The 2012 American Health Care Reform: For, or Against?

Since the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Obama's healthcare reform, people in higher paying jobs, and those with bulging wallets and fat bank accounts, are starting to panic. Why? Because they feel that they are being 'bullied' into helping others that have not been as fortunate, or as successful as they have been.

Some may question the level of moral standards by which some of these people have been raised, and whether their high quality of life has been due to their own hard-work and elbow grease, or whether they were born with the metaphoric silver spoon in their mouths, living off of their family's wealth. But are these loud, anti-Obama complainers really just uncaring individuals whose idea of philanthropy is dropping two bucks in the collection plate on a Sunday morning before their round of golf at the local country club, or are they correct in saying that it is not theirs, nor the government's job to help the plight of the millions of Americans who are unable to afford the ridiculously high cost of health care?

Some argue that charging more tax is 'theft' - that it is unconstitutional to make more tax demands on the public when the US government is spending beyond their means, and the national debt is into the trillions of dollars. Maybe so. But what is the alternative? Do we just sit back and watch while those less fortunate are dropping dead around us because they can't afford healthcare? Do we step over the cardboard boxes lining the streets, 'home' to people who may once have had well-paying jobs and houses, but lost it all due to the recession, through no fault of their own? Or because they happen to live in an at-will State, where there is no job security, and an employer can fire someone pretty much on a whim, without any legal repercussions, regardless of whether that person has a family to support, or a mortgage to pay?

No one wants to pay more taxes. But as human beings, is it not the 'humane' thing to do, to share what we do have with those who are genuinely needy? It seems to be a common misconception among the rich that they got where they are because they worked hard for it, while those that are poor only found themselves so because of their mistakes or laziness. So does that make a doctor more hardworking and more deserving than the hospital janitor? Or does that make the teacher more deserving than the woman who serves food to the kids in the school cafeteria? No, it certainly does not. What it DOES mean, however, is that the doctor, and the teacher, were two of the fortunate ones who were able to afford to go to college, or had the support of their families in their career paths. Not everyone has that luck. Not everyone who is poor is lazy, or just wants free handouts. But that's how many of the wealthy in America think.

The fact is, much of this backward way of thinking is due to one thing: fear of change. Regardless of how America and the rest of the world feels about Obama and the Democrats, no one can deny that he has dragged America kicking and screaming into the 21st century by implementing affordable access to health care - something that every human being should have a legal right to in this day and age. The only real question should be why it has taken this long. Each year, an estimated 45,000 Americans die because they cannot afford health insurance, thus causing a snowball effect amongst those who feared losing their jobs, and subsequently their access to health care, resulting in fewer arguments against making it accessible to all. The mutual worries which both those against, and those in favor of the reform, is, how much in subsidies are the government willing to offer people in order to get them insured, and how much extra is it going to cost the less needy in taxes?
Being told that you will be fined if you do not acquire health insurance is one thing, but not providing adequate means of getting it, is quite another.

At the end of the day, the reform will aid the millions who would otherwise be refused coverage by insurance companies because of pre-existing conditions, and allow children coverage on their parents' policies up to the age of 26. But while millions of Americans celebrate the new law, which will be implemented by 2014, there are millions more who will continue to be without coverage because, even with government subsidies, they still won't be able to afford to purchase insurance. And to add insult to injury, it is those poorer people who will be fined for not complying with the new law. Perhaps it would have been more constitutional to make all health care more affordable (or free like it is in other leading, modern countries), but then allow people the choice as to whether they buy into it or not. Instead, the new law will be adding further financial stress and burden to families and small businesses, with the possibility of them being fined for not having the money to pay for something they had no choice about in the first place. Only time will tell as to whether Obama's health care reform will work in the way he hoped. In a perfect world, the idea is fantastic, and will give back the quality of life that everyone deserves by making health insurance accessible to all. After all, the value of someone's life should not be based upon how much they have in their bank account.