Obamacare has not necessarily shown much success. Not only is it extremely unaffordable for the people just above the poverty line and the lower middle class, but many people have not been clearly told how it works. Although many people have signed up for the so-called affordable health care act, many people are still left uninsured because the process is either to complicated, they are afraid they won't be able to afford it, or they are lost in translation. The interactionist better explains this social problem. People around really understanding how this new healthcare system is working, it is not really considered important to many people because of the sky high premiums. People would rather avoid it because they have necessities to pay such as food, shelter and transportation. The interactionist perspectives looks at how people themselves define the problem and the actions taken from the meanings attached to the problem. Personally, if people saw having healthcare as an important problem they would be flocking to sign up for it. The obama administration hasn't necessarily done anything to help spanish speakers understand what the affordable care act is. In california, the website was in spanish, but once u clicked a link for a tutorial it would be in english.A functionalist would say the forced healthcare is a dysfunction because it causes stress and anomie that people didn't have before about paying another bill. Frankly healthcare was a lot more affordable for the middle class then it is now. I commented on this specific problem because it is something that has been bothering me since it got in acted, I definitely think that if it is not fixed it will definitely be the breaking point for the middle class families. I propose that people have a choice on whether the health insurance is important to them, and for there to be physicians who are not part of the high cost insurance companies.
The social problem with Obama care is that not everyone is able to afford it. As of right now, the fine for not signing up for the Obama care is $95 but it is said to increase by the year 2016 to $695. The Obama care would allow the individual to spend less on healthcare, however the specific plan you receive for that price will differ in quality from those held before the affordable health care act. The effects on the low-income individuals entering into Obama Care lies in employment because employed benefited workers will not need to worry, as their employer will already be deducting their plan from every paycheck. As for the unemployed or employed without benefits the change will be more up front as the lack of an insurance plan will result in penalties from the federal government where they did not exist before. As of right now insurers are reporting about 80 to 85 percent of people that have signed up for Obama care, however that still leaves out a 20 to 15 percent of individuals that have yet to sign up. Another social problem with Obama Care is that most middle class Americans that hold full time jobs and receive health insurance through their employers will have to pay more for their work-based health insurance. In addition, for those workers that have a very high cost work-based, coverage may see a decline in their benefits because their employer will attend to reduce the cost of providing health coverage. For a better understanding of this problem, I would use the interactionist perspective. An Interactionist would argue that when we look at the Affordable care act or “Obama care” the hype we can begin to witness is how the stratified social institution of healthcare can affect different social classes. For instance asking how this reform will shape how individuals determine self-worth via their quality of healthcare and how this differs throughout the different levels of social location. While the well-off may have no problem adjusting their rates to obtain great health services the struggling will not be so fortunate. All of America will witness the sociological and economic implications as the reform progresses over the next decade. I actually do not like the affordable care act because it isn’t even affordable I was going to sign up for it put the cost was so high, and I only work a part time job. I can barely afford the things I want with my part time job getting paid minimum wage. How can the government expect a family of four or more to afford such a cost when they work in places like factories that will not provide them with health insurance. People below the poverty line are barely making it as it is. I picked this topic because in my family the only once that have health insurance are my six year old sister and my twelve year old brother but that’s because they have Medicaid; however my parents, myself and my other sister didn’t apply for Obama care because we can’t afford to make that expense. One solution I can provide is to have free health insurance for everyone by taxing the rich a little bit more. A solution for Obama care could be to offer better premiums for low wage families by charging one percent a higher tax. This solution is needed because if low wage families can’t afford Obama care they will still be charged a fine and that will only be hurting our low wage families.
