debate. What I found to be a strong argument was that the "supremacy clause" gives the federal government rule over state governments. The lawsuits that the state governments are being pressured to pursue would likely be shot down from this clause. Because of the "supremacy clause" and the elasticity of the "commerce clause" I can agree with the Georgia Attorney General's position.
I agree with Sammy Hemp's statement that "Although I believe that one should not be denied healthcare, I do not think that people should be forced to get it either." I believe the same thing. It shouldn't be forced on people to get health care. If they don't want to have a back up plan in cause something happens to their health, well that's their decision. And I also think it should be more affordable but not required.
ReplyDeletethe arguments against and for the healthcare Bill have strong evidence for defending either point of wiew. I think that the most important con to the Healthcare Bill is that health insurance companies must accept everyone. This very important because then everyone who is wiiling to pay for it can receive this service regardless of preexisting conditions. It is also good in the sense the most of the Americans would have healthcare. Nevertheless, I think considering the country's current economy, it would be really dangerous to want to provide healthcare for every American. i think that the government already has too much on their plate and instead of making the healthcare industry more competitive, it could also be unmanageable. i think that everyone should have the option of choosing wheter they want to receive this service and not have it be something that is mandaded by the government.
ReplyDeleteI also think that in the respect of health insurance being too expensive, people who cannot afford healthcare can always apply for government funded programs such as Medicare so that they can receive this service.
This bill reminded me of all of the arguments that were formed as a resul of whether the state or the federal government should have the right to do certain things. Although it is different in the sense that the debate is whether the citizens should be obligated to have health insurance (not the states) it is a similar conflict because the problem is on who should have the power. It also reminded me of other cases that we studied in class where it was questioned wheter the federal government even had the constitutional power to enforce certain laws upon the citizens.
This is an important topic because it affects all Americans. I agree with the fourth con the most. It said that it is the individual’s, not the government’s, job to ensure their personal health. For example I live a very healthy and active lifestyle. I exercise daily and eat healthy. I should not have to pay for a person that chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle. Your health is what you choose it to be. It is easy to be lazy and unhealthy. I think I should not have to pay for people who are unhealthy. There are always exceptions to this however. I understand that not health issues come from unhealthy habits some people have hereditary diseases that cause health problems and there is always the unexpected accidents that can happen to anyone. It is not the government’s job to take care of people that do not take care of themselves. I disagree with the sixth pro the most out of all arguments given. It states that if everyone had health care everyone would live longer. Therefore they would give more economically to the country. This argument is logical. Since people are living longer though wouldn’t they have to pay more overtime in taxes for healthcare and therefore not have as much to contribute to the economy?
ReplyDeleteI am against the bill. Growing up with a military background shows me that you have to work hard for what you got. Everyone is born equal but it is how hard you work which determine the success you have in life. People who work hard should not have to support the lazy individuals who want to coast through life and simply live off the system.
The terms and concepts that sounded familiar during the video were the commerce clause, the taxing power of the Supreme Court, and how the federal government should not have the power to force people to get healthcare. The New Deal was brought up and so was federalism as a whole.
Cuccinelli made a better argument because he brought up how the system is run and who controls it. He pointed out the clauses that will have to be looked at to see if this bill is unconstitutional. However Baker spoke about the interstate commerce clause which gives more powers to the government. He said this to justify what congress is doing. Cuccinelli proved how certain clauses need to be overviewed so the best decision is made.
These are some facts for Alex Bookout
ReplyDelete1. It is actually not cost effective to pay for preventive care for 100% of the population, since in the case of cancer, only 1% of the population is affected.
2. If you go online, you can find pretty affordable healthcare, especially for the young adults who are a huge percent of the uninsured…many by choice.
3. Flu shots are given out free and/or at a minimal cost.
4. In every other country that has “Universal Health Care”, the wealthy travel to the USA for their care because we have the best, they won’t have to wait and they have personal choice. When my mother worked in radiation oncology, they saw Canadians seeking cancer treatment because in Canada it can take many months to start treatment for a diagnosed cancer since they only have 7 radiation oncology centers in the entire country.
5. Alex mentions the US’ high infant mortality rate…as with most issues; it all depends on how you define it. The US has a higher infant mortality rate than many countries because we choose to deliver premature infants and work to save them. In most other countries they would be miscarried or aborted and these “deaths” are not included in that rate.
