Engaging “argument for which you think are most effective and least effective at delivering social services in your home country, and why?”

I feel that Johnson’s creation of Medicare and Medicaid are both the most effective and least effective programs. The nature of Medicare and Medicaid, to me, is a healthcare reform paradox. On the one hand, this is the government’s attempt at proposing a universalist type policy. However, there are pitfalls when we think of the socio-emotional socio-psychological impacts that developed through umbrella stereotypes. Medicaid provides support of the very poor regardless of age (Wormer & Link, 2016), a pleasant and “social welfare” oriented tone it conveys, and Medicaid is sincere in its effort to support the elderly. But the matter of the fact is that both of these programs led to the privatization of healthcare.

I want to frame that;

The American dream theme embedded into American culture creates a social standard. This standard is quite simple. For people to feel worthwhile in a capitalist country, it is essential to money in the form of taxation, both Medicare and Medicaid take money from our paychecks. Only to have created hostile emotions for some Americans against the American government. When the country is not even making a living wage, and the government is taking money that could be used to support the costs of living, I question, and I want others to wonder why the government doesn’t trust us with our own money. I may be inaccurate when I say people would start caring for one another if they had the funds to care for themselves…
I believe that if I had money to spare, I would donate it (but I don’t have this capability right now). If the responsibility of healthcare returned to a community-oriented structure, then maybe we would fall back into humanity.

Processed with VSCO with c1 preset

Medicare and Medicaid were both designed for the sake of healthcare reform. But the tone of the 1920s which produced the 1960s health care “advances” are rationally put, no longer “advances.” They are supporting a failing system. Doctors can pick and choose which insurances to accept because government aid (guarantee) is present. If there were no government aid, sure they could turn people away. Still, I believe that if everyone had money “money” or even the perception of “money” (created through the extra cash as a result of the removal of taxation people would know their local doctor, be likely to pay their local doctor, and thus the local doctor may be more willing to treat community members who are unable to pay. Additionally, id like to note that privatization of healthcare to be funded through insurance removes any ability for patients and providers to agree on an IOU or trade any form of skill/commodity.

I believe that there is a need to address poverty in terms of developing infrastructure. Thus, the government should support local contractors or increase incentives to build. Much like the American Reconstruction and Reinvestment Act that offered billions of dollars as an incentive to improve energy efficiency (p.125). “thanks to grassroots organizations inspirational leadership by environmentalists (EPA) American communities were able to build.” In light of this, the American communities were able to build in a sustainable fashion that supports social welfare due to its inherent connection to globally alleviate stressors upon the environment. When the environment is stressed, there is less access to clean water, agricultural development/harvesting, and engages with attempts to remediate pollution.