This assignment is for Honors Civics Period 6.
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's first reading is Public Agenda's Healthcare reading and gives a strong overview of healthcare. The second reading is from Chapter 6 from Justice.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the readings. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to the reading above. You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- Create a short synthesis paragraph on the one of the texts and your text.
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 11/1, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Wednesday and Thursday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
“The Phenom” by Michael Crowley presents Paul Ryan’s ideals and signature Medicare as an approach to tackle a major component of the nation’s debt. The way the U.S. is progressing it will move to “fiscal Armageddon”. To avoid losing our sovereignty and independence a new approach to health care could be the solution.
ReplyDeleteLike “The Phenom”, “Public Agenda’s Healthcare” also highlights health care as a destabilizing factor of the nation’s economy. Health care costs have risen and has become a larger portion of government spending. Vice Presidential candidate Ryan’s approach to health care and Medicare in particular is to deploy a system of private sector insurers to create competition. This is similar to approach 2 in “Public Agenda’s Healthcare”, which also attempts to provide a solution to health care. There is a relation between “The Phenom” and “Public Agenda’s Healthcare” because they present similar aspects of a health care solution.
“The Phenom” comes from a credible source because the Times Magazine is an enterprise with a strong reputation. An inaccurate portrayal or inaccurate presentation of information would damage their reputation and cause financial loses. Since this involves ideals from the participants in the 2012 election it misinformation can jeopardize the candidate’s chances of winning. The author of this article further adds credibility to his argument by using strong evidence from an exterior source to help support his argument.
Michael Crowley utilizes strong evidence to support his argument. This is evident by evaluating the evidence presented. Crowley uses statistical exemplification to scrutinize and undermine the effectiveness of Ryan’s health care plan. Crowley states, “…only 18% of Americans would support major cuts to Medicare to reduce the deficit, according to a June 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation poll”. This statistic is important because a small percentage of people support budget cuts, and they are the ones voting. At the same time, budget cuts are essential to lower the deficit and government spending. Both the voters and the plan do not see eye to eye. An adjusted or a new approach is needed to get the majority of supporters since the plan affects them; more support is needed to make the plan effective. Moreover, Crowley uses a nonpartisan source, the Kaiser Family Foundation, to further validate his argument. There is no bias so a neutral stance is presented making it more accurate and credible.
In “The Phenom”, Ryan presents his signature Medicare approach and believes that the introduction of private sector insurers would drive health care costs down. Ryan declares, “…that the plan will drive down overall costs by introducing private-sector competition and giving Medicare patients an incentive to pay attention to what their care cost”. Leaving health care to the invisible hand like the economy would create a situation that constitutes Social Darwinism. Ryan would agree with the second approach in “Public Agenda’s Healthcare”. The second approach reads, “Give consumers more choice in their health care and use competition and accountability to bring costs down” (“Public Agenda’s Healthcare” p.6). What is not equated is competition and equality. The quality of health care is another issue. The affluent will have the resources to purchase better quality of health care. Some seniors are wealthy so they will have the better end of this reform. For those not so fortunate moderate priced health care will have to suffice, but it may not be the same quality as higher priced health care. There is no original position of equality in this situation, Rawls would argue. Current government health care policies would need to go through radical change to formulate into this new system. There is no guarantee that this is the best approach even if it is it does intend to lower the federal debt, it doesn’t promote equality.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126657,00.html#ixzz2AuAdcy1H.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2126657,00.html#ixzz2AtvtexTy
The text I found is "Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right" by Nina Owcharenko. Owcharenko argues that Obamacare is moving America's health care system in the wrong direction because Obamacare does not function well in our market economy. This text relates to this week's topic, health care, because it opposes the most recent attempt to reform America's health care system, Obamacare. The issue with the current health care system is that medical prices are constantly increasing which in turn elevates the cost of health insurance. As a result, an increasing amount of individuals do not have health insurance because they cannot afford it and many individuals must decide between paying medical bills, and paying for other necessary expenses like food. Owcharenko argues that Obamacare cannot solve this problem because it will complicate the current health care system by giving the federal government too much power over health insurance decisions.
ReplyDelete"Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right" is a credible text because Nina Owcharenko, the Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies, wrote it. Her position requires her to know and understand a vast amount of information concerning health policies, and The Heritage Foundation, a renowned public policy organization, hired her to write articles concerning health care because of her experience with the topic. This organization would not risk its own credibility by allowing an inexperienced person to publish an article on its website. Therefore, this text is credible because its author is an expert on health care, although it is heavily biased because The Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization that likely opposes Obama's decisions partly because of his political affiliation.
Owcharenko provides strong evidence that Obamacare must be repealed because she explains how Obamacare concentrates a huge amount of power in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to her, this will in turn create a complicated system of government managed medical care delivery, insurance markets, and health plans that will give the Health and Human Services Secretary the power to control who benefits and does not benefit from Obamacare. Owcharenko worries that the American public will not have enough power over their own health insurance decisions. Her evidence is strong because it highlights the specifics of Obamacare and links them to a lack of individual rights to show why Obamacare is not suitable for our market economy, which is based on our ability to choose from a variety of options.
A conservative, like Owcharenko, defends America's traditional values, and our market economy is one of the traditional values that makes America successful. Obamacare forces individuals to purchase a service, health insurance, in an effort to regulate this market economy and in doing so it opposes the idea of the free market where individuals purchase only what they want. This ties directly into "A Citizens' Solution Guide Health Care" by Public Agenda because Owcharenko's defense of our American values is synonymous with the description of this guide's "Approach Two" to solve the current health care crisis. According to this approach, "Purchasing health care coverage should be like the purchase of auto insurance"(6). The American public should have as many choices as possible from private insurance companies which should bring the prices of health care coverage down because of competition. Owcharenko agrees with this laissez faire approach to health care because it revives America's focus on the private sector to resolve the nation's issues with health care while minimizing the government's role in our health care decisions. Since this conservative logic is present in both texts it is clear why both texts preach the same message; less government, lower prices.