The problem that with Obama care is that it may take a while before we will be able to see if it made any changes for the better. That not to say that any kind of health care reform would show immediate results: these kinds of things take time. I think that what aout of people are upset about is how expensive insurance is to obtain now. due to the fact that insurance companies can not turn you down it caused a spike in rates for insurance. Obama care was seemed like a good plan on paper but i think insurances companies are a business and they are treating the health care of the nation like a business transaction. so the people who are now forced to pay are the ones who suffer. Sure its sounds good that we would all have insurance but the reality is that many people simply can not afford it. People who are already on a tight budget are now being forced to spend even more money that they don't have. I don't see how that can ever work out positively. You could apply the concept that there is inequalities in health care in our nation. over 15% of the nation was without health care and now they are being forced to pay for even though they obviously couldn't pay for it in the first place. A conflict theorist would look at this problem from the point of view that the rich control the health care system and it is another barrier that keeps the rich and the poor divided in social class. I think that the government should not force people to pay for health care. There is a reason that people don't have it and that is they cant afford it. instead of forcing people to do something that only adds stress to there lives t, they should instead try and find more ways to help those people get on government funded programs for health insurance. I'm aware that are programs like this that do exist but maybe reform those or put more time and money into making what we already have work.
Universal health care has been a a plan in progress for decades, but finally this year was realized through the Affordable Care Act. However, there are extensive debates about whether it is truly beneficial for the public and if it has been successful. Since the events are too recent, it is difficult to gather accurate data. Despite its branding as universal health care, the system is very much based on capitalism leaving those individuals with less resources behind. While low income households have to pay lower premiums, individuals or families who are slightly above the poverty threshold and thus are not eligible for Medicaid, but also do not receive coverage from their job, struggle to pay those lower premiums and rather remain uninsured and pay the $95 fine at the end of the year. This develops into a social problem since a big part of the population is excluded, who do not reach out to preventive care but rather go to the emergency room if something happens leaving a heavy burden on the tax payer and bringing down the economy. As already mentioned, health care is very much a capitalistic system in the US. Instead of the goal to help the public, it is based on profit for pharmaceutical companies and medical facilities. A conflict theorist would argue that the public and the medical companies are in a power conflict, in which latter try to reenforce their own power without consideration of the public. Most health plans in the health exchange have high deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses ensuring immense profits for insurances, health providers and pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile the individual struggles with paying these expenses, avoids health insurance coverage or doctor visits increasing chances of late discovery of illnesses. However, with the future increase of fines for not having health insurance the public is forced into health coverage. The Affordable Care Act remains a controversial topic, which I believe is important to discuss. While Obamacare was a good idea on paper, in a country of constant struggle between democratic and republican views the execution of the theory was rather unsuccessful. Since the US prides itself on its capitalistic views, any efforts to establish universal health care are always going to have profits in mind. The public often refers to universal healthcare as a socialistic concept, while in reality the US health care system is far from this. I believe it is important to educate society better on benefits of health care for the society as a whole. At the moment only the 1% are benefiting from the health care system, even though we as the public should be the ones enjoying free healthcare and access for all. There is an underlying belief that universal health care is going to destroy the US economy. Many people are not aware that in all westernized countries every citizen has the right to free healthcare and those countries have prosperous economies similar to the US or even exceed the US. Education in schools, communities and churches is an important first step, so the public understands issues with the the US health system better. If the public is better educated, we as a whole can push for better coverage for all by contacting representatives or voting for politicians supporting "real" universal healthcare.
