In today's time, people seem to overlook the fact that we, as Americans have freedom. So many other countries throughout the world have laws and restrictions on many day to day activities that we take for-granted. However, we do have certain rules we have to follow that were established by the government for our own good and protect. This is fine. That is how it should be because some people need those rules so they know right from wrong. This is what our "free" country should be like. With the new proposal for the Health Care Reform, Americans' would lose some of their freedom. They would no longer be able to choose if they wanted health care or not because the Government would be taking control of that choice for us.
Hobbes said that liberty is freedom from restraint. So why then is the government trying to tell us we still have the same freedom with less choices. It doesn't work like that. It should be up to us what we do with our money or our own life according to Hobbes. You don't see the government telling us to shower frequently but, it is something we should know and if we care enough about our hygiene, we will do it ourselves. It is not our job to take care of other. If someone has the means and wants to help someone else out, then great! But other than that, people need to grow up and start being responsible for themselves instead of relying on the government 'bathe' us. Negative liberty is a society that allows people to peruse their own interests.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Secure Outcome
What does a "secure" outcome look life for the American Health Care Reform look like? Well in order to answer this question, we must first know what a secure outcome is. There are many different takes on what security for a person could be. Aristotile had one view saying that it is the role of the government to promote virtuous behavior in its citizens and therefore, in this issue, it would be the government taking control over our health care in order to make us be more protected in case of an emergency. This option would be the logic of the polis. The other choice is J.S. Mill's take on what a secure person is. Mill believed that it was in individual's job to determine what would make them happiest and it was the government's job to stay away so people can create their own happiness.
Using Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, it is easier to determine what determines a person's security/happiness. A person obviously needs the basic necessities of life such as air, food, water, etc., but after that, things become more of a debate. We need all of the following but the amounts of them are different for each person. Humans were built to interact with each other and therefore, we need a sense of love and belonging that friendship, family, and relationships bring us. Heading more towards my issue, everybody needs some sort of safe feeling which can come from numerous things like health, property, morality, employment, family, achievement, and more. As much as i dissagree with this, the goverment feels it is their duty to help those people who don't have, for whatever reason, health care. A secure outcome for my issue would be for the government to just spend all their money to make sure every person in the US is safe and has a feeling of security while here. This might bring more debt to the government, but that would be o.k. because it would be giving all the people who reside in the US a form of health care that would always be there in case of an emergency. This might not be good for those people who, in order to feel secure, have to have that feeling of achievement when they work hard to earn money to pay for their own health care and other things in life. Overall, the government would need to take control over America's health care in order to give everybody a sense of safety rather than just letting people take care of themselves. This is how Aristotle would have seen it best...the logic of the polis.
Using Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, it is easier to determine what determines a person's security/happiness. A person obviously needs the basic necessities of life such as air, food, water, etc., but after that, things become more of a debate. We need all of the following but the amounts of them are different for each person. Humans were built to interact with each other and therefore, we need a sense of love and belonging that friendship, family, and relationships bring us. Heading more towards my issue, everybody needs some sort of safe feeling which can come from numerous things like health, property, morality, employment, family, achievement, and more. As much as i dissagree with this, the goverment feels it is their duty to help those people who don't have, for whatever reason, health care. A secure outcome for my issue would be for the government to just spend all their money to make sure every person in the US is safe and has a feeling of security while here. This might bring more debt to the government, but that would be o.k. because it would be giving all the people who reside in the US a form of health care that would always be there in case of an emergency. This might not be good for those people who, in order to feel secure, have to have that feeling of achievement when they work hard to earn money to pay for their own health care and other things in life. Overall, the government would need to take control over America's health care in order to give everybody a sense of safety rather than just letting people take care of themselves. This is how Aristotle would have seen it best...the logic of the polis.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Efficient Outcome
An efficient outcome to put Obama's heath care reform into action is there isn't one. His plan would take $500 billion dollars from medicare to pay for the people who aren't paying for their own healthcare and the illegal immigrants. The less money medicare has, the less money there will be for those people who have spent their whole life putting money into it. This is not fair at all. If there was some way to enforce people to pay for their own health insurance, then everybody would be in a better spot. The hard workers would not have to pick up the slack of any people who choose not to have health care. instead, they money they put in would go back to themselves. In a perfect world where everybody lived by the law and paid their taxes and put something in to receive something, this health care reform might work disregarding the fact that it is taking away one of our choices...a freedom we have. Even if people could not contribute a lot, it would still be something and there would be more for everyone.The people that pay for their health care choose their healthcare provider. If they are not happy with their provider, they can change the carrier. If this act is passes, there will be nowhere to go. People will not have another choice because the government would be busy controlling it for us. Although we need health reform, not socialized health care, this is not the way to do it. Government intervention= a loss of freedom. This is definitely a market situation rather than a polis one. The community and government can't do everything for us. People should try to be more self sufficient.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Fair Outcomes?
What would be a fair outcome to the huge debate going back and forth between people about the Health Care Reform Obama is trying to put into action? Would it be just giving everyone the same insurance having the government pay for everything or is it having people pay for their own health insurance? I feel like the only way to create a fair opportunity for everyone would be to let the people do their own things. It is not the governments job to pay for everything. This is the land of opportunities and in order to obtain these opportunities being presented to us Americans, we need to work hard and to better our lives. There are some less fortunate than others but everybody is given the same chance and it is what a person decides to do with those chances that determine how far they get in life. While, in a Utopian society, it would be amazing if everybody worked hard and we could all help each other out and everybody could have what they need, society doesn't work like that. unfortunately, too many people in this world expect everything to be given to them and when they get it, they don't see the point in ever having to work for it. it is a laziness this country has and unfortunately, it is not those hard workers' jobs to pay for the other people that just don't feel like earning their own. we already have a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009 and several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade. our country cannot afford to help those who aren't helping our country.
The best way to achieve fairness would to have everybody in this country pay their taxes. Many people move to America illegally and therefor are not citizens and do not pay taxes. However, they still get the same rights as the hard working citizens in this country. This is not fair that the people who work hard are paying for others to live here and if this goes reform goes into action, then also for their health care and all medical needs. this country doesn't not need any more debt and with all these incentives for the non-citizens to live here, why would they want to change anything. they love the free health services and all the government aids. its not their country and if it was, they would care more about what is happening to it. they would work hard to get citizenship here and help contribute to this land that so many people are abusing. In a perfect world, this would definitely be the polis because it should be driven by communities acting in the common good. however, when the whole community is not willing to do so, we must adjust and therefore, the only fair way to do this would be the market where individuals act to maximize their own self-interest. This way generally works better for societies in the long run.
The best way to achieve fairness would to have everybody in this country pay their taxes. Many people move to America illegally and therefor are not citizens and do not pay taxes. However, they still get the same rights as the hard working citizens in this country. This is not fair that the people who work hard are paying for others to live here and if this goes reform goes into action, then also for their health care and all medical needs. this country doesn't not need any more debt and with all these incentives for the non-citizens to live here, why would they want to change anything. they love the free health services and all the government aids. its not their country and if it was, they would care more about what is happening to it. they would work hard to get citizenship here and help contribute to this land that so many people are abusing. In a perfect world, this would definitely be the polis because it should be driven by communities acting in the common good. however, when the whole community is not willing to do so, we must adjust and therefore, the only fair way to do this would be the market where individuals act to maximize their own self-interest. This way generally works better for societies in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)