healthcare (stage5)

When I was watching the third presidential debate I paid close attention to the discussion of issues. One issue that sparked my interest in particular was healthcare. Obama’s plan is to have people keep their employer’s healthcare and for those who don’t have healthcare, have them be able to have the same federal healthcare that government employees have. On the other hand McCain’s plan is to give everyone a 5,000 dollar tax credit for people to put towards the healthcare plan of their choice. At first both sounded decent to me until I really thought about Obama’s healthcare plan. Parts I agree with and others I don’t.
I agree that it is a good idea to get healthcare to those who don’t have it. My main problem is that his plan gives way too much control over healthcare to the government. The candidates both are trying to cut spending. If Obama is elected and his healthcare plan goes into effect, problems could come very quickly and strike the ability for federal healthcare to provide necessary and adequate services because of spending cuts. In theory his plan would allow the government to say what prescription medications you can take and what ones you can’t, which is a major problem for those who have regular prescriptions and take daily medications. Limiting the choice in certain types of medications like psychiatric, diabetic, and medications for other chronic illnesses is devastating to the people who use them because not all medications work the same way for everyone.
McCain’s plan would still allow people to get healthcare, but he still will give people the choice of what healthcare they want. With the 5,000 dollar tax credits that everyone will receive, people can apply the credits to whatever plan they see fit. There is not one healthcare provider that can suit the needs of every American, and if there was there would be no competition among providers which allows variety in coverage and price. McCain’s plan makes a lot more sense to me and I think for the present and future would prove to be effective and efficient.

Stage 4

The article I have chosen is “U.S. Has a History of Intervention” found on the Drudge Report. The article is relating examples of when we have used nationalization in certain industries to fit our needs at the time. The intended audience is people who are afraid of the government stepping in and using nationalization in times of crisis. I believe the author is very credible because he uses strong historical examples and evidence that cannot really be argued against. I most definitely agree with the author view on the issue and his claims. Our government is talking about nationalizing of banks to help our economic crisis. In other cases in the past this technique has worked well for example, in 1917 the government seized the railroads to make sure supply, troops, and armaments moved smoothly and efficiently in the countries best interest of national defense in WWI. Also in WWII the government seized many companies including railroads, coal mines, and for a short time Montgomery Ward department store chain. In 1984 the government stepped in and took 80 percent of stake in Continental Illinois National Bank. At the time they were failing due to bad oil patch loans in Oklahoma and Texas. In the 1930’s the Reconstruction Finance Corporation gave loans to distressed banks and bought stock in over 6,000 banks, at a total cost of about 3 billion dollars. When the economy stabilized these stocks were sold. Experts say the only problem was that the government moved too slowly. We are facing a huge financial crisis and we need to do something fast. The times the government stepped in and did something we turned out ok.