Another major imbalance if government takes up medical insurance is that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for people who overeat, smoke and drink. The philosophy, attitudes and stakes on those in power may be the deciding factor, in determining who gets what, in the future.
America spends more on health care than any other country in the world. About 50 million people in America are uninsured, so we should revamp the system, say the supporters for change of the existing system. They complain about the lack of quality in the provision of insurance today. Nevertheless, plans are being proposed to bring these 50 million under the insurance net, without giving a thought to the drop in quality that would come in (Sebelious, 2009). Meanwhile, a huge debate is going on about having a nationalized health insurance policy with the government sponsoring a single payer health insurance. Let us try to analyze how far “it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses and our governments” (The Obama Plan. 2009).
Let us have a look at both sides of the coin. The idea of change has rooted in because we keep spawning politicians who think that they could make everyone’s life better since they have taken from the more ambitious and given it out to the people who do not have it. The politicians do this because it is the best way of presenting this proposed system to the people of America (Q&A: US healthcare reform. 2009). Let me present the best of the arguments, by those in favor of changing the system, one of the sides of the coin,
These arguments are based on one false fact that should be pointed out first. The burgeoning population figure of people, who lack insurance coverage, is misleading. It includes illegal immigrants, Americans who earn over $50,000, people who are eligible for Medicaid or S-chip and even people who may have been in between jobs. The figures of non-citizens are nearly 10 million and more