Teni B. In this article the problem is the uncertainly of the effectiveness of Obama care and whether it works in advantage of civilians or not. This is a social problem because it makes it difficult for social worker or politicians to identify the effectiveness of Obama care and know for sure what proportion of population is able to access health care. It also creates confusion and disbelief for civilians; inaccurate statistics make people question the credibility and effectiveness of Obama care and it can even discourage some to apply for health care. As of now roughly 7.5 million Americans have applied for Obama care which is relatively a low number. The fact that the insurance companies are private and are regulated by states adds more complications to this problem therefore the national data aren’t accurate. The industry will improve as soon as more data is available to the public and researchers. Functionalist would say that this is not a problem and that this is how society functions. It’s impossible to demand accurate results since the system is still in its development process. As a matter of fact, functionalist would focus on dysfunctions of this problem and how it creates an overall positive outcome for society. For example functionalist would say that the inaccurate results create jobs for the researchers and opens a specific field for them to study and explore. This problem also has a benefit for insurance agencies without any reliable data regarding the effectiveness of Obama care people are more likely to go and get insured, more accurate statistics on effectiveness of this new law may decrease the number of people wanting to purchase health insurance. For me the Obama care is very similar to social security system, in social security the young pay taxes which is used to pay for the elderly’s retirement, in Obama care healthy individuals are needed whose payments will be used in helping of covering the expenses of the ill. For now this system may function if we are able to get more healthy young to join the health care system. It’s been only few months since this has become a new law so in my opinion expecting an accurate statistical data is not realistic. Time is needed for the data to be collected and correctly formed so maybe in few years will be able to conclude whether Obama care was a success or not. Some might suggest that we will have more accurate data if the federal government begins regulating the insurance agencies; this is a good vision in fact. However, in my opinion the only solution to the uncertainly of Obama care is time, I believe time is needed for this new system to prove itself. Also the time will allow researchers to collect a good report and provide the public with legitimate information.
Siranush M. We want to figure out if the Obama care had a success or not. I think this is a huge social problem as many of people will disagree with that. Perhaps that the liberal, taker agenda that Obama has tried to infuse to America has failed...and the true self respecting, moral, hard working America has returned, much to the dismay of those that believe they are entitled to all America has to offer with no effort or work on their part. Even those on NPR realize that not everything is free. Someone has to contribute. The question that will be most interesting to see answered is that related to "Are there really fewer uninsured?". The entire point of the ACA was to reduce this number. If it has remained essentially stagnant, I find it difficult to call the ACA a success (at this point). It would seem that we have spent billions of dollars and countless hours simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end, this law was sold as a really big lie that it was a benefit to everyone and would be better than the status quo. The lie is that it is clearly not a benefit to everyone and, indeed, will be a significant disadvantage to more people than an advantage to others. That is the bottom line. According to functionalist perspectives it assumes that societies are like engines - each cog contributing to the working of the whole set of structures. However, many of these ideas depend on dominant stories being seen as true and useful. We shall later examine how these stories are being challenged in the potential meltdown of postmodernity. We cannot really assume what will work for society and what won’t work we have to see the consequences. After seeing the consequences we can figure out whether it worked or not, and identify how it functioned.
The problem being presented in the article is that it is going to be difficult to find out whether or not the Affordable Care Act is a success or not. While there are personal issues wrapped up in this subject—whether or not a family can afford it, how accessible is it to a certain group, ideological conflict, etc.—this is a social problem. It is social in nature because it affects the entire country as a whole, regardless of SES or any socio-cultural factors. Taking part in “Obamacare” is mandatory for all US citizens, therefore making issues associated with it as an entity social in nature. Knowing whether or not it is, “successful”, is important for that reason. Not being able to know that information for what seems like a long time is the problem. I think a micro level analysis is relevant here. An interactionist might point to the definition of the situation. How are certain people, families, neighborhoods, groups, defining success differently? What does one upper-middle class family in Pasadena have to say versus another in West Hollywood? For that matter, how do those two opinions differ from that of a family in Watts? What socio-economic and cultural factors play into those opinions? I think the micro level is relevant because the topic of healthcare is so expansive and difficult to pin down that what individuals and groups have to say about it seems more relevant than the data. I say that because “Obamacare” is just a first step. It was a rushed effort that was met with so much resistance from a polar-opposite, dogmatic right that it is surprising that it was even put into law. To expect anything from a bill which almost half of congress thought claimed was “socialist” and “impeding on our civil-liberties”, is bordering on wishful thinking. Personally I think it is a step in the right direction, reminiscent of the foot in the door technique. For me, single payer is the goal but that isn’t going to happen right now. This solution seems like the best we can do with what we have. I chose to comment on this because healthcare is extremely important, because human beings have health issues. I think the solution to whether or not Obamacare is viewed as a success or what to do in the period in which we won’t “know” whether Obamacare is viewed, as a success is quite simple. Sit back and watch what happens—over decades. Any conclusion is going to be based on opinion because this healthcare battle is a work in progress. It is going to be constantly evolving into something that we cannot yet imagine at this point in time. I say have your opinions, voice them, but don’t expect too much right here right now. It has taken decades to just get to this half-hearted, only semi-effective solution. Needing “Obamacare” to be a “success” seems kind of unrealistic at this juncture.