6. Two things would make health insurance more affordable right now: the ability to buy health insurance from a company in another state—this would increase competition which always brings the cost to consumers down. And major tort reform—loser pays with frivolous malpractice suits therein bringing the cost of malpractice insurance down which in turn would bring the doctor’s fees down. Malpractice for certain specialties has become so high that many communities are underserved. Obstetricians cannot be found in many rural communities because the cost of practicing is so high, they cannot afford to keep an office open. Former Senator John Edwards has been credited with helping to raise the percent of C-sections done to deliver a baby given many of his successful lawsuits against obstetricians. One can argue that a C-section is much more costly to perform than a regular birth.
See you at lax tomorrow dawg!
Of all the arguments concerning HealthCare i believe the Pro side that determined that Health care is a Human right really understood what was at stake. If 62% of Americans in 2007 where bankrupt because of medical expenses why shouldn't the Government which serves the people create a plan for all Americans to obtain cheap Healthcare. Above all we are not talking about more taxes we are talking about someones health and life. "Guaranteeing the right to health care will encourage entrepreneurship, which is good for job creation. Currently people are afraid to start their own business for fear of losing the health insurance provided at their existing job." this quote taken from a list of Pros demonstrates that not only is creating a Government backed plan for HealthCare better for Americans but it would actually benefit our Economy because people are not going to be hassseled by independent Insurance companies for large amounts of money but are actually going to be relieved knowing the Insurance is actually a right that the government not only should provide but it is right to do so, after all a Government is in place to amend the needs of the people and for all i know HealthCare is a big need. Forget all those comments saying that we will turn into a bunchh of communists or a socialist nation if we pass this healtcare law(which we did), people forget that this is for the better of the Nation not for the worse. When is helping someone pay for their hospital bills become communism.
ReplyDeleteAlso concerning why the HealthCare reform was called unconstitutional by the state of Georgia, i must agree that on paper based in what is written on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the law might seem as unconstitutional but that did not prevent judicial review to come into effect, if something works why not implemented into our System.
I agree with Cassandra Fisher, because I think that it would be wonderful to receive free healthcare with no consequences, this is impossible and others would have to be responsible for covering the expenses of this healthcare bill. I also think that although some might agree with the healthcare bill, they do not like when taxaes are raised,unfortunately, taxes would probably be the main source for paying for healthcare.
ReplyDeleteConcerning nwilson post, i must agree to dissagre that yes it is the individuals right to obtain insurance not the governments but if the individual is restricted that insurance which in fact restricts that individuals right to obtain fair medical examinations then the Gov must get involved because it is the duty of the GOV to create a system where all Americans can obtain cheap and reliable reinsurance so no American goes untreated.
ReplyDeleteOf the arguments given on both the Pros and Cons sides, I agree most strongly with points 5 and 6 on the Pro side, because I feel that the majority of chronically ill health costs are prohibitively high and cause debt and bankruptcy because the person didn’t want to pay for health care when the problem first arose, and a lack of money should not be a reason to become sick beyond recovery and beyond monetary grasp. Also, healthier people contribute more to society in both their length of time on this earth and their time spent outside, at malls, at events, etc. However, I do somewhat agree that the government should not be the one to keep people healthy, and taxpayer money will be going to those who made stupid decisions like smoking their whole lives, instead of going to more worthy causes (Con #4).
ReplyDeleteOf all the arguments given on either side, with which one do Of the arguments given on both sides, I disagree most with Con #12, because while this in theory may be true, what ends up happening currently is those without healthcare, regardless of their condition, usually are turned down for care, when those with healthcare get their daughter’s runny nose treated with antibiotics. The free market has found that it is cheaper for them to just turn down the patients that won’t give them money, instead of forming competition that drives prices down and causes healthcare to be affordable to all.
I feel that this healthcare law, while having some parts included in it that may seem unconstitutional, is over-all constitutional and will greatly benefit the citizens of the USA. Mandates are legal under the constitution, although personal mandates are not specified, and the supremacy clause and commerce clause both strengthen the federal government’s arguments. Without mandates, this reform would be dead in the water, because just as a car crash with someone who doesn’t have insurance causes one to pay for something they did not cause, without personal mandates, those who didn’t pay for healthcare will end up being treated anyway on other people’s dimes, vs. if they are forced to pay (a small amount compared to current care, I might add) then there would be no need for this. In summation, I feel that the constitution justifies this law, and the majority of the arguments against it have little legal justification, regardless of the good that this law will bring to Americans.