When it comes to federal spending, Health Care is by far one of the highest ranking programs the federal budget concentrates on. Out of the 5 programs (Defense, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and interest on debt), Health Care drains more (20.3%) out of federal spending than anything else. Because of this, individuals contemplate over the Affordable Care Act; known as Obama Care. If federal spending already concentrates heavily on Health Care, would adding another Health Care program decrease out debt?
ReplyDeletePublic Agenda’s Health Care issue provides readers with an insight on where Health Care stands with the people and government and how it can be improved. Everyone needs Health Care no matter their condition and Public Agenda agrees with this. However, they also state that “the cost [of Health Care] threatens to destabilize our country’s economy.” The cost of Health Care has increased drastically for various reasons; one of them being technological advances. Given these technological advances, the cost of care has immediately gone up since we are trying to balance the quality of care with the amount of people that get treated. In order to fix these flaws in the Health Care system, President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). Before Obama Care happened, 50million people were uninsured and did not have easy access to Health Care. Afterwards, however, the 50million uninsured was reduced to only 20million people uninsured. Although 20million is still a big number, 30million other people are now insured. Obama Care provides ONE way of improving the flaws in Health Care and allows for all to receive treatment (no matter their pre-existing condition), but it doesn’t cover all costs. This is where people begin to explore the pros and cons of Obama Care.
ProCon.org is a non-profit charitable organization ran by five staff-researchers that give their audience a list of pros and cons regarding controversial content like Obama Care. The website was founded in 2004 by Steven C. Markoff and gained recognition in 2007. Since then, governments, including those in Australia and even the White House, use this website to reference material due to its credibility. When weighing the pros and cons of controversial issues, the website uses quotations from well-known individuals like President Obama and John Boehner, Minority leader of the United States House of Representatives to reinforce either the pro or the con. This non-partisan way of giving out information gives researchers are able to read unbiased facts.
In regards to Obama care, ProCon.org uses a direct quote from President Obama that states, “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor…If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan…No one will take it away.” By saying this, President Obama is reaching out to his audience, giving them comfort. He is guaranteeing that Obama Care will not mess with previous Health Care plans, but will only make them better. The Center for American Progress then says, “We estimate that, on net, the combination of provisions in the new law will... lower premiums by nearly $2,000 per family.” This is what Health Care reforms have been targeting. Lowering prices to help everyone be insured and lowering the amount of federal money spent on different programs when there could only be one which in this case is Obama Care.
Both non-partisan parties (Public Agenda and ProCon.org) present the pros and cons of Obama Care and its effect on federal budget spending. Because federal spending are already going heavily into Health Care, pursuing Obama Care and keeping it might be what’s best for the country. Public Agenda states that some type of reform HAS to happen and ProCon.org shows the dynamics of Obama Care being viewed as a reform, but if change doesn’t happen now, the debt will only get larger and the country’s deficit will follow the same path.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/policy/limits-placed-on-immigrants-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all
ReplyDeleteThe article “Limits Placed on Immigrants in Health Care Law” by Robert Pear is an article that focuses on how immigrants are limited in the health care law. This article also touches on the President’s announcement on how undocumented immigrants who came as children and attended school here should stay in the country without fear of deportation.
This article connects to Public Agenda’s Health Care because this reading speaks about the role immigrants and undocumented people play when focusing on the idea of health care. This relates to Public Agenda’s Health Care because it focuses on the issue health care has on the United States and Americans and how the health care system can be reformed. This text also focuses on how the cost of health care is the biggest financial challenge in the United States and how health care is going to keep increasing in the future. Additionally, Public Agenda’s Health Care also includes graphs and statistical exemplification where it informs the reader how the health care is growing, how much health insurance coverage there is in the world and how the number of Medicare is increasing.
The evidence that exemplifies that the article “Limits Placed on Immigrants in Health Care Law” by Robert Pear is credible is that the article is from the New York Times which is an American daily newspaper founded and published in New York City since 1851. Furthermore, The New York Times publishes new articles daily where they wouldn’t publish inaccurate and unreliable information because the news source would lose it viewers and any business opportunities.
Robert Pear uses strong evidence in the article in order to build up his argument and prove it. The evidence Pear uses is from experts like Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at the National Council of La Raza and Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center to have more information on the issue of limiting immigrants to the health care law. Furthermore, Jennifer states “We do not understand why the administration decided to do this. It’s providing immigration relief to children and young adults so they can be fully integrated into society. At the same time, it’s shutting them out of the health care system so they cannot become productive members of society”. This evidence allows the reader to see the point of view of an expert like Jennifer who defends the immigrants.
Immigrants aren’t treated equally in the United States. In Public Agenda’s Health Care the first sentence stated is “At some point in their lives, everyone will need access to health care or medical treatment”. This line contributes to the idea of immigrants being limited to the health care law in the article I found because as stated in Public Agenda’s Health Care everyone will need access to health care at some point in their lives including immigrants. Therefore, immigrants should be included in the health care law so that by law they can be considered equal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/romneys-health-care-plan-uninsured-obamacare_n_1935941.html
ReplyDeleteIn Harry Bradford’s article, “Romney’s Health Care Plan Leaves 45 Million More People Uninsured Than Obamacare”, Bradford explains how about “72 million Americans [would be] uninsured by 2022” under Mitt Romney’s health care plan. Under Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), the about 27 million individuals would be uninsured, a major difference from Romney’s plan. Although both plans cause millions of people to be uninsured, it is clear which plan would cause more complications for Americans. The Public Agenda’s health care guide focuses on the health care problems and how to resolve these problems. Bradford’s article connects to the Public Agenda’s guide through Bradford’s elaboration of how Romney is actually adding more problems for our health care system by increasing the amount of people who won’t be accessible to it. When it comes to Obama, Bradford states how the ACA is beneficial in assisting Americans and fixing the current health care issues that are present.
“Romney’s Health Care Plan Leaves 45 Million More People Uninsured Than Obamacare” is a credible article because it comes from The Huffington Post, a renowned website that informs its readers on important national news. Since The Huffington Post is known as an major news source by several people across the nation, articles that deliver false information instantly degrades their reputation as a credible source.