In response to Vanessa's comment; I agree that Obamacare has not necessarily shown success in getting more people insured. I've heard many horror stories of how people were confused by the process, and how some individuals felt in the dark in regards to what they were actually supposed to do. As she stated, there were people who were lost in translation, and found the website difficult to maneuver. I also heard that the site crashed the night before the deadline was to apply for coverage. Also as Vanessa pointed out, the "so-called affordable health care act" has problems in that, there are many people who still can not afford to get insured. Some individuals would rather opt out to pay the fine than to actually get covered, because it would save them money in the long run. As important as health care is, people have other necessities to pay for such as shelter, food, transportation, and miscellaneous bills that supports their lifestyle. Also I think that fining people for not getting covered only adds more stress to the average person, and thus can affect their health. From a conflict theorist's point of view, the middle class and working class were at a disadvantage because of how expensive getting insured can be. However the upper-class aren't necessarily hindered at all, because they were probably already insured to begin with, and if not they would probably be able to afford it. A conflict theorist would say that making health care mandatory only further separate the poor from the rich. As the rich have control over health care, it only divides the social classes even more, and make the social stratification more apparent. I think that the Obamacare Act was created with good intentions, but was not planned properly. To fix the problem, the act is going to have to go through some major modifications, and somehow work its way to be more affordable, and easy to access.
In response to what Erika P. said, I agree that Obamacare is not affordable to everyone like it claims to be. In fact, now it seems people would prefer to go without any health care of any sorts to avoid paying the hefty prices. Like Erika said, Obamacare has only made it pricier for Americans to receive any sort of health care, and therefore, the social problem lies within the high prices of Obamacare. Like she states, the unemployed and employed without benefits will be the ones to suffer the most from this as they will suffer penalties from their lack of insurance. I chose this subject to right about because my parents are going through the same thing. They were forced to choose between having to pay a high amount of money they do not have to receive healthcare and paying the fine, which was considered much cheaper. It is a problem because they did not consider adjusting the prices for those below the poverty line. They did not consider that many people cannot afford basic expenses let alone paying such a high amount for healthcare. What stood out to me that she spoke honestly about her opinion regarding this subject and how she applied her perspective of the issue in how it is a problem to not just hers but to others going through the same problem.
A conflict theorist would say that conflict normally arises when distributing scarce resources. However, in regard to doctors, hospitals, and other medical related resources are not scare, rather the problem exists in the realm of access to these vital resources. If you do not have health insurance or your health insurance does not cover enough of your required medical expenses, you are forced to come up with the money yourself or go without. In the case of Obamacare, because of the high prices they have made it hard for the middle and lower class to have the proper access to healthcare, however the wealthy have the means to receive the proper care, therefore further causing separation between classes.
They can go about charging the payment for Obamacare in taxes or charging the rich higher. I think they shouldn’t penalize people who don’t want to pay for their healthcare; people shouldn’t be forced to pay such high amounts of money if they don’t, or in this case, can’t pay for it. I think universal healthcare should have been adopted a long time ago, or at least focus on establishing a more affordable healthcare system.
