Diane Nguyen

A big debate during the November 2012 elections revolves around the issue of health care. Like to every story there are two sides, in this case its whether or not the government should be responsible for healthcare. The government should be responsible for the health care and health care options of its citizens. Many people now a days don’t care as much for their health care, as they should. That’s when the government steps in regulating laws and such for health care. Without the government involved, not everyone will take his or her health seriously. Therefore, the government should be responsible for the health care and health care options of its citizens. With the government responsible for health care and health care options, that does not mean the government will take total control of its every aspect.
The government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada. The key parts of the current U.S. system--employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor-- would stay in place. The government would create health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own. So they could more easily compare plans and prices. (Drobnic Holan 1)

Their power is still limited, but with them being responsible it would be an advantage to those who are still looking for health insurance because the government intends to help citizens with receiving insurance. Plus, Medicare and Medicaid will still be effective! Most importantly, no one will be denied of insurance. Thanks to the health care reform, “Insurers wont be able to deny customers for pre-existing conditions.” (Drobnic Holan 1) This is crucial because those who need medical attention most should not be denied of it. The government’s involvement includes providing affordable health care for everyone. “For people who buy insurance of the exchanges, a family of four making $88,000 would have a cap of 9.5 percent of their income. Lower incomes would have lower caps.” (Drobnic Holan 1) The health care reform plans to make health care more affordable for all, by charging a specific percentage off each individual’s income. That way, everyone is paying a reasonable amount of money. Just like in Oregon, the federal government might offer Medicaid to some working age adults who are still living in poverty. An Oregon study proved that the opening of Medicaid to a larger group was a success, so why not open it in more states around the country? “In a continuing study, an all star group of researchers following Ms. Parris and tens of thousands of other Oregonians has found that gaining insurance makes people feel healthier, happier and more financially stable.” (Lowrey 1) Just like Mayor Bloomberg began in New York City, the government might also begin to open up healthier food stores and supermarkets around areas that tend not to have enough or any of them. Bloomberg opened up new supermarkets so more people could have access to them. “In the Bronx, where more than two-thirds of adults are overweight…” (Hu 1) This is the first step to a healthier life style. “… it is a crisis for our city and our entire country.” (Hu 2) Obesity is a problem that affects a big percentage of the population, but it can also be prevented. Opponents of this position would say that the government should not be responsible for the health care and health care options of its citizens. “That will further explode the deficit and national debt by atleast $2 to $3 trillion over the next 20 years.” (Ferrara 4) They believe with the health care reform, it will cost our country too much money and add to our already existing debt. These opponents believe that this health care reform