Bradford supports his case by using data from the Commonwealth Fund and Families USA, two organizations that are “traditionally pro-‘Obamacare’”. These sources tell us how his data and argument is liberal and supports Obama’s plans. Bradford states that “By 2016, Obamacare would already cover 41.9 million more people than under Romney’s plan”. This benefits Americans since the Public Agenda’s health care guide states, “50 million people did not have coverage in 2010” (2). Romney’s plan is unable to support these Americans, making it clear that his plan would worsen the health care issue - more individuals would be left without medical assistance. Bradford also states that Romney’s plan causes Americans to have “to pay for basic services”, and argues that Romney’s plan “would do little to [decrease] medical costs”. Increase in medical costs would be a huge problem, since higher medical costs create an increase in the money spent on health coverage. The Public Agenda’s health care guide states, “some health care providers are actually able to offer high-quality care while reducing cost” (2), making it clear that the last thing America would want to do is raise health care costs and heighten the debt we are already in.
Bradford’s article shows exactly how a liberal would view each of the presidential candidates’ plans for health care. By giving data from reliable liberal sources, Bradford is able to deliver information that accurately supports Obama’s campaign, show the reader the positives of Obama’s plan, the negatives of Romney’s plan and how both of the plans can end up affecting our nation. Bradford would agree with the Public Agenda’s information, and would also incorporate ways in which Obama’s plan would be able to take on the approaches mentioned by the Public Agenda and correcting the health care issue. The Public Agenda’s health care guide shows how the health care issue has faced complications over the years. The statistics used and the methods towards fixing the issue show how the Public Agenda gives accurate information that allows the reader to realize what main points of our health care system we should be focusing on, and also by introducing ways in which the issue can be resolved in order to show the reader that there are in fact solutions to the problem that would help the nation. The writers of the Public Agenda would probably analyze both Obama’s plan and Romney’s plan together after reading Bradford’s article in order compare each one, since they’d would want to show how each candidate would affect Americans in general.
“Immigrant Health” by Eva Luo presents that many people oppose immigrants having benefits including healthcare but immigrants should have those rights because they help challenge the public health system. Immigrants do this by creating diversity and making sure that there is government intervention for their needs to be met. Therefore, immigrants demonstrate that they need healthcare not only for themselves but to benefit others that come into the United States and the United States government.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found relates to Public Agenda’s Healthcare because both texts highlight how Americans need medical coverage. In obtaining this, the best plan is universal healthcare where all Americans get health insurance. Furthermore, this week’s text and the text I found relate because they both address how the healthcare system should be modified. In approach 1 of Public Agenda’s Healthcare, the health system should be organized with a set of rules to protect Americans. Americans should get their medical needs protected but so should immigrants that come to serve this country. Immigrants just like Americans should receive healthcare because they do not have a preexisting medical condition, they are not children in a homeless family, and they should not lose a job through a fault of his or her own because that would just harm their legal status.
“Immigrant Health” is a credible source because it comes from The Next Generation: Tomorrow’s Medical Future Today (www.nextgenmd.org/) a center with multiple articles about health issues and its relation to politics for premedical students, medical students, and other interested readers. In addition the text I found is credible because it was written by Eva Luo who is a writer for The Next Generation who is also graduate alum from Harvard University where she majored in Biochemistry. She later got her Medical Doctorate at the University of Michigan. In this article, Eva Luo writes about the pros and cons of immigrants having healthcare. This proves that Luo understands health care thoroughly especially because she has enough knowledge about health and its effects towards people and the government as she has spent most of her life studying this. Indeed, fact check.org, a non-partisan website secures that Luo’s article is credible because both Luo and this site state that Obama was correct when he said that his plan would not insure illegal immigrants.
Eva Luo presents strong evidence to support her argument that immigrants challenge the public health system. First, Eva Luo uses statistical evidence from a poll taken by the Times Magazine where it states that 75% of Americans say illegal immigrants should not be allowed to obtain government services such as health care. Illegal immigrants do not agree and thus challenge the public health system because the government has to become responsible for providing them with basic preventive health care in order to avoid serious health problems in the future. In fact, it is important that illegal immigrants react this way because they are just as equal as any other human being. The only thing that makes them different is legal status and that should not be a barrier for one to receive medical coverage. Luo continues to support her argument when she writes “The Census Bureau projects that by 2050, immigrants will make up more than 13% of the total population” In this case, if immigrants are going to make up more than 13% of the total population then they should receive government service since they provide diversity to the United States. This shows that immigrants that adapt to American values should gain healthcare and the government should approve of this because if they do not, then the programs they have created lose value. In fact, in Eva Luo’s article, Dr. Frieden stated that “when designing [health] programs, [we] aim at the problems and try to cover the largest groups possible.” If the United States government does not focus, it will become weak.
ReplyDelete“Immigrant Health” and Public Agenda’s Healthcare both demonstrate that a nation cannot thrive if its people do not have the service they need. The American public should receive Healthcare especially since this country was founded under egalitarian principals. In this case, every individual deserves decent health aid. It is the government’s duty to protect everyone in this country’s borders. Undoubtedly, the health needs of immigrants should be understood by the government so that immigrant needs and health needs of the United States are supported as a whole.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney has always said that in his first day of office, he will get rid of Obamacare and make up a new and better plan. This article expresses why Obamacare is bad and explains Romney’s plan of action and why it would be affective. Three things that should be done, according to Romney, are restore state leadership and flexibility, promote free markets and fair competition, and empower consumer choice.
Similarly, The Public Agenda's Healthcare reading explains how the changes will be carried out. It explains what the current situation is and what can be done to fix it. Approach two in “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Health Care” by the Public Agenda is exactly what Romney wants to do, “Give consumers more choice in their health care and use competition and accountability to bring costs down” (6). Romney and the Public Agenda agree that giving the public more choice and increasing competition is an effective way to solve the problems with the current health care system.
This article comes straight from Mitt Romney’s website. This website is one of the things which help Romney’s campaign. Romney wouldn’t put up absolutely false information about what his plan is because if he did, he wouldn’t be a reliable candidate for President. No one will want a President who contradicts himself on his own website and then in real life. America needs a stable President who will run the country effectively and has a well thought out plan. Romney wouldn’t outright lie on his website since many people look at it, thus, if he places wrong information on his website, it could ruin his reputation and in turn possibly cost his campaign.