9 comments:
Obamacare has not necessarily shown much success. Not only is it extremely unaffordable for the people just above the poverty line and the lower middle class, but many people have not been clearly told how it works. Although many people have signed up for the so-called affordable health care act, many people are still left uninsured because the process is either to complicated, they are afraid they won't be able to afford it, or they are lost in translation. The interactionist better explains this social problem. People around really understanding how this new healthcare system is working, it is not really considered important to many people because of the sky high premiums. People would rather avoid it because they have necessities to pay such as food, shelter and transportation. The interactionist perspectives looks at how people themselves define the problem and the actions taken from the meanings attached to the problem. Personally, if people saw having healthcare as an important problem they would be flocking to sign up for it. The obama administration hasn't necessarily done anything to help spanish speakers understand what the affordable care act is. In california, the website was in spanish, but once u clicked a link for a tutorial it would be in english.A functionalist would say the forced healthcare is a dysfunction because it causes stress and anomie that people didn't have before about paying another bill. Frankly healthcare was a lot more affordable for the middle class then it is now. I commented on this specific problem because it is something that has been bothering me since it got in acted, I definitely think that if it is not fixed it will definitely be the breaking point for the middle class families. I propose that people have a choice on whether the health insurance is important to them, and for there to be physicians who are not part of the high cost insurance companies.
Erika Perez.
The social problem with Obama care is that not everyone is able to afford it. As of right now, the fine for not signing up for the Obama care is $95 but it is said to increase by the year 2016 to $695. The Obama care would allow the individual to spend less on healthcare, however the specific plan you receive for that price will differ in quality from those held before the affordable health care act. The effects on the low-income individuals entering into Obama Care lies in employment because employed benefited workers will not need to worry, as their employer will already be deducting their plan from every paycheck. As for the unemployed or employed without benefits the change will be more up front as the lack of an insurance plan will result in penalties from the federal government where they did not exist before. As of right now insurers are reporting about 80 to 85 percent of people that have signed up for Obama care, however that still leaves out a 20 to 15 percent of individuals that have yet to sign up. Another social problem with Obama Care is that most middle class Americans that hold full time jobs and receive health insurance through their employers will have to pay more for their work-based health insurance. In addition, for those workers that have a very high cost work-based, coverage may see a decline in their benefits because their employer will attend to reduce the cost of providing health coverage. For a better understanding of this problem, I would use the interactionist perspective.
An Interactionist would argue that when we look at the Affordable care act or “Obama care” the hype we can begin to witness is how the stratified social institution of healthcare can affect different social classes. For instance asking how this reform will shape how individuals determine self-worth via their quality of healthcare and how this differs throughout the different levels of social location. While the well-off may have no problem adjusting their rates to obtain great health services the struggling will not be so fortunate. All of America will witness the sociological and economic implications as the reform progresses over the next decade.
I actually do not like the affordable care act because it isn’t even affordable I was going to sign up for it put the cost was so high, and I only work a part time job. I can barely afford the things I want with my part time job getting paid minimum wage. How can the government expect a family of four or more to afford such a cost when they work in places like factories that will not provide them with health insurance. People below the poverty line are barely making it as it is. I picked this topic because in my family the only once that have health insurance are my six year old sister and my twelve year old brother but that’s because they have Medicaid; however my parents, myself and my other sister didn’t apply for Obama care because we can’t afford to make that expense. One solution I can provide is to have free health insurance for everyone by taxing the rich a little bit more. A solution for Obama care could be to offer better premiums for low wage families by charging one percent a higher tax. This solution is needed because if low wage families can’t afford Obama care they will still be charged a fine and that will only be hurting our low wage families.
Zach Johnson said....