I heard the supremacy clause, mandates, constitutionality, federalism, and the commerce clause in the videos, tying to what we’ve been learning lately.
I think that Mr. Baker made a much better argument because he stated the reasons why he feels the law is constitutional, he explained how they relate, he explained (without bias) what he was asked to do and how he responded, and he did so despite the fact that his decision may cause his re-election to be less successful, showing his true belief in the constitutionality vs simply relying on his own views and explaining relatively thin arguments, as Mr. Cuccinelli did. However, Mr. Cuccinelli did bring up a few valid points, and explained that while he doesn’t want to jump to any conclusions, the unconstitutionality of the law can at least now be decided, thanks to the judge’s denying of the dismissal of the lawsuit. Also, the bill’s lack of severability clause is different than the Immigration Law, which is not a very good idea.
The argument that I agree with most is, “The right to health care should be considered a civil right. People should not be discriminated against for being sick. Americans who are ill should not have to make the choice between financial ruin or paying for the medical treatments they need to stay alive”. Many Americans have been denied coverage due to previous illnesses, others have had their coverage dropped when it was needed most with the excuse that “the information that was provided was not accurate” or “this person did not mention that he/she was ill”. I believe that this is a major issue that needs to be resolved because everyone has a right to be guaranteed coverage by insurance companies. On the other hand, I do not believe that the government should spend their money on provided health care benefits to citizens of the Nation. Although I disagree that, “Guaranteeing health care for all Americans will lead to a problem known as ‘moral hazard,’ meaning that people will take riskier actions because they know that if they get hurt, they are guaranteed health care coverage” because I personally don’t believe that Americans wouldn’t mind getting hurt because they know that they will be covered, I still am not sure if it is a good idea for government to intervene in such a huge manner when it comes to Health Care. One of the main reasons why I don’t believe the government should intervene is the amount of money that will be need to provide health care to all American citizens. Our government is still recovering from the recession therefore passing this bill will result in an approximately $940 billion in 10 years. There were 46.3 million people uninsured in 2008, that’s 46.3 million people plus citizens with healthcare that will be provided health insurance. If individuals are having trouble affording medical insurance, what makes us believe that the government, who needs to stop spending money due to the billion-dollar deficit, can afford it? Yes, some of that money might come from our paychecks, but many people aren’t flattered with the idea of raising taxes. On the other hand, I do believe that congress has the power to pass this bill under the "neccessary and proper" clause and even the commerce clause, they shouldn't have the power to force commerce (citizens buying insurance).
ReplyDeleteMr. Cuccinelli had better arguements when providing enough information to why the bill was unconstitutional. He mentions how its pretty much a war between the national government and the states, "if states lose this case, its the end of federalism". He elaborates more on how the federal government is already intervening too much with health care. This bill gives more power to the national government and less to the states.
Response @ Brianne
ReplyDeleteI think that she brought up a great point about the personal responsibility of citizens to promote their own general welfare and health. It is certainly not the government's responsibility to provide for medical conditions that could have been prevented by leading a healthy lifestyle. Perhaps if the government were to provided healthcare there would be provisions or restrictions that limit what types of medical conditions would be covered. Everyone has heard or read about the decline of the health and physical well being of American's and it is do in part to ignorant individuals or those who just don't care. Provided healthcare would only be giving individuals a safety cushion and less of a reason to worry and regulate themselves. Therefore, limiting the accessibility of this healthcare or what it covers would be a solution. I think that my opinion has shifted for the better because I really see how universal healthcare could go wrong.
I agree with the cons more on this argument due to the fact that most of the pros are quite shaky in their assumptions. The first pro describes how the Declaration of Independence ensures an unalienable right to "Life", and uses that to justify that Health Care is implied. I don't agree with that, yet the con of the argument doesn't really act as a counterargument, even though they site the same document and phrase. I believe that Health care isn't an issue of happiness, but it should be available and not provided. The government isn't there to baby its people along with their lives.
ReplyDeleteI also don't believe that people should be REQUIRED to get health care nor pay a penalty if they refuse, because the government just cant do that. Its wrong in many ways and shouldn't be able to be implemented anyway since I don't believe the federal government should be able to implement something of that nature.
