Laws do in fact change to fit the needs of society as society is developing; it is constantly changing, to fit these ever-changing needs means that the laws also have to change. A key issue is the “King Hit” or “One Punch” legislation, which has prevented the loss of lives since 2000. This is when a person is knocked unconscious within one punch. The “King Hit” or “One Punch” issue is an issue in today’s society as this has created a number of deaths within the Australian society. This is an issue as it is generally in a drunken environment; a research has been said that alcohol was involved in almost three-quarters of deaths recorded between 2000 and 2012.
Unfortunately many states have taken the easy road and have become over-reliant on the federal government for support. In return they are forced to relinquish power and freedom. This is one of the “cons” to following the federal mandate of the universal MLDA of 21. The main argument against lowering the MLDA again, is the inevitable rise in drunken driving related deaths. In the 1960’s and 1970’s when many states had lowered the MLDA, besides the rise in drunk-driving deaths, studies showed that people raised from childhood in under-21 states were involved in higher rates of alcohol and drug use as adults, and had a higher rate of homicides and suicides.
As statistics show, there has already been an increase in the cost of health care partially due to the shortage in health care practitioners and the need to offer higher reimbursement for treatments. If predictions are true, and there is a shortage of 125,000 physicians by the year 2025, the cost of health care will increase more rapidly. Because health care and therefore an individual’s life is considered priceless, there are demand shifters that often affect the demand curve of a health care product. As demonstrated in the example above, physician loyalties and experience are just two of the many types of demand shifters. This demand shifters can cause an even steeper rise in health care cost in the real world.
Even so, millions will remain uninsured,” (Pros and cons of Obama care June 29, 2012). Taxes will increase, so yes our health insurance coast goes down but is made up for in higher taxes. Another con is that by forcing states into federally-mandated health insurance it goes against state rights and violates federalism. Finally, not only is there fines if you don’t have health insurance but there is also the fact that “some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes,” (Pros and cons of Obama care June 29, 2012). The evaluations of the pros and cons should be evaluated by their effectiveness.
Medicaid, Social Services, CPS, law enforcement are all affected on a larger scale. Financial cost to the United States is growing at alarming rates, where we have to look at meth addiction as a nation. Meth use in pregnancy is becoming more common, the physical effects on both mother and baby are increasing the costs in healthcare with lengthy stays in the neonatal departments. Providing care to addicted newborns doesn’t stop in the hospital. CPS and Social Services have an ongoing role in protecting these children through foster care placement and adoption placement that is lengthy.
As a country, we are spending over $190 billion a year treating these diseases, diseases that could be prevented by increasing exercise and decreasing calories. The scariest fact is that one in three children under 18 are overweight or obese, a rate that has tripled since 1960. The fact that the obesity rates are so high shows that as a society we accept this lifestyle. We need to be proactive as a country, and stop accepting this lifestyle and work towards a healthier society. If this continues we will have a new generation of people that don’t outlive their parents.
Bonus payments will be given to those doctors and hospitals that provide good quality care. | CON: With an increased population of individuals receiving healthcare from the government, there will be longer wait times, and potential decline in the quality of care given by doctors. | PRO: The PPACA tax promotes the general welfare because it makes health care more widely available and affordable. | CON: Congress is requiring that every person purchase health insurance or face penalties. | PRO: The health reform includes the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families, helping to make insurance much more affordable for millions of families.
I feel that is difficult to judge or say what is exactly is too much money to be spent on healthcare. Although the certain rates of healthcare spending are rising it could be possible that healthcare is just moving towards the spending level that it should be. When we compare the amount of money spent years ago we have to consider that times and technology have changed. In the 30’s and 40’s there was no money spending on thinks like computers in order to utilize Electronic Medical Records. More spending should be invested into drug research and finding cheaper was to cure diseases.
Randy E. Barnett, JD "Throughout the year-long debate over health care reform, President Obama promised that the legislation would reduce the spiraling cost of health care... But a couple of new government reports confirm what many of us who opposed a federal takeover of the health care system feared all along - higher costs... CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] says that the health care law will impose billions of dollars in annual fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs and on health insurance plans, and new taxes on medical device sales. CMS said it anticipates that these new fees and taxes will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher drug and device prices and higher insurance premiums, raising health care costs from $2.1 billion in 2011 to $18.2 billion in
He mentions how the British legalized heroine for a short period of time and addiction increased forty fold, and consumption of alcohol increased by three hundred and fifty percent when prohibition ended. He concludes that drug use is a threat to the individual freedom and domestic peace. Bennett would agree to remain loyal to the current policies regarding both illegal and cognitive enhancing drugs based on his stance on drugs in general. One idea he may bring up is that constantly relying on these drugs will create, “lost productivity, rising health insurance costs, flooded hospitals due to overdoses, and premature