Editorial #3: We Should Be Provided Free Health Care

Standing by Greece and Poland, the United States is one of the only three countries in the world that doesn't provide free health care to its people. Although some people might claim that receiving free health care may be beneficial to the people individually, but not to the country itself. However, I think that the government should provide us free health care.

First off, if we look at the country as a whole, it will cost a lot to provide everyone in this country with free health care at the moment and the near future once the government implements this plan. Studies show that the amount of money that the expansion of insurance coverage under Obamacare will increase the debt by $340 billion in the first 10 years. However, in the long tern, the total health care spending might be lowered by $592 billion in the first year, and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade due to the lowered administrative and prescription drug costs.

Secondly, having free health care will help the government promote health, and also, it could improve public health. According to the New York Times, studies show that people who are provided with free health care are less likely to be depressed and are able to maintain financial stability than those who are not provided with health care. She also includes that studies show that people with Medicaid were 35 percent more likely to go see a doctor. Despite the positive results of having health care, around 10.4 percent of the total U.S. population did not have health insurance in 2014. That is 33 million people, which is a lot.

In conclusion, I believe that the government should provide free health care to everyone, since it will help to promote health, save lives and money. The government has previously implemented some actions towards health care, like Obamacare, but many people claimed that it is not fair to the majority of the people. The government should equally and fairly provide free health care to everyone.

Commenting on Classmate's Blog #2

In one of my classmate's blog post, Hit the Road, Frack (part 2) by Deena Ismail, she talks about the consequences of fracking, which is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks in order to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. The author suggests reducing fracking slowly, and I completely agree with her.

Not only is fracking bad for our environment, I personally think that fracking is not very efficient or effective. It takes around one to eight million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing (which can NOT be good for the environment), and in the process, methane gas and toxic chemicals contaminate groundwater. These are only some of the cons of fracking, listed by Dangers of Fracking. Although fracking may have some benefits, like have alternative sources of fuel and lower energy costs, I think that the cons outweigh the pros.

Some of the possible solutions include: solar and wind technologies and "green" fracking, but I think that the potential solution that Deena proposed is good, which is slowly reducing the act. The government may not have placed restrictions on fracking, because it will decrease the total supply of natural resources by 9 percent. Fracking also provides more jobs for people, so the unemployment rate for the country will increase if the government prohibits fracking.