Mr. Cuccinelli's argument was pretty convincing in the fact that it isn't all about Health Care. It goes far beyond health care and deals more with the extent of power that the federal government has. The Interstate Commerce clause is being used a lot in this argument but I don't agree that it can be used as an argument for the pros of Health Care. I don't think interstate commerce has anything to do with Health Care because its arguing on behalf of all Americans and not just on behalf of one state or another. The issue is yet again more of a Federal vs. State government type of argument, and whether the federal government has the power to Implement laws as demanding as this. I do believe that states can decide on it for themselves if absolutely necessary, but overall I disagree with a requirement to provide Health Care to ALL American citizens. It should only be available, but not provided. It is our choice and should not be decided by the national, state, or local governments.
Mr. Baker seemed like he was avoiding many of the questions being asked and I felt like his arguments didn't have much behind them. I think that his was weaker however because FOX News wasn't as argumentative as the MSNBC interview. The MSNBC interview was much more intimidating and probably caught the interviewee off guard in terms of his arguments. Not that it would have changed my opinion, its just the FOX News discussion was much easier for the Attorney General to argue
I agree with Zev in many of his points, mostly the Constitution’s quote about “Promoting the general welfare” of the people, because while it doesn’t specifically say that the government should “provide” for healthcare, it suggests it, and times change; if we only ever took the Constitution at its face value, our world would be very different.
ReplyDeleteI again agree with Zev in that healthcare isn’t a right, it is a service; this law is allowing the people to pay for this service at a reduced rate than usual, and guaranteeing this service to all; it is never calling it a right. The people elected the administration that is putting this law forward, so in effect, they are choosing this—Obama ran from the start on the idea of healthcare reform for all—and despite changing his plan to suit the requests of others, he has finally created a way to do this. The people wanted this and if 43.6% of the people don’t have it, then something needs to be done. The government is simply creating a way for it to happen, not saying it is a right.
Lastly, the definition of the commerce clause, while perhaps being too powerful, is what it is, and its broad reach encompasses this issue. Instead of having an issue with this particular law, perhaps those suing actually have an issue with this particular clause, and should focus their efforts on it instead. As it stands, the supremacy and commerce clauses perfectly allow for this law to be passed, as Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker and Zev said.
I agree with Griffin in that one of the pros is that every American should be given access to healthcare and that government intervening in healthcare could result in many issues. Our nation has been doing well without the health care bill, although there are some issues with the companies denying coverage, that is one of the only major issues with our health care. I also agree with Griffin in mentioning that the government doesn't have the right to force health care on Americans.
ReplyDeleteReading through the arguments on both sides, I realized that even though both sides had valid points, I am more pro universal health care than I previously thought. I agree most with pro arguments six, and twelve. Six argues that providing all American citizens with healthcare will help the economy. I agree with this, because the more people we have in better health the more people there will be contributing to our economic society, either through working jobs or simply being consumers. Argument twelve on the pro side appeals more to the moral side of the debate. It argues that healthcare should be a civil right because people shouldn't be discriminated against due to their lack of wealth. It also argues that people who are ill (especially with serious diseases) should not have to worry about how they will pay their medical bills or how this immense cost will affect them in the long run. I think this is the argument that appeals to me most. I feel that if someone is sick, they should be able to receive help without having to worry about the financial burden it will be on them. People will also tend to put off going to the doctor until an illness or injury becomes serious enough to interfere with their everyday activities. Last semester we watched 30 Days on Minimum Wage in Ms. O'Brien's class, and in the film Morgan Spurlock had injured his wrist on the job (that did not provide him with health benefits), but did not go to the ER until it became more serious and when he did go to the ER just to get his wrist looked at and wrapped with an ace bandage the visit ended up being over $500. That just seems ridiculous to me, people being afraid to go to a doctor because of the financial backlash that may happen. It's sad, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I disagreed with the most was on the Con side and it was argument seven. It argued that providing universal healthcare is too socialistic and is bad for the economy. Although I can understand the argument, I don't particularly agree with it. I feel that directly it may seem negative for the economy, but in the long haul, like pro argument six said, there will be more healthy people readily available to contribute to our society's economy.
For me, the bill is extremely confusing, I just mainly understand the debate: universal healthcare or no universal healthcare. I feel that the federal government should give basic healthcare to people who cannot afford healthcare or whose jobs do not provide it for them. I feel that way, because I think that the people who can't afford the healthcare are the ones who need it the most. The less money people have the more likely they are to be living in extremely cruddy conditions. The bad living conditions can lead to health problems which may go untreated, because a trip to the doctor's office is too expensive.