Romney explains how Obamacare is the wrong way to go, “Obamacare added a trillion dollars in new health care spending. To pay for it, the law raised taxes by $500 billion on everyone from middle-class families to innovative medical device makers, and then slashed $500 billion from Medicare.” Obamacare would only increase the amount that the federal government spends on health care which may help the health care problem but it would increase the federal deficit. A good health care plans needs to improve the system while keeping the deficit in mind. By using statistics, Romney strengthens his argument, showing that Obamacare is a bad choice and then highlights that his plan wouldn’t do the same.
Romney states, “Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.” While the Public Agenda states, “To decrease the cost of health care, we need to maximize Americans’ choices for insurance and care…people should be able to buy from a wide variety of companies, all of which will compete for business” (6). Romney’s words and what the Public Agenda states are exactly the same but in different words. By giving the people more of a choice in what insurance they have, you increase competition between health care companies which will drive down prices as a result. Not only are you creating a better system of health care, but the deficit is being kept in mind by decreasing the amount of money spent. The Public Agenda points out health care spending is only growing but the quality of the health care isn’t necessarily getting better. Romney completely agrees with the Public Agenda, which is why his health care plan tackles the problems like high health care spending, which the Public Agenda mentions. Obamacare is a government-run health care which, as approach one in “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Health Care” by the Public Agenda states, “would [only] burden citizens with higher taxes while leaving them unable to control many aspects of that care” (5). Both the Public Agenda and Romney agree that the current health care system isn’t working-and Obamacare definitely wouldn’t work-and the perfect way to solve that is by increasing competition and giving the people a choice.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteThe article “Limits Placed on Immigrants in Health Care Law” by Robert Pear is one that speaks on the White Houses’ decision that states that immigrants who are allowed to stay in the United States because of the new federal policy will not be eligible for health insurance coverage under President Obama health care overhaul. In this article, this decision is seen to be contradictory because Obama recently commended young immigrants.
This article connects to this week’s topic because it revolves around health care which is the issue covered in this weeks’ Public Agenda. In “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Health Care” it mentions that at a certain point in everyone’s life they will need health care or medical treatment, but the costs of this service is a threat to the United States’ economy and over 50 million people did not have coverage in 2010 since health care prices are increasing. Since these immigrants do not qualify for the service the number of individuals without coverage may increase. These restrictions can also save the government money since there is a limit in the number of people who receive health insurance from the federal government which addresses the economic threat of this service to the United States. The increase in the cost of healthcare mentioned in the Public agenda is also seen in Pear’s article because the federal subsidies for insurance are predicted to increase from $5,300 under the new law in 2014 to $7,500 a person in 2022 meaning there is more need in public assistance to pay for insurance.
This source is credible because it comes from the New York Times which is a daily newspaper which has been running since 1851. By published inaccurate information they would be jeopardizing their business which would diminish their profits. It is also credible because it includes hyperlinks that direct you to sites that speak further on President Obama and his healthcare overhaul. Lastly this article includes images of Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at the National Council of La Raza, and Ricardo E. Campos, 23, a student in Maryland who are individuals that are also disappointed with the White Houses’ decision on healthcare making this argument valid.
Part 2:
ReplyDeletePear provides strong evidence to support his argument that the limits being placed on immigrants in healthcare are unjust. Pear uses specialist testimony in his article, such as one made by Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic rights group, who said: “We do not understand why the administration decided to do this. It’s providing immigration relief to children and young adults so they can be fully integrated into society. At the same time, it’s shutting them out of the health care system so they cannot become productive members of society.” Pear also includes testimonies from Nick Papas, a White House spokesman, Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center and, and Ricardo E. Camposan illegal immigrant. These testimonies strengthen the argument because they come from either individuals who are actually experiencing the effects of this decision and from specialist who are very familiar with the topic of immigration. Pear also includes specific dates of when actions were taken for example he writes,” The decision — disclosed last month, to little notice…” and In June, the president announced that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children…” by including these dates the author allows the reader to understand the issue more clearer with a timeline of when events occurred.
The White Houses’ decision to limit healthcare will prevent immigrants from feeling as though they are a constructive part of society. As stated in “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Health Care”, “Three-quarters [of uninsured people] were members of families with one or more workers.” This shows that a large portion of uninsured people are people with jobs who play a role in society that is needed and by not having access to medical treatment this may be jeopardized. Similarly Pear writes, “Several immigration lawyers and health policy experts have criticized the restrictions, saying they will make it more difficult to achieve the goals of the health law and the immigration initiative…” This adds on to the idea that immigrants will have to go through more hardships in the United States on top of the fact that they must have to adapt to American culture and leave their home countries in search of opportunities.
The article “The Unraveling of Obamacare” by Scott W. Atlas talks about Obama's Affordable Health Act, and how it will affect the country from a Republican perspective. To further assert his point on how Obama’s healthcare plan will weaken the nation. The Health Care act would increase the nation's deficit reducing the number of new jobs that could be created because of the taxes the act needs. To provide a solution to the Health Care problem Atlas suggest governors Romney’s ideas on healthcare.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to “Public Agenda Health Care”, “The Unraveling of Obamacare” discuss health care how much it will impact the future of the nation. Because it’s not only a crucial topic of this coming presidential elections but it’s also one of the areas where government is spending the most money. That is long overdue a reform to help cut government spending and further reduce the annual deficit in this area. That is what both these articles touch upon.
“The Unraveling of Obamacare” is a credible article because it was published on Fobers that is a major magazine organization. That is widely recognized and will jeopardize its credibility and customers if published incorrect information. In addition the author of this article; Scott W. Atlas, is an adviser of the Mitt Romney campaign and affiliated with Stanford University. That must have years of qualification and study to publish and advise a presidential candidate thus Atlas is a qualified credible source that knows what he is talking about.
