In recent discussions of Affordable health care, a controversial issue has been whether to pass it or not. On one hand some argue that this bill is necessary and will help Americans gain insurance that they were never able to have before. From this perspective, it is believed that bill should be passed and it will push America forward. On the other hand, however, others argue that the addition of this health care about is immoral and infringing on peoples rights.
My own view is that the law should be passed and everyone deserves the right to have health care. Though i concede that there will be problems when this law goes into action, i still maintain that it is necessary for America to be successful. This issue is important because it is going to go into effect in a few months and has been the center of controversy in government over the past few weeks. This issue will be effecting many and everyone should have some knowledge about the issue.
To play "Devil's Advocate" for a moment, could we have health care for everyone without this particular law? Why not go farther and just establish universal health care the way many European nations have? Does the need for healthcare reform *necessarily* have to take the form of the ACA? In terms of rights, the argument seems to center on issues of religious exemption from the law and also the notion that the "penalty" for those who refuse to buy insurance is effectively a "tax." It may be useful to look into how the Kathleen Sebellius responded to the former concern and how the Supreme Court responded to the latter. Remember, the name of the game is finding a nuanced argument that hasn't been made before.
ReplyDelete