Bradley and Taylor from the New York Times recently cowrote an article on fixing health care, and the fact that America does not spend enough money on health and social services. The facts can speak for themselves: outcomes in life expectancy and infant mortality in America are less than perfect, and several unindustrialized countries fare better in both regions. Although I agree with several of their main points, I can't help but make the argument that money isn't everything. If we put more money into these programs, that doesn't mean the money will go to help specific individuals. It may just get lost in the pyramid of authority.
I agree with their idea on social services being the key to better health. Those who do need medical help usual are in these social programs, but "our current social programs are mostly opt-in, leaving holes for the undocumented, uneducated and unemployed to slip through cracks and become acutely ill."
Their points on the relations of health and social care are extremely interesting and surprisingly accurate. I didn't realize how closely they are linked. I also love their last line: "Before we spend even more money, we should consider allocating it differently." I completely agree. During these economic hardships, citizens would go wild if they found out the country was asking for even more money. Although at some points they stress the need for a more powerful government that would restrict the free market, Bradley and Taylor make an extremely convincing argument. It's obvious they have a more democratic bias, but they have several facts and allusions to other European governments to back up their slanted statements.
You can read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/opinion/to-fix-health-care-help-the-poor.html?_r=1&ref=politics
No comments:
Post a Comment