Healthcare is a very important topic in today's news in the United States. A lot of people take it very seriously and it means a great deal to them. On the side of being for a provided healthcare, I felt the strongest argument was that healthcare is just too expensive and is unaffordable and is bankrupting Americans. it said that 62.1% of U.S. bankruptcies were due to medical reasons and 78% of those were filed by people with health insurance. If people can't afford insurance or it is going to affect their family and their overall well being financially, they aren't going to get it. On the other hand though, on the side that health care shouldn't be provided, i felt that the strongest arguments made were that of the severe raise in taxes and the decrease in quality of care. All the money that isn't being paid for on individual healthcare is going to be paid for somehow, and that's going to be through taxes. Taxes are going to raise dramatically. Also the quality of care will decrease due to the increase of patients. Doctors/physicians, etc. will be overwhelmed and will be just trying to get through as many patients as they can as fast as they can. Also the waits will be far longer, just like they are in Canada. So if you actually had something really serious you would have to wait even longer than you usually have to. When it comes down to it, I don't think the federal govt. should be in charge of health insurance. Also i felt that Mr. Cuccinelli had the better arguments and provided more and better facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michelle Pigott's argument "In our society, we have decided that certain services should be guaranteed to us, and thus we pay taxes to the government so that they can provide these services. An example of one such service is education. Everyone, regardless of whether or not they have a child in the education system, is required to pay taxes towards schools, teachers, etc. We have come to the conclusion that education is a right so fundamental that the government is required to provide it for us." I never would have thought to make the comparison between these two topics, but I agree whole heartedly. Education is not a right specifically given to all U.S. citizens in the constitution, but our present day society has made is a right and deemed is essential. I believe that our health is just as important as our education, and since we pay taxes to schools for better education, we should also pay taxes for better healthcare.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the arguments collectively, I would say that I generally agree with the people arguing against the right to health care. However, the argument I agree most strongly with would have to be the first argument for this kind of health care: "All Americans should have a right to health care because the Declaration of Independence states that all men have the unalienable right to 'Life,' which entails having the health care needed to preserve life." This argument I think sums up the facts of the matter plainly and concisely, two things that give an argument a lot of weight by my standards.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I disagree with the most is the last one against the right to health care: "Guaranteeing health care for all Americans will lead to a problem known as 'moral hazard,' meaning that people will take riskier actions because they know that if they get hurt, they are guaranteed health care coverage." This may be true of some people, but it's not true of everyone. Most people wouldn't sit there and think about what they could do that's more dangerous now that their health care is guaranteed.
I'm in AP French, and in class we've talked about their health care system, I've heard people talk about the Canadian system, and the people I've heard talk about it think it's better. But it would definitely backlog the system and prevent people with terminal illnesses from being treated in a timely manner. However, I think economically disadvantaged people should have equal access to good medical care. And therein lies the problem: how do you both help the poor and prevent the system slowing down? I think those are the basic problems people should be trying to fix, not one or the other.
From the first video, Virginia's Attorney General mentioned the commerce clause and the power of Congress to levy taxes. They also talked about Roosevelt's New Deal.
I think CJ is right. Sure i would love to get my healthcare covered by the government for free, but I just don't find that possible with what will happen with the raise in taxes and everything. And getting around that fact is extreely difficult.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caleb's argument against the Health Care bill and how it is pretty much socialism in America. It isn't as expensive as everyone is making it out to be and could rarely bankrupt people and cause hardships as bad as people are trying to argue. However, the example of Jimmy and Timmy wasn't exactly how I viewed Health Care, but I do agree with the rest of his argument.
ReplyDeleteExcepting her comments on the pros on and cons of the issue, I agree with Heather about much of what she said. We are generally conditioned as Americans to hate or fear any form of government that differs substantially from our own, like socialism. I remember a few years ago before the elections I had a friend who was criticizing Obama for his plans on taxes and spreading money in the economy, saying it was socialist and, pardon my French, complete bull. I think people need to be more open-minded about a possible overhaul of the system.
ReplyDeleteI believe that #3 of the Pro side was the strongest argument. I think this because it is true. Everyone deserves healthcare, no matter the situation. No human should be denied this right.
ReplyDeleteI think that #11 on the Pro side is completely unnecessary. It has no substance behind it other than a weak hypothetical situation. It lacks any real reason to have universal healthcare.