The problem that with Obama care is that it may take a while before we will be able to see if it made any changes for the better. That not to say that any kind of health care reform would show immediate results: these kinds of things take time. I think that what aout of people are upset about is how expensive insurance is to obtain now. due to the fact that insurance companies can not turn you down it caused a spike in rates for insurance. Obama care was seemed like a good plan on paper but i think insurances companies are a business and they are treating the health care of the nation like a business transaction. so the people who are now forced to pay are the ones who suffer. Sure its sounds good that we would all have insurance but the reality is that many people simply can not afford it. People who are already on a tight budget are now being forced to spend even more money that they don't have. I don't see how that can ever work out positively. You could apply the concept that there is inequalities in health care in our nation. over 15% of the nation was without health care and now they are being forced to pay for even though they obviously couldn't pay for it in the first place. A conflict theorist would look at this problem from the point of view that the rich control the health care system and it is another barrier that keeps the rich and the poor divided in social class. I think that the government should not force people to pay for health care. There is a reason that people don't have it and that is they cant afford it. instead of forcing people to do something that only adds stress to there lives t, they should instead try and find more ways to help those people get on government funded programs for health insurance. I'm aware that are programs like this that do exist but maybe reform those or put more time and money into making what we already have work.
Anahid M.
Universal health care has been a a plan in progress for decades, but finally this year was realized through the Affordable Care Act. However, there are extensive debates about whether it is truly beneficial for the public and if it has been successful. Since the events are too recent, it is difficult to gather accurate data. Despite its branding as universal health care, the system is very much based on capitalism leaving those individuals with less resources behind. While low income households have to pay lower premiums, individuals or families who are slightly above the poverty threshold and thus are not eligible for Medicaid, but also do not receive coverage from their job, struggle to pay those lower premiums and rather remain uninsured and pay the $95 fine at the end of the year. This develops into a social problem since a big part of the population is excluded, who do not reach out to preventive care but rather go to the emergency room if something happens leaving a heavy burden on the tax payer and bringing down the economy.
As already mentioned, health care is very much a capitalistic system in the US. Instead of the goal to help the public, it is based on profit for pharmaceutical companies and medical facilities. A conflict theorist would argue that the public and the medical companies are in a power conflict, in which latter try to reenforce their own power without consideration of the public. Most health plans in the health exchange have high deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses ensuring immense profits for insurances, health providers and pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile the individual struggles with paying these expenses, avoids health insurance coverage or doctor visits increasing chances of late discovery of illnesses. However, with the future increase of fines for not having health insurance the public is forced into health coverage.
The Affordable Care Act remains a controversial topic, which I believe is important to discuss. While Obamacare was a good idea on paper, in a country of constant struggle between democratic and republican views the execution of the theory was rather unsuccessful. Since the US prides itself on its capitalistic views, any efforts to establish universal health care are always going to have profits in mind. The public often refers to universal healthcare as a socialistic concept, while in reality the US health care system is far from this. I believe it is important to educate society better on benefits of health care for the society as a whole. At the moment only the 1% are benefiting from the health care system, even though we as the public should be the ones enjoying free healthcare and access for all. There is an underlying belief that universal health care is going to destroy the US economy. Many people are not aware that in all westernized countries every citizen has the right to free healthcare and those countries have prosperous economies similar to the US or even exceed the US. Education in schools, communities and churches is an important first step, so the public understands issues with the the US health system better. If the public is better educated, we as a whole can push for better coverage for all by contacting representatives or voting for politicians supporting "real" universal healthcare.
Teni B.