Atlas provides strong evidence of how Obamacare would fail and hurt the nation because its taxes would “destroying (destroy) high-paying jobs for Americans and moving them overseas” That will further diminishes the country's economy and eventually kill our countries market overseas, because without jobs our country cannot progress. Atlas also provide statistical evidence when he says “premiums,(of) $86 billion by 2021” which is the amount of money that health care would have to cover for Americans because of the high rises currently of health care and the projected amount with Obama care. That will be avoided if health care like Romney believes is left to the state level instead of at a federal level like Obama proposes. Therefore Obamacare is a bad idea according to Scott W. Atlas and health care should be left to the state level as governor Romney did with his state of Massachusetts.
The text “Public Agenda Health Care” would disagree with Atlas ideas to improve health care when it states that a solution is to move to a government-provided universal health care. That is the only way to ensure that all Americans have health care and don't run the risk with companies that care them outrageous rates. Atlas would argue that universal health care would reduce the insurance choices for Americans. This will eventually hurt the market because there is not competition between insurance companies decreasing the variety of choices inducing jobs even for Americans. That make these articles opposites because they both talk about how healthcare is a major issue but offer completely different approaches to solve the problem. One the “Public Agenda Health Care” goes with a universal health care like Obamacare and “The Unraveling of Obamacare” opposites a universal health care.
The article I found this week is called “Romney’s Health Care Plan Leaves 45 Million More People Uninsured Than Obamacare.” Throughout the article, the author depicts the cons to choosing Romney’s health care plan over Obama’s.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s reading, “Health Care” by the Public Agenda, three approaches are offered to show some of the many ways that our dilemma with the Health Care system can be solved. For each of the approaches, there are reasons why people argue for and against the approach. This is very similar to the reading I found because it mentions the approach that Mitt Romney, a republican, plans to use if he is elected as President. This article also shows the reasons why Democrats argue against Romney’s approach, just like the arguments that go against the approaches listed in the Public Agenda’s “Health Care.”
The article I found is indeed credible because it comes from The Huffington Post, a well-known online newspaper. The Huffington Post was founded by a conservative Republican, yet the article I found is written by a Democrat. This strengthens its credibility because it shows that the Huffington Post is a bipartisan organization, so readers can be sure to find articles on the same topics from multiple political points of views.
The author of this article, Harry Bradford, uses statistical exemplification and video footage to prove that his evidence is not only strong, but also accurate. For example, Bradford states that the Commonwealth fund has recently conducted a study suggesting that Romney’s plan will leave “72 million Americans uninsured by 2022, compared to just 27 million under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act…[costing] families nearly double what Obamacare would cost them.” The Commonwealth Fund is a “traditionally pro-Obamacare fund” that would not be making any mistakes with their numbers because they want to show how Obamacare is the much better plan. Harry Bradford also states quotes from Romney and his spokesman, which are validated by the videos at the bottom of the article. These videos prove the quotations are right and from the right people.
Based on the arguments against Romney’s plan, it is easy for us to surmise which one of the approaches from “Health Care” it is most similar to. One of the arguments against approach #2 is that the amount of people uninsured will rise. This is one of the major concerns that people have with Romney’s plan because the number of people uninsured because of his plan is estimated to be severely high compared to the people uninsured because of Obama’s plan. Romney’s plan will also “require consumers to pay for basic services,” so we can assume that he is against government/employer based health care. Like approach #2, it will be up to the consumers to pay for their own health care. Since the article clearly states that Romney “has yet to disclose specifics” about his plan, we cannot fully assume that he will agree with every aspect of approach #2 provided by The Public Agenda. However, based on the Democrats’ argument against his plan, we can assume that his approach will be very similar.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/09/04/expensive-health-care-isnt-always-best/
ReplyDeleteThe article I found is titled "Expensive Health Care Isn’t Always Best." The artice discusses how the high cost of healthcare doesn't neccesarily promise quality healthcare.
This article relates to "Public Agenda's Healthcare," where the nation's aspects of healthcare; quality, issues and cost, are discussed. Public Agenda points out that high cost in healthcare insurance doesn't equal high quality healthcare. Evidence suggests that healthcare that cost relatively low actually provide high-quality healthcare. In my article, reports indicate just that. Investigators compared quality and cost for 18 primary care groups and found that "'There were high-quality groups with lower costs and lower-quality groups with high costs,'" according to John Santa, which confirms that healthcare quality is not determined by cost. For example, if one spends a lot on a certain health insurance, there are chances that one is not recieving thet best quality care possible.
The article I found is from CBS Local news from Philadelphia. A local news source with high ranks that indulge their readers in business, consumer, entertainment, health, politics, technology, weather and traffic reports in different cities around America, in which one of them is Philadelphia. In a news corporation, research is done by staff and reporters to provide credible and trustworthy infromation towards a subject. The author, Salynn Boyles, has been writing about medical issues for more than a decade. She won awards for political coverage and spot news writing. She also worked for the medical newsletter publisher Henderson Publications for 11 years and held the titles of senior writer and senior editor.
The author provides experimental evidence, as well as expert testimony. She provides the experiment investigators performed to compare cost and quality to conclude that high cost does not equal quality care, and provides the analysis by the nonprofit HMO HealthPartners’ network. John Santa, who directs the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center, states that "[the] analysis shows that the old saying 'You get what you pay for' doesn’t always apply to health care" and finishes off saying that there were high-quality groups with lower costs and lower-quality groups with high costs.
My article suggests that health care of high costs does not neccesarily mean quality care, since that is the case, then healthcare shouldn't be that expensive if the best is not promised, ultimately, high cost of health care is preventable. According to Public Agenda, the rising health care cost is the biggest financial challenge in our country that leads to our national debt. A lot of the nation's spending on healthcare goes on uneccesary things such as expensive prescription drugs and diseases and conditions that can be prevented. If our country wants to reform our budget while providing quality healthcare, then costs should decrease. It would make sense to provide quality healthcare for all for the small price that some are already paying, rather than there being expensive healthcare that doesn't provide the best services possible. Public Agenda's second approach should be taken into action and Americans should have a choice in their healthcare. In having a choice, there would be competition between healthcare corporations, therefore decreasing cost to appeal to costumers. In doing so, it would become affordable to obtain healthcare, quality healthcare at that, and all while improving the nation's economy.
