Welcome. This is a blog dedicated to the students enrolled in the CSHS AP Economics classes.
Click on the title of the article, read, and click comment.
Regardless of the reasons for opposition, should we even really have public health care? I'm just not sure everyone SHOULD have it. But there arises the question of what to do with the sickly who can't afford it. I don't think there is a definitive answer for such a sticky subject.
I believe that there should not be government healthcare. I realize it would help many families, but it would also cost others. The United States does not have the money for this; already being 14.9 trillion dollars in debt. If the sickly needed some kind of subsidy I could understand. If someone does not want healthcare they should not have to pay for it, or others should not have to pay for them.
I think the writer makes some good points. And from her points, it sounds like, contrary to the picture, people don't really know all that much about the healthcare bills, or the finest details. While healthcare for everyone would be nice, I don't know if we can afford it. Yes it will cut costs and save billions of dollars, as stated in the 10 points, but can we afford to set it all in motion? I don't really like the government telling me what to do, but she makes the point that we already have to get car insurance, wear seat belts, and get an education. Being forced to have healthcare bothers me, but I have healthcare now, and would probably get it when I live on my own, so its only effect would be more money out of my pocket, which does bother me. But people who can't afford healthcare should have the choice; everyone should have the choice. If healthcare was offered to everyone, and the poorer people could afford to buy it with government subsidies, then that would be more agreeable. But I suppose there would be implications with that too.
If Europe can have a healthcare system, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have one too. Isn't America supposedly the most advanced country in the world? Yes, we have an incredible debt but that's our own fault and I think that we should be taking care of the people first and foremost.
This points out that people don't know a whole lot about the bill, and oppose it for the wrong reasons. They author makes an excellent point by saying that we are forced to wear seat belts, go to school, and have car insurance.. why not health care?
I believe the author of this article did make some very good points. It is not necessarily socialism, and it is not a government takeover. This person is right, private companies would be the ones offering this. The government would play a larger role, but it is not a takeover. I agree with Giovanni in that sure, we may not be able to afford it, but I believe health care should come first and foremost. Why are we spending money on other things and we are so against this? Lets stop spending money on useless things like war and start spending it on health care.
It really is hard to say whether or not we should have this...I am all for everyone being independent and providing for themselves...but I also understand that some people is desperate situations are just not capable of that. And does the government really have money to be tossing around in the health care world?
I believe that we should have a health care system, I mean if Europe was a well structured health care system why can't we? Are we not the most country in the world? And if we are, then why do we not have a better health care system.
What Christina stated made me think of the "social stratification" that we reviewed today in class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the people who CAN afford it have to pay for health care and the people who can't afford it get subsidies, wouldn't everyone (or most people) simply choose to move down in the social ladder in order to be eligible for free health care?
I quite disagree with you Daniela. Though I do think that people qualified to get subsidized health care would simply stay where they're at on the social ladder, why in the world would the wealthy want to move down?! Though they might bitch a little bit about health care, they would most likely value their consummate luxuries far too highly too just give them up in order to obtain free health care.
First of all, I oppose health care reform as the democrats have outlined it becuase it is unconstitutional, and we can not afford it. Weather or not this author thinks those reasons are justified or not, im gonna stock with them. Today, the Sate of Florida AG announced he will be suing the United Sates Congress upon signature of the bill by the President based on the unconstitutionality of the unfunded mandates this terrible legislation has in it.
Regardless of the reasons for opposition, should we even really have public health care? I'm just not sure everyone SHOULD have it. But there arises the question of what to do with the sickly who can't afford it. I don't think there is a definitive answer for such a sticky subject.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should not be government healthcare. I realize it would help many families, but it would also cost others. The United States does not have the money for this; already being 14.9 trillion dollars in debt. If the sickly needed some kind of subsidy I could understand. If someone does not want healthcare they should not have to pay for it, or others should not have to pay for them.
ReplyDeleteI think the writer makes some good points. And from her points, it sounds like, contrary to the picture, people don't really know all that much about the healthcare bills, or the finest details.
ReplyDeleteWhile healthcare for everyone would be nice, I don't know if we can afford it. Yes it will cut costs and save billions of dollars, as stated in the 10 points, but can we afford to set it all in motion?
I don't really like the government telling me what to do, but she makes the point that we already have to get car insurance, wear seat belts, and get an education. Being forced to have healthcare bothers me, but I have healthcare now, and would probably get it when I live on my own, so its only effect would be more money out of my pocket, which does bother me. But people who can't afford healthcare should have the choice; everyone should have the choice.
If healthcare was offered to everyone, and the poorer people could afford to buy it with government subsidies, then that would be more agreeable. But I suppose there would be implications with that too.
If Europe can have a healthcare system, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have one too. Isn't America supposedly the most advanced country in the world? Yes, we have an incredible debt but that's our own fault and I think that we should be taking care of the people first and foremost.
ReplyDeleteThis points out that people don't know a whole lot about the bill, and oppose it for the wrong reasons. They author makes an excellent point by saying that we are forced to wear seat belts, go to school, and have car insurance.. why not health care?
ReplyDeleteI believe the author of this article did make some very good points. It is not necessarily socialism, and it is not a government takeover. This person is right, private companies would be the ones offering this. The government would play a larger role, but it is not a takeover. I agree with Giovanni in that sure, we may not be able to afford it, but I believe health care should come first and foremost. Why are we spending money on other things and we are so against this? Lets stop spending money on useless things like war and start spending it on health care.
ReplyDeleteIt really is hard to say whether or not we should have this...I am all for everyone being independent and providing for themselves...but I also understand that some people is desperate situations are just not capable of that. And does the government really have money to be tossing around in the health care world?
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should have a health care system, I mean if Europe was a well structured health care system why can't we? Are we not the most country in the world? And if we are, then why do we not have a better health care system.
ReplyDeleteWhat Christina stated made me think of the "social stratification" that we reviewed today in class. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the people who CAN afford it have to pay for health care and the people who can't afford it get subsidies, wouldn't everyone (or most people) simply choose to move down in the social ladder in order to be eligible for free health care?
ReplyDeleteI quite disagree with you Daniela. Though I do think that people qualified to get subsidized health care would simply stay where they're at on the social ladder, why in the world would the wealthy want to move down?! Though they might bitch a little bit about health care, they would most likely value their consummate luxuries far too highly too just give them up in order to obtain free health care.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I oppose health care reform as the democrats have outlined it becuase it is unconstitutional, and we can not afford it. Weather or not this author thinks those reasons are justified or not, im gonna stock with them. Today, the Sate of Florida AG announced he will be suing the United Sates Congress upon signature of the bill by the President based on the unconstitutionality of the unfunded mandates this terrible legislation has in it.
ReplyDelete