On the other hand, the Republicans representing the cons suggest that millions of Americans will lose their current health insurance, and in addition, companies will lose their current coverage. The Obama healthcare plan will reduce the high-rising cost of insurance premiums by $2000 per family. The Republicans believe, or broadcast that the cost of medical care and insurance premiums will escalate toward a catastrophic high. Getting past the different ideologies, the Obama healthcare plan will help prevent crippling diseases through early detection funding, and offer millions of Americans affordable healthcare concluding toward saving families from overwhelming medical bills, bankruptcy, loss of livelihood, and ultimately save
17, Issue 31). There is a direct correlation between poverty and rising health care costs that make it hard to afford the health care that is need for a family. This author wants to explore the affects this is having on our children, marriage and domestically. Review of literature Over the past 30 years researchers have demonstrated that the number of Americans without health insurance- mostly lower class has steadily risen. Economists estimate about 2 trillion will be spent on medical care in 2007.
All the special interest groups that were associated in attempting to stop the bill and those trying to support it where there for one main reason, money. Pharmaceutical companies paid millions of dollars to lobbyist to try and stop the health care reform after pledging to support it. At first they promised their support to Obamas bill and later began campaigning against it. The reason is because at first they were willing to support the bill only of it was mandated that every American have health insurance, this would be a great deal for health insurance companies because they would be able to set the prices and make outstanding profits, however once Obama decided that he would slash prescription prices and set federal insurance plans at lower prices the insurance companies turned and began their negative ad campaigns to attempt to kill the bill. They channeled millions of dollars just to campaign against the bill; in their minds it was a strategic move in an attempt to protect their interest.
The ridiculous portion of our budget that is spent on defense could be much better spent on social welfare, health, and education. The United States usually leads the world in military funding. In 2012, the United States spent approximately $806 billion on our military budget, which covers about 27% of the country’s federal funds budget. We don’t need such a massive, sprawling military policing the entire world to be safe. Pouring even 5% of the money we spend on defense into education and health care would give this country some lasting benefits that would help us achieve a brighter future.
There were several factors that created this general distrust. One of these factors included America’s continued presence in Vietnam when funding was out of the country’s budget. On top of warfare spending, President Johnson implemented and Congress supported a number of much needed domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal Education spending (“Great Society,” 2009). However, as taxes were not raised to help support these new programs, President Johnson’s Great Society agenda resulted in inflation and an incredible contribution to the federal debt. Another event that impacted the public’s view of government dishonesty during this time was President Nixon’s involvement with the infamous Watergate scandal which eventually led to his resignation on August 9, 1974.
It is said that President Obama is the most Pro War President ever. It is wrong to fight and kill other people whether there is a purpose or not. It’s like playing God. No one has the right to decide and order American people to go overseas and kill. Also, President Obama is indifferent to the US military and national security: Second, for the past few months, his attitude and lack of genuine interests in the US military and national security are very alarming and disturbing.
They predict that by the year 2040 that 1.6 billion dollars will be spent on people falling and fracturing their hip. (Hacker, 1976) Because of the discrimination against people based on age, they are already being enforced in some parts of the medicine. People suggest that elderly people are close to the end of there life. That it would be useless to use resources on them. (Collins, 1993, pg.219-20) It has been suggested that young people are able to benefit from treatments, however physically disabled mentally of the elderly will not progress from the treatment.
From the 1980’s on, governments around the world focused on pharmaceuticals, as a politically easy target in efforts to control rising healthcare expenditure. - The threat of substitutes: The biggest threat to the pharmaceutical industry is the dramatic impact of generic medicines with exactly the same active ingredients as the original brand, at a lower price. Leading pharmaceutical companies are faced with great difficulties to recover the cost of their R&D investments. - The power of Buyers: Governments and insurance companies may be categorized as buyers in the pharmaceutical industry. A 2008 report estimated that 46 million Americans, over 15 percent of the population, lacked insurance.
These protestors argued that there were not enough reasons to justify an invasion of Iraq. The same argument can be applied to American involvement in many other affairs today, such as its debated intervention in the Syrian Civil War and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. When should deciding the fate of a foreign country be justified? The answer is to determine how the people living in the country will be affected. Many historical events, especially the conflicts in World War II, have shown when foreign invasions have been justified, and when they have not.
He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”. Moreover, the Forced Loan only happened as a result of Charles dismissing the 1626 Parliament, forfeiting his opportunity of obtaining further grants for his wartime expenditure. Parliament had already been antagonised by Charles’ decision to dismiss them and now that Charles was forcing taxation on others in order to fund his wartime expenditure, due to disastrous foreign policy which Parliament largely disagreed with, it is clear that the Forced Loan had worsened relations greatly. In addition to this, the financing of foreign policy also affected the relationship between Crown and Parliament. As stated previously, the Forced Loan existed to fund England’s wars considering that Parliament was reluctant to grant Charles further subsidies.