Karla Arroyo
ReplyDeleteHonors Civics
Mr. Rochowicz
11/1/12
The text I found this week is from the LA Times, “Romney Says He’ll Undo Obama Healthcare Reform on Day 1. Can he?” by Karen Kaplan. This text gives an overview on Mitt Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare his first day in office if he gets elected. This text is based on two Georgetown University professors and external sources who provide information on why would Romney’s plan be nearly impossible.
This text connects to Public Agenda’s Healthcare because it highlights the issues currently surrounding the nation’s health care and how they can be rectified. In Public Agenda’s Healthcare it is stated that one way the healthcare issue can be reformed is by making the government easier to move around with openness about prices. In comparison, the text I chose states, “Romney might have some wiggle room with some subsidies intended to help low-income people buy health insurance. The law gave states the power to create health insurance exchanges, and the federal government can step in if they don’t.” In both texts, the economic sector of healthcare has the largest impact especially amongst low-income families, immigrants and democrats because it is not all that affordable.
This text is credible because it is from the LA Times, a nationwide renowned newspaper organization. This text is also credible because it is a nonpartisan text which just describes whether Mitt Romney’s repealment of the ACA will be effective on his first day in office- if elected. In addition, this text quotes an excerpt from the United States’ Constitution and uses it to relate to the issue being discussed. This text also links a source to the JAMA Network, where references regarding the text are available.
This author provides strong evidence to prove that the text is credible because it uses sources from Mitt Romney’s campaign and factual exemplification to address the topic- Romney’s plan. Kaplan states, “...any attempt by Romney to unilaterally repeal the entire law would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that the president ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” The author quotes this piece of evidence from the Constitution to prove that Romney’s plan cannot happen as soon as he desires. In the United States, our system of Checks and Balances allow what can be repealed or approved with approval from all three branches of government. In addition, this excerpt is supported by, “For Romney to follow through with his plan to repeal and replace the ACA, he’d need the cooperation of Congress...” Here, the author provides more reasons why Romney’s plan has a chance of failing. Governor Mitt Romney has no authority to issue waivers because the executive branch of government and the Department of Health and Human Services do not have that strong of an authority to issue them. In comparison, Mitt Romney and the Republican party do not have an alternative healthcare plan to replace Obamacare with. This means that Romney’s plan will be completely ineffective.
Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to abolish President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan on his first day in office (if elected) has moderate chances of not occurring. Governor Romney cannot make this happen without approval of all three branches of government and with no intentions to replace the plan with a new, efficient one. Karen Kaplan, author of “Romney says he'll undo Obama healthcare reform on Day 1. Can he?” quotes two professors from Georgetown University, “‘Repeal of the ACA or blanket state waivers are unlikely given the political and constitutional landscape. Still, if a President Romney or a Republican-controlled Congress remained determined to do so, there would be ample opportunity to slow or block full ACA implementation.’” As more benefits continue to come about in 2014, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to argue for their repeal of Obamacare. With that being said, Governor Romney would need full support from those in support of the Republican party to completely put an end to Obamacare.
Link to my source: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-heb-president-romney-affordable-care-act-20121030,0,6078189.story
ReplyDeleteIn Obamacare: The Latest Man-Made Disaster Foisted On The U.S. Economy, Rex Sinquefield talks about the impact of Obamacare in the Untied States and uses Ohio as one of his examples. He uses Avik Roy’s state survey to state that 1 in every 4 doctors will accept patients with Medicare because it is reducing the price the patient is paying and the doctor receiving.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to one of the issues discussed in last week’s class of health care, particularly the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It is stating that Obamacare will increase government spending and Doctors would start to earn less since Medicare would cover more of the expenses it should cover. On top of that the article also mention some doctors charging the private insurance more to compensate for the loss from Medicare which will create more conflict between the rich and poor.
My source is credible because it is from Forbes, an organization known for featuring original articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. It is also a company with lots of success and history like one of its previous owner Malcolm Stevenson "Steve" Forbes Jr. Also Forbes was a finalist for the national magazine award.
Rex Sinquefield uses statistical exemplification to prove his argument. He mentions the percentages and numerical value that Medicare would impact doctors and government. He also uses other peoples work related to the issue like he used the survey from Avik Roy. The use of statistical exemplification and the survey in this article shows the impact of Heath Care not only to government but to the workers as well.
Based on Sinquefield’s perspective I think he would agree with approach 2 from A Citizen’s Solution Guide Health Care which is to give consumers more choice in their health care and use competition and accountability to bring costs down. With this approach Sinquefields worry that government is spending too much in health care would disappear and there would be more types of health care that people can choose from and afford. With those different companies would compete for the people to choose their insurance companies lowering the prices of the insurance, which in turn government would have to spend less and doctors earn more since government is putting less money in to cover the people. The people themselves would be putting money since there is more selection and competition.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rexsinquefield/
2) This article connects to the Justice chapter six because it talks about how Obama was influenced by Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance and how his actions almost show/embellish this idea. In the article it points out that while Obama was in college John Rawls’ ideas were quite influential in legal thinking. While Obama was a community organizer in Chicago the two ideals he learned there aligned with the two principles developed by Rawls. Then it goes on to talk about how Obama, as President of the United States, refuses to/promises to veto anything that will change the benefits of the people who rely on it. Obama enforces the idea that the wealthy and large corporations should put in their fair share so that the most vulnerable don’t suffer as much as they would without support. This idea is Rawls’ Difference Principle in the works.
ReplyDelete3) This source is credible for multiple reasons. One reason why this article is credible is because it provides background information on the author and from what it says it appears that the author is someone who isn’t an expert on the topic, but being a history professor at Eastern Michigan University he does proper research as he creates a solid argument in this article. This source is also credible because it’s posted in the History Channel News Network. The History Channel itself is a respected television station that has been known to put on facts on many topics with opinions of experts and the public where appropriate. The News Network would be of equal caliber of reliability because if it’s proven otherwise then it would be a major blow towards the creators as less people would use the website and view the channel. Finally this is a credible source because the author cites other professionals since he himself is not an expert which further validates his opinions and claims that he makes.