I believe that this is a good law. Universal Healthcare is an important part of moving forward as a society. Healthcare has proven itself a rather large cut of the economy today. However, it is for that reason that we should impose this healthcare system. It would reduce the desire for gaining any monetary advantage in healthcare. This would force people who intend to work in the healthcare field to actually help people, rather than work solely for money.
I think that Mr. Cuccinelli has a good view on this subject. However, I dislike that he disliked the idea of change in the Federalism system. Fear of change is what is holding the world back. We should not fear breaking tradition. This can easily cause repetition of mistakes made in the past.
I think that Mr. Baker was a little flustered with the whole debate. He lacked, to me, confidence. However, when challenged he seemed to act out in anger. To me, it seemed he was caught in a corner and was trying to escape with a rather weak argument about what his job is.
I must disagree with Brandon. It is the job of the government to take care of its citizens. If that means providing healthcare, then so be it. It would not be REQUIRED, per se, but rather given. Besides, who would turn down free health care?
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do agree with him on the idea that the pros present a rather weak argument versus those of the cons. However, all in all, I see universal healthcare as having more pros in general than cons.
Rickey Deo
ReplyDeleteAfter considering both sides of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that healthcare is indeed a tough issue since there are so many pros and cons that can effects on the government, economy, and lifestyle of American citizens. The argument that life is an unalienable right, and a natural right is a pretty big factor and puts morals into the picture. Healthcare can be seen as a "civil right," and denial of healthcare can be called "discrimination." The majority seems to agree with this view, considering over 60% of citizens believe healthcare is a right. It is clear that there are many benefits associated with the Healthcare Bill, though the negative repercussions should not be overlooked.
The idea of a moral hazard, the possibility people will abuse this right, can be quit burdening on the government, especially in this economy. Essentially, money is one of the biggest concerns with this bill. Where will the federal government get the funding for such a big project? There is an even bigger question at work as well. Does the federal government have the right to pass such a big bill?
This issue is filled with grey areas with little agreement. Weighting the pros and cons, I personally feel that the bill is unconstitutional, because it really pushes the limit of what the government should be able to pass. However I feel it is important to keep our minds open to both sides.
In response to Dorian
ReplyDeleteYou say healthcare should have been provided by the government "firsthand," yet this is not in the constitution but a rather a pretty big stretch of the elastic clause. Congress has limits to the kinds of bills they can pass, and the Healthcare Bill can easily go against the very federal system the country is founded on.
In response to Rickey (Madman of Zaun):
ReplyDeleteAlthough Congress does have its limitations, Congress could consider the Healthcare bill under their jurisdiction in use with the Commerce Clause. It could be possibly be classified under the Commerce Clause because if a person were to buy healthcare they could become financially unstable, with the cost of healthcare being so high, the government should take responsibility and pay for healthcare for all Americans, tying in with the Commerce Cause because the government would be paying for the cost rather than the people.
After looking at both the pros and cons of this argument, I feel that number 4 on the cons side provides the best argument. First off, being healthy or unhealthy is at its core determined by the decisions of the people. Although some may say that by ennacting healthcare the government is doing its job to protect the people, most of the health issues faced in this nation are created internally so the national government shouldn't step in to protect us. The argument I most strongly disagreed with was number 7 on the con side which said healthcare is socialistic and bad for the economy. I cannot see how healthcare is so detrimental to the economy. As time progresses, there are more healthy people who can contribute to the economy.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I feel that the government should make cheaper health insurance availiable. However, the government should not force people to buy this healthcare if they don't want to. I feel that with a few tweeks, the healthcare bill would be far less controversial.
ReplyDeleteA few of the term I recognized from the clips were "taxing power of the supreme court," "supremecy clause," "federalism," "The New Deal," "impeachable," and "Medicaid." I agreed with the argument made Mr. Baker most because he actually backed up what he said with facts. The other man simpily kept repeating himself and he was very boring to watch. Usually I would never even listen to someone from any Fox network due to their far right ideals. If Obama made a law that stop people from kicking puppies, someone on Fox News (most likely Glenn Beck) would say that Obama or any Democrat-liberal was a nazi. However, I was happily suprised to see a lack of communist- nazi crticisms on the part of Mr. Baker.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Dr. Ian Malcolm
ReplyDeleteTHe citizens should feel responsible and liable to provide their own healthcare. It is the responsibility of the citizens to take care of themselves and make healthy decisions. The citizens will feel that with Healthcare they don't have to take care of themselves because Healthcare is there just in case your health isn't to standard.