A big debate during the November 2012 elections revolves around the issue of health care. Like to every story there are two sides, in this case its whether or not the government should be responsible for healthcare. The government should be responsible for the health care and health care options of its citizens. Many people now a days don’t care as much for their health care, as they should. That’s when the government steps in regulating laws and such for health care. Without the government involved, not everyone will take his or her health seriously. Therefore, the government should be responsible for the health care and health care options of its citizens.
With the government responsible for health care and health care options, that does not mean the government will take total control of its every aspect. The government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada. The key parts of the current U.S. system--employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor-- would stay in place. The government would create health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own. So they could more easily compare plans and prices. (Drobnic Holan 1)
Their power is still limited, but with them being responsible it would be an advantage to those who are still looking for health insurance because the government intends to help citizens with receiving insurance. Plus, Medicare and Medicaid will still be effective! Most importantly, no one wi...