The United States presidential election is now fast approaching. With this, there are growing debates regarding the candidates’ platforms, plans of action, and how they intend to run the country if ever they win. Individual candidates tend to have created a platform distinct from the others due to their diverse political inclinations and own social background. One of the most pressing topics in the current presidential debate is the issue on healthcare.
Healthcare is one of the top concerns among Democratic voters, and so this issue is being given utter importance by the candidates if they want to gain the sympathy of most of the Democratic voters. Another thing, this issue on healthcare draws a very distinct line between the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Sack, 2008). As the article by Kevin Sack in New York Times entitled “In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties” depicts, there is a certain distinction between Obama and Clinton when it comes to healthcare policies.
The mere debate on this difference revolves around on whether whose plan can cover the larger number of residents and whose plan is more comprehensive for the people. The debate also covers the incapacity of Clinton to adequately answer all the questions regarding the vagueness of her health insurance plans and how she is supposed to address the problems that involves the manner at which she could ensure the implementation of her health insurance policy. Accordingly, the article expands on Clinton’s deliberate avoidance of the matter.
She speaks clearly of how her policies are to be carried out but she refuses to indulge on the issue of penalizing the people who will not be able to respond to this call. Rather than answering the question on penalties, she stirs the discussion on how she oughts to make the policies more achievable for the entire population. Clinton’s deliberate avoidance of the questions, will only increase the people’s hesitance to give her their support. As Obama has pointed out in the article, America is in dire need of a leader that the people can trust.
And this gesture from Clinton renders her credibility with utter anxiety from the voting public. She should not be afraid of answering important questions, be it something that may penalize the public or creating policies that may be coercive from other’s point of view. She should be generally honest in her intentions, and she should not be scared that if she may talk about penalties and punishing people, they might withdraw their support from her. However, the issue is far more reaching than just the question on who can cover the most number of citizens on its implementation.
As some of the people assert, healthcare issues should not focus merely on availability of insurances, it must also ensure the quality at which these services should be provided and made available for the majority of the American population. The utter importance on the issue of Clinton’s vagueness on the issue of giving penalties to those who will not abide according to the laws, should also be equally given on the issue of service delivery. Another issue that should be given pertinent attention is the manner at which Clinton could make health insurances available for all of the citizens regardless of their social and economic status.
This issues boils down to the point of creating equal opportunities amongst the people. As Clinton’s health insurance policy centers on the agenda of having every citizen sign up for an insurance plan, she must therefore create an economic solution of providing this for the less fortunate citizens. Might as well, aside from looking at penalizing citizens for non-compliance, she must look into the economic aspect of the people who could not afford to avail such, even there are low premiums for the insurance. Because it is of utmost irrelevance and irrational that people will get penalties for not having something that they can not afford.
The vagueness of the policy as to whether it is rational to penalize people for inability to follow the policy is an indicator that there is something wrong within its realms. The people behind the policy should be keen into realizing that there are certain factors to be considered in fabricating such laws. People should objectively and carefully look through the procedures and try to fit the specifications of the laws formulated into the life of common people. They should be mindful of the people’s reasons, particularly the people’s economic status that hinders them from following these kinds of policies.
Thus, before settling the issues on penalizing people who cannot afford to avail of health insurances, they should look closely on the disparities between rich and poor American families. They should be aware that even low premium insurances and government subsidies may not be able to grant them the ability to avail of such insurances, especially for those really impoverished families. Thus, penalizing them would not do any benefit to them, rather it will only increase their economic costs. The issue on healthcare delivery system is a really an important factor in gaining the sympathy and support of the voters.
Thus it is one aspect that most of the presidential candidates are overindulged in trying to find ways to satisfy the voting population. However what matters in healthcare issues, apart from the provision of healhcare insurances, is the quality at which it is provided to the people and the equal opportunities given to people regardless of their economic status.
Reference Sack, Kevin (4 February 2008). In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties. The New York Times. Retrieved February 9, 2008 from <http://www. nytimes. com/2008/02/04/us/politics/04checkpoint. html? ex=1359781200&en=3657fae4c0da9186&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.