4) The author of this article, Walter G. Moss, clearly presents an abundance of strong evidence to prove his argument and claims. This article presents both sides of of the argument as he presents evidence that proves Romney’s side of the argument and also present evidence in Obama’s defense. He cites many sources that come from novels written by people who seem to be experts and know what they are talking about. His very first quote comes from Conservatism in America by Clinton Rossiter and he inserts “the preference for liberty over equality lies at the root of the Conservative tradition, and men who subscribe to this tradition never tire of warning against the 'rage for equality.'” Quite the profound introduction to his presentation of Romney’s argument.
5) This article is very similar to chapter 6 of Justice. In the article for the conservative side it talks about how the rich should get tax breaks. This portion relates to Justice because it talks about how Rawls’ principles allows for incentives for the rich such as difference in wages and also high bonuses so that the rich generate tons of money so that the government can collect more money which they can use to help the less fortunate. The article also relates to Rawls’ idea of the veil of ignorance because it shows how Obama’s thinking is shaped by this ideology and how he incorporates it to his politics.
http://hnn.us/articles/2012-election-freedom-justice-fairness-and-opportunity
Section 1 -
ReplyDeleteThe article I found this week is called “Obama and Romney on the issues: HealthCare”, published on October 5th in the Washington Post. This article encompasses the positions of both President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, on the large issue of Health Care. It is clear that after the economy, the issue that causes debate among voters is Health Care; here we see the strong opposing views on Health Care that they have been arguing throughout their campaign thus far.
This article connects to this week’s topic and to the texts we have read this week for various reasons. In the Public Agenda series, A Citizens’ Solutions Guide to Health Care, we learn that the United States’ health care system is once again “under the microscope as growing numbers of Americans are uninsured, costs keep rising, and the public grows increasingly worried about it.” Basically, the United States spends more money on healthcare than any other nation. Experts attribute the increase to higher demand for care and an aging population. Yet, higher spending on health care does not necessarily correspond to a healthier population, or even that everyone will get quality care. In Chapter 6 ( The Case for Equality - John Rawls) Justice - What’s the Right Thing To Do? Sandel discusses the principle of equality. He uses John Rawls theory, in order to judge the one in our current society. We learn about consenting, receiving, and understanding the government that has power over us. But most important, we learn that those who truly are naturalized citizens are immigrants - who take an oath of allegiance as part of their citizenship. Everyone else, is never required to give consent; which arises the question of - is everyone here truly equal? In the Washington Post article, both candidates try to fix the balance of equality on HealthCare. President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) which is guaranteed to have laws protecting the consumers, in hope to gain greater support of it from the voters edge. On the other hand, Governor Romney states he will get rid of Obama Care day one in office and will work towards a better solution including his second term - not taking into account that he has not even been accepted for a first term.
The evidence that I have that the text I found is credible is that the Washington Post is an important American daily newspaper. The Washington Post is the most widely spread newspaper published in the capital of the United States (Washington, D.C.). The newspaper is owned by The Washington Post Company, a media and communication company that also owns many media ventures like The Post and Kaplan, Inc. The Washington Post is known for reporting general, international and political coverage; which will not publish unreliable information that can cause loss of readers and credibility.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSection 2 -
ReplyDeleteBased on what I have read, the author does indeed present strong evidence to support his argument. Not only does he states facts, direct statements, a link to a video with segments from both candidates, but he also gives us an interactive experience which includes quotes and polling. An example of the author not having a biased opinion, but choosing both candidates opinion to provide examples is when the author chooses a section of HealthCare and shows what each candidate thinks on that section. For example, on the issue of Medicare, Romney states, “Medicare’s growth must be slowed to bring the federal budget deficit under control.” Romney argues that the open-ended entitlement program should be replaced with “a competitive, market-oriented” approach. And he also wants to transform Medicare into a “premium-support” program that would give seniors a fixed payment to buy private coverage or a government plan similar to what exists now. On the contrary, Obama states, “the health-care law will help rein in Medicare spending. It creates an independent board that will make suggestions on cutting payments to providers if the program grows too fast. The board won’t be allowed to raise premiums or reduce benefits.” Basically Obama does not approve the republican proposals to change the current Medicare system into one where seniors receive fixed payments to purchase coverage from insurers or traditional medicare.
Based on the sole fact of what the candidates have done so far, it is clear that Obama would most likely favor Approach One of Public Agenda series, A Citizens’ Solutions Guide to Health Care, while Romney would favor Approach Two. Approach one is to move to government-provided universal health care to make sure everyone gets covered. In President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, he “aims to curb the rising costs of Medicare, the federal program for the elderly and those with disabilities, through cost-cutting mechanisms, and it closes the gap in Medicare’s prescription drug coverage.” Furthermore, President Obama is currently striving to fill the holes in the system so that millions more can be covered and once again, we can all have quality health care at a reasonable amount of money. However, Approach two is to give consumers more choice in their health care and use competition and accountability to bring costs down. Similarly, Governor Romney’s law requires almost all residents to have coverage or pay a tax penalty. It is clear that Romney wants to give more choices to everyone, to increase competition and lower costs. And in doing so, he is forcing everyone to buy health insurance so that everyone is covered, even if they are healthy.
Section 3
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, despite the fact the candidates would favor either approach one or approach two, it is clear that approach three is the way to go. Approach three suggests that rather than taking risks with a radical change, it is more beneficial to tweak the current system to make it gradually more affordable and accessible. I know that if I were a healthy, employed, wealthy citizen I would probably not purchase insurance. Not only because I would already have access to it working in the hospital, but because I am intelligent enough to make correct decisions to be healthy enough to not need to go to the doctor. It is unfair to make individuals pay a tax fee when they are wealthy enough to pay their own private doctor, and they are healthy enough to not even need a doctor. This is why instead of making drastic changes that would not positively affect us, we should instead start smaller and try covering the poor class who is not healthy and not wealthy enough to pay for expensive quality care. But even then, just because it’s expensive does not mean it’s the best it can be. We should try to lower the costs, so that it is more accessible to the lower class, without taking the quality of the care we all need.