In this article the problem is the uncertainly of the effectiveness of Obama care and whether it works in advantage of civilians or not. This is a social problem because it makes it difficult for social worker or politicians to identify the effectiveness of Obama care and know for sure what proportion of population is able to access health care. It also creates confusion and disbelief for civilians; inaccurate statistics make people question the credibility and effectiveness of Obama care and it can even discourage some to apply for health care. As of now roughly 7.5 million Americans have applied for Obama care which is relatively a low number. The fact that the insurance companies are private and are regulated by states adds more complications to this problem therefore the national data aren’t accurate. The industry will improve as soon as more data is available to the public and researchers. Functionalist would say that this is not a problem and that this is how society functions. It’s impossible to demand accurate results since the system is still in its development process. As a matter of fact, functionalist would focus on dysfunctions of this problem and how it creates an overall positive outcome for society. For example functionalist would say that the inaccurate results create jobs for the researchers and opens a specific field for them to study and explore. This problem also has a benefit for insurance agencies without any reliable data regarding the effectiveness of Obama care people are more likely to go and get insured, more accurate statistics on effectiveness of this new law may decrease the number of people wanting to purchase health insurance. For me the Obama care is very similar to social security system, in social security the young pay taxes which is used to pay for the elderly’s retirement, in Obama care healthy individuals are needed whose payments will be used in helping of covering the expenses of the ill. For now this system may function if we are able to get more healthy young to join the health care system. It’s been only few months since this has become a new law so in my opinion expecting an accurate statistical data is not realistic. Time is needed for the data to be collected and correctly formed so maybe in few years will be able to conclude whether Obama care was a success or not. Some might suggest that we will have more accurate data if the federal government begins regulating the insurance agencies; this is a good vision in fact. However, in my opinion the only solution to the uncertainly of Obama care is time, I believe time is needed for this new system to prove itself. Also the time will allow researchers to collect a good report and provide the public with legitimate information.
Siranush M.
We want to figure out if the Obama care had a success or not. I think this is a huge social problem as many of people will disagree with that. Perhaps that the liberal, taker agenda that Obama has tried to infuse to America has failed...and the true self respecting, moral, hard working America has returned, much to the dismay of those that believe they are entitled to all America has to offer with no effort or work on their part. Even those on NPR realize that not everything is free. Someone has to contribute. The question that will be most interesting to see answered is that related to "Are there really fewer uninsured?". The entire point of the ACA was to reduce this number. If it has remained essentially stagnant, I find it difficult to call the ACA a success (at this point). It would seem that we have spent billions of dollars and countless hours simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end, this law was sold as a really big lie that it was a benefit to everyone and would be better than the status quo. The lie is that it is clearly not a benefit to everyone and, indeed, will be a significant disadvantage to more people than an advantage to others. That is the bottom line. According to functionalist perspectives it assumes that societies are like engines - each cog contributing to the working of the whole set of structures. However, many of these ideas depend on dominant stories being seen as true and useful. We shall later examine how these stories are being challenged in the potential meltdown of postmodernity. We cannot really assume what will work for society and what won’t work we have to see the consequences. After seeing the consequences we can figure out whether it worked or not, and identify how it functioned.
The problem being presented in the article is that it is going to be difficult to find out whether or not the Affordable Care Act is a success or not. While there are personal issues wrapped up in this subject—whether or not a family can afford it, how accessible is it to a certain group, ideological conflict, etc.—this is a social problem. It is social in nature because it affects the entire country as a whole, regardless of SES or any socio-cultural factors. Taking part in “Obamacare” is mandatory for all US citizens, therefore making issues associated with it as an entity social in nature. Knowing whether or not it is, “successful”, is important for that reason. Not being able to know that information for what seems like a long time is the problem. I think a micro level analysis is relevant here. An interactionist might point to the definition of the situation. How are certain people, families, neighborhoods, groups, defining success differently? What does one upper-middle class family in Pasadena have to say versus another in West Hollywood? For that matter, how do those two opinions differ from that of a family in Watts? What socio-economic and cultural factors play into those opinions? I think the micro level is relevant because the topic of healthcare is so expansive and difficult to pin down that what individuals and groups have to say about it seems more relevant than the data. I say that because “Obamacare” is just a first step. It was a rushed effort that was met with so much resistance from a polar-opposite, dogmatic right that it is surprising that it was even put into law. To expect anything from a bill which almost half of congress thought claimed was “socialist” and “impeding on our civil-liberties”, is bordering on wishful thinking. Personally I think it is a step in the right direction, reminiscent of the foot in the door technique. For me, single payer is the goal but that isn’t going to happen right now. This solution seems like the best we can do with what we have. I chose to comment on this because healthcare is extremely important, because human beings have health issues. I think the solution to whether or not Obamacare is viewed as a success or what to do in the period in which we won’t “know” whether Obamacare is viewed, as a success is quite simple. Sit back and watch what happens—over decades. Any conclusion is going to be based on opinion because this healthcare battle is a work in progress. It is going to be constantly evolving into something that we cannot yet imagine at this point in time. I say have your opinions, voice them, but don’t expect too much right here right now. It has taken decades to just get to this half-hearted, only semi-effective solution. Needing “Obamacare” to be a “success” seems kind of unrealistic at this juncture.
