The political field in American politics has rapidly evolved into a dominating Washington entity.
Already the belated bureaucracy has become notorious for political stalemate in an increasingly polarized political arena.
On Tuesday 23 March, President Obama signed into law the new healthcare reform bill, containing a new tagline entailing “Affordable Health Insurance for all Americans.”
Nobody should deny affordable and practical insurance to any American citizen-that is not the argument. Rather, the frontal issue remains the manner in which affordable healthcare is provided to American citizens.
As a prerequisite, the “socialism” and “abortion” arguments will not be addressed since they hold minimal bearing.
The first and most debatable problem of this healthcare reform plan is the level of government involvement. Many citizens in support of this proposition claim private companies have failed to provide an adequate, quality–oriented system.
For the most part, their argument is valid. The section of President Obama’s healthcare plan that guarantees all Americans coverage and prevents insurers from dropping or denying coverage based upon preexisting conditions unarguably creates a more just system.
Problems arise when the healthcare proposal creates an “acceptable insurance” policy system, where in each progressive year the requirements for an acceptable policy becomes more strict.
Eventually the cost will drive all American citizens to the government provided healthcare system.
Several Democratic officials have claimed via Congressional Budget Office estimates that their newly proposed healthcare system will become more cost efficient. Nonsense!
Governmental policies rarely run on budget. If the government is forced to allocate a large portion of its GDP (figures estimate 25–30 percent), then it will have less remaining funds for other sectors.
The other problem with this healthcare reform is the voice of American citizens. According to CNS News, a Rasmussen Reports study found that 55 percent of voters want the healthcare law repealed. Furthermore, according to the same article, 59 percent of Independent voters want to see the law repealed.
Evidently the Republican Party is not the only faction in opposition to the new law. Democratic leaders have clearly ignored demands of their constituents and proceeded with their partisan–based agenda. The argument does not encompass bipartisanship, but instead harnesses representation.
Additional opposition includes state governments. According to CBS news, a majority of states have intentions to sue the federal government over the new law.
The former constitutional virtue of “government by the people, for the people, and of the people” has now transformed into “government of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.”
Undoubtedly the free market will still provide the best quality of healthcare, once a few preconditions are applied to it.
Instead of implementing a government-run healthcare system, the U.S. ought to adopt a two-prong approach. First, it should establish a healthcare market with President Obama’s newly proposed policies enforced (guaranteed availability and continual coverage). This market is where employers and individuals can purchase policy plans.
The second market shall be a consolidated market where citizens who cannot afford healthcare in the aforementioned market can access a consolidated or free healthcare system, rewarded depending upon their case.
This regulated market system still guarantees coverage to any interested American citizen. Those citizens who do not wish to be insured must pay their health bills out of pocket. Giving the citizens the choice of healthcare will allow for a more efficient economic and service system.
Supporters declare that the US has finally adopted a universal healthcare blueprint “like all of the other advanced industrialized nations.”
The reason we have not, and still should not adopt, a universal healthcare system is because they are dysfunctional.
Universal healthcare systems create a politicized bureaucracy. However, with healthcare reform he issue is no longer political; it becomes a national issue where input from every source is necessary.
Change we can believe in currently resides in the Supreme Court and American people to overturn this law.
Clay Moran is a member of the class of 2013. He can be reached at [email protected]