Link to Article -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-and-romney-on-the-issues-health-care/2012/10/05/ee3db136-0f0d-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
The text I found is titled, “Sharing the Costs, Sharing the Benefits: Inclusion is the Best Medicine” by the Immigration Policy Center. This text primarily focuses on non-citizens and healthcare. It discusses how the United States population should have access to buy affordable health care. In addition, it mentions how giving healthcare to all will not only improve public health but it will be a cost savings to the system, and how U.S citizens use more medical care, and more expensive care even when they are eligible to health insurance in comparison to immigrants.
ReplyDeleteMy source relates to the Public Agenda’s: Healthcare. Overall, in Public Agenda, it states that all Americans should be ensure to have access to affordable health care not giving any importance of your age and employment status. Both texts conclude that by giving eligibility to all, it will increase the nation’s economy and bring costs under control. Also both texts mention how individuals of age 65 or above are accounted for the most health care spending and claim it’s important because the more individuals turning older the more the government will have to spend on health care.
The text I found is credible because it comes from the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on research and policies of the American Immigration Council. It cites other sources, websites, citations and experts. In addition, it consist of a variation of statistics that help strengthen the argument for example, it states, “Another study found that, in 2005, average annual per capita healthcare expenditures for noncitizens were $1,797- versus $3,702 for U.S citizens”. Statistics help us confirm that the evidence they use is accurate and how much they affect the issue.
The author does present strong evidence to support their argument. As said, the author uses an abundant amount of statistics as their evidence. An example given is when the author states, “In 2006, 20% of U.S citizen adults and 22% of U.S citizen children had visited the emergency room... In contrast, 13% of noncitizen adults and 12% of noncitizen children had used emergency room care”. This statistical evidence, exemplifies that immigrants use less health care than U.S citizens. By giving healthcare to all, including immigrants, the cost and expenditures of the government on health care will not drastically increased. “According to a July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health, immigrants are much less likely than U.S born adults to report being in a fair or poor health. They are less likely to have a chronic health condition”. This study is important because since immigrants are less likely to suffer from a health disease and they usually arrive to the United States during their prime working years they have the ability to work and care for their families, allowing them to help increase the economy.
Public Agenda’s: Healthcare and “Sharing the Costs, Sharing the Benefits:Inclusion is the Best Medicine” have various relationships. In Public Agenda and Immigration Policy Center text, both mention that individuals of age 65 and older are considered the ones who spend the most health care. This is an issue because the cost is steadily increasing. In Public Agenda, approach one, it states that moving to government providing and making sure everyone gets covered should be done by “Replacing current insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays with a tax that would help fund the system”. Instead Immigration Policy Center states, “ An important function of health insurance is to pool risks and use premiums collected from the healthy to pay for the medical care of those who need it”. This means that oppose to replacing premiums, we should use them to fund for medical cost for the people with low income. By using these premiums, everyone will be able to have medical care and reduce the risk of anyone getting a chronic disease. When someone has a chronic disease they tend to spend more of healthcare and it affects the economy. Furthermore, in Public Agenda, approach three suggest, “Requiring preventative healthcare for everyone to reduce the prevalence of chronic diseases”. This relates to my source because it says, “ Inclusion of legal immigrants... can have a positive effect on overall costs because it will encourage more preventive care and add additional payments to the system”. This shows that including all, will help the economy because they might add in their payments.
ReplyDeleteRossy Barahona
ReplyDeleteHonors Civics
Mr. Rochowicz
11/5/12
“The Importance of the Affordable Care Act” By Vanessa Cardenas lists different reasons how Affordable Care Act is beneficial to specific minorities such as Latinos and African Americans by listing different statistics showing that these minorities are more vulnerable to pre-existing conditions or chronic diseases like diabetes or heart diseases. In addition, she demonstrates how the Affordable Care Act lowers their risk of ending up in poverty because they are being covered for many of their expenses by just having affordable health care. She also shows how it has helped small businesses by “making it easier for them to provide coverage to their employees through small tax credits.”
This source is credible because Vanessa Cardenas is an ethnic media and immigration expert who has participated in national organizing and legislative campaigns, in support of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride, and is a regular guest on CNN (in spanish), Telemundo, Univision, BBC, and has been widely quoted in publications such as the The Washington Post.
“Public Agenda’s Health Care” also helps to succinctly unveil the importance of healthcare in the United States by submitting all the financial problems that the US has faced since before the 1980’s due to health care costs. Health Care costs have dramatically increased and have been increasing a lot faster than inflation. The accelerating rate of these costs makes it harder for the nation to come towards an agreement because there are several discrepancies between the thoughts of the people in congress and people of the states.
“Public Agenda’s Health Care” also provides an example of the great benefit that the Affordable Care Act has given to the United States when it says “there were nearly 50 million people uninsured in the U.S in 2010 [and because of the Affordable Care Act, we now only have] about 20 million uninsured Americans.” (page 3). The fact that the Affordable Care Act was able to provide health insurance for about 30 million formerly uninsured Americans shows that it did have a significant impact within some of the nation’s population.
Another point that Cardenas makes is that the Affordable Care Act did aid the small businesses because they were able to provide coverage for their employees, which ultimately contributed to the economy. “Small businesses are an important contributor to the economy, accounting for 64 percent of jobs created between 1993 and 2008” says Cardenas in order to emphasize the small businesses’ significant offering to the nation’s economy. Sandel would also want these small businesses and employees to be gifted with health care because of the way they contribute to the economy; through taxes. Sandel would argue that in order to make decisions and to “make sense of our moral lives [we must first acknowledge] the independent weight of reciprocity.”(149.) He would say that employers, employees, and even baby boomers, have been faithful to the nation’s economy by paying taxes, therefore why can’t their health be secured by the government? The health insurance would be an act of generosity towards these hard
workers and would be their compensation for the way they assist the nation’s financial issues.
Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2011/03/23/9249/fair-effective-and-efficient-health-care/