Peter P.
In response to Vanessa's comment; I agree that Obamacare has not necessarily shown success in getting more people insured. I've heard many horror stories of how people were confused by the process, and how some individuals felt in the dark in regards to what they were actually supposed to do. As she stated, there were people who were lost in translation, and found the website difficult to maneuver. I also heard that the site crashed the night before the deadline was to apply for coverage. Also as Vanessa pointed out, the "so-called affordable health care act" has problems in that, there are many people who still can not afford to get insured. Some individuals would rather opt out to pay the fine than to actually get covered, because it would save them money in the long run. As important as health care is, people have other necessities to pay for such as shelter, food, transportation, and miscellaneous bills that supports their lifestyle. Also I think that fining people for not getting covered only adds more stress to the average person, and thus can affect their health. From a conflict theorist's point of view, the middle class and working class were at a disadvantage because of how expensive getting insured can be. However the upper-class aren't necessarily hindered at all, because they were probably already insured to begin with, and if not they would probably be able to afford it. A conflict theorist would say that making health care mandatory only further separate the poor from the rich. As the rich have control over health care, it only divides the social classes even more, and make the social stratification more apparent. I think that the Obamacare Act was created with good intentions, but was not planned properly. To fix the problem, the act is going to have to go through some major modifications, and somehow work its way to be more affordable, and easy to access.
Theresa M. says
In response to what Erika P. said, I agree that Obamacare is not affordable to everyone like it claims to be. In fact, now it seems people would prefer to go without any health care of any sorts to avoid paying the hefty prices. Like Erika said, Obamacare has only made it pricier for Americans to receive any sort of health care, and therefore, the social problem lies within the high prices of Obamacare. Like she states, the unemployed and employed without benefits will be the ones to suffer the most from this as they will suffer penalties from their lack of insurance. I chose this subject to right about because my parents are going through the same thing. They were forced to choose between having to pay a high amount of money they do not have to receive healthcare and paying the fine, which was considered much cheaper. It is a problem because they did not consider adjusting the prices for those below the poverty line. They did not consider that many people cannot afford basic expenses let alone paying such a high amount for healthcare. What stood out to me that she spoke honestly about her opinion regarding this subject and how she applied her perspective of the issue in how it is a problem to not just hers but to others going through the same problem.
A conflict theorist would say that conflict normally arises when distributing scarce resources. However, in regard to doctors, hospitals, and other medical related resources are not scare, rather the problem exists in the realm of access to these vital resources. If you do not have health insurance or your health insurance does not cover enough of your required medical expenses, you are forced to come up with the money yourself or go without. In the case of Obamacare, because of the high prices they have made it hard for the middle and lower class to have the proper access to healthcare, however the wealthy have the means to receive the proper care, therefore further causing separation between classes.
They can go about charging the payment for Obamacare in taxes or charging the rich higher. I think they shouldn’t penalize people who don’t want to pay for their healthcare; people shouldn’t be forced to pay such high amounts of money if they don’t, or in this case, can’t pay for it. I think universal healthcare should have been adopted a long time ago, or at least focus on establishing a more affordable healthcare system.
Post a Comment