Reference no: EM133087759

With a specific lens on the Affordable Care Act, I can see an argument for how it could represent either autonomy or paternalism. I would advocate that the ACA leans more to paternalism. The ACA mandates that everyone be covered by health insurance (Kenton, 2021). I hold the belief that the purpose of the policy is to reduce costs so those who couldn't afford health insurance in the past, now can. However, forcing people to be covered, although arguable for their own good and the good of society, is still a paternalistic action of the government. Ultimately, an autonomous person would be able to decide they do not want health insurance, whether it is in their best interest or not, with no penalty to their person.

In many of my economic beliefs, I tend to lean more libertarian, with a focus on protecting a truly free and fair market. However, with healthcare and other public utilities, I tend to lean more egalitarian. With public utilities, everyone should have access to equal quality despite their income level or social determinants. The same as with access to parks, libraries, food, water, and other government provided or subsidized services and utilities, everyone is paying for them and, as a citizen of the country, should have equal and fair access.

I have a deep compassion for humanity and the American people. I'm beginning to get my feet wet with corporate policy advocacy and PAC work. For me, I understand that this is a necessary part of our policymaking process, although I disagree with aspects of it. I'm committed to always making sure that I speak up and advocate for the good of the patients, and never fight for something that I do not believe will help people. Adversely, I'm committed to putting as much effort as I can into things that I do believe will help patients.

There are so many things that can be changed in our healthcare world, and I'm hoping that the efforts I'm engaged in will be for the greater good.

I ultimately believe in the good of people. However, I too believe that we are products of our environment, and unfortunately we have a corrupt and perverted political landscape. The extent of monetary influence in the current political climate makes it hard for the ethical individuals and actions to shine through. There are undoubtably ethically driven policymakers in the arena, but they are typically, and unfortunately, outweighed by the individuals and groups who take money in exchange for policy support. In order to be reelected, policymakers need money for their campaigns, the industries and interest groups with the most money are able to buy the ear or the action of policymakers. If, as a nation, we could take money out of politics, I believe the rise of an ethics driven arena would return.

(READ THE ABOVE and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW)

Which ideas or thoughts did you read that you found interesting or insightful? How did these ideas or thoughts inform your own thinking?

Are there any sections that you think you read that could expound upon? (e.g. "I'd really like to hear more about how you think political corruption is a primary factor in this case.")

What thoughts or questions does your reading response trigger for you?