The issue of whether or not the United States should implement a socialized or (universal) health care plan is a very difficult question to answer.In our class debate I learned facts about socialized health care plans that I was previously unaware of.By just observing our current free-enterprise health care system today individuals can see and experience obvious flaws in the system.Someone could get severely injured, be told their insurance company will not pay for their treatment, and end up spending their life savings in hospital bills.This happens all too often in our current system because unfortunately the health care industry is a business based upon the principles of capitalism.Even though capitalism has contributed greatly to the growth of our young nation by creating competition among individuals, businesses, and even large corporations it may not be the best answer when it comes to health care.Health insurance companies obviously understand that like other businesses it's survival of the fittest.Meaning their goal is to acquire clients and keep clients who they can use to make financial profits and gains.If insurance agencies like these are put into a situation where they could potentially lose money in the process of paying for a certain medical procedure for a client they will immediately drop the client because businesses are created to make profits and grow not to hand out charity.While this seems to be extremely cruel and harsh especially in situations that cause individuals and their families to become bankrupt or be denied for a life saving organ donation, etc.
This system helps to push more individuals to have the desire to become doctors, surgeons, and to overall work towards being employed somewhere within the medical field.Hospitals and pharmacy agencies also are forced to better their products and come up with new and more effective prescription drugs and treatments.This same type of competitive nature that exists in American business is what forces businesses to essentially increase their production of goods and their profits or to be eliminated and bought it.But even with capitalism helping this nation grow so rapidly I don't believe it should be applied to our nation's health care plan.I understand putting high prices on products such as big screen televisions, game systems, and big homes due to the fact that all of these things are not essential for all individuals to have but merely some of the items that people desire in life.Therefore making it very hard for many Americans to purchase what they "want" but our government seems to provide our citizens with everything they absolutely need except for health care.Our taxes pay for every child to attend public schools while also supplying food stamps, welfare checks, and government housing projects for the American population who is the most impoverished.I'm okay with individuals not being given plasma screen televisions and cars from the government payed for through the tax dollars of Americans.But to not supply health care which is a basic human need is just outrageous and wrong.
If we as a nation have realized that allowing all children to attend school regardless of socio-economic status and have also assisted individuals in feeding their families and helping them pay their bills why would we not supply this last and most important need in human life which is health care.All individuals deserve the right to be educated, have a place to live, and have something to eat so why would we deny them of their health care are we saying we've given them enough and they don't have the right to live healthily unless they can pay hefty sums of money on a daily basis.The individuals of society who we have supplied with public schooling, food stamps, and welfare checks are like I mentioned above some of the poorest individuals in this nation.These are the same individuals who primarily make up the portion of uninsured Americans today.Allowing only the wealthiest individuals in society the rightful privileges of life was an old American tradition that held down certain groups of individuals mainly including minorities.If we as a nation proclaim that every man is equal and has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution then that is a downright lie.We held down minorities and individuals of low socio-economic status from attending school, getting sufficient education in schools, and from having acceptable and sufficient housing and food to eat at one point in America.But most people as a whole at one point agreed that everyone would receive these very barest essentials of life no matter what race they were or how much money they had.So why do we continue to hold down this same group of individuals from getting proper health care and most certainly saving more lives through preventative measures and proper treatments while we now only treat in reality some of the most privileged individuals in society.The wealthy and rich Americans are practicing the old American tradition of discrimination.And now prices on health insurance have risen so much that many middle class individuals also cannot get the efficient health care that they need.Since American tax dollars already help to pay for other socialized programs for American citizens we need to also provide the most essential of all which is someone's personal health.Wealthy individuals who are openly against a socialized health care plan for the nation sometimes claim that they would be paying more money for less quality care.This is not totally true as wealthier individuals can receive health care benefits above those of most others in a socialized plan with some extra fees.Ultimately the majority of individuals would save more money by paying for a socialized plan through their taxes than dealing with the massive health insurance premiums and prices of procedures and pharmaceutical drugs that they would have to purchase straight out of pocket.If the our nation is supposedly one of the greatest in the world then why is it that we cannot even take care of our own citizens and also have an infant mortality rate higher than some third world countries do.It seems as though the idea and common belief that perceives America as being a world superpower and watchdog is nothing but a common myth.With health insurance rates shooting through the roof nowadays and the economy in disarray wouldn't it be a great time if any at all to at least take care of our people's health.Because in my opinion an individual's personal health is rivaled by nothing els. For instance what difference does an individual's level of education, what they eat, and where they live make if they are dead from a chronic illness or disease which could have been prevented but was not.It's like the old saying goes "at least you have your health".Because if you're not healthy then it does not matter what else you might own because you will not be around long enough to enjoy it.People do not take into account that the individuals who fail to receive proper medical care include the common man, woman, and child nowadays.People should take into account that by denying certain individuals proper care you are in actuality sickening or killing a husband, wife, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, neise, nephew, etc.It's time that Americans look past money for once and make the right choice to at least take care of our fellow countrymen and women. Here is a link to a site that lists and explains the pros and cons of socialized health care: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm.
Stem cell research has shown to be a very promising field within the medical and scientific communities. Adult stem cells that have been reformated and stem cells from umbilical cords have shown to be very helpful in the past in treating chronic illnesses and some debilitating diseases.But when it comes to the possibility of embryonic stem cells being used to cure varying illnesses and diseases moral and ethical questions have been raised by many different individuals and groups of people.Because some individuals hold the belief that by removing stem cells from the human embryo that is in very early stages of development (blastocyst) that you are destroying a human life or at least the possibility of a human life.It's obvious that if these embryonic stem cells were not removed from the blastocyst a human being would surely and most likely develop eventually. After all, everyone began their life as just a small grouping of cells (blastocyst) days after their conception.So essentially some individuals believe that by taking embryonic stem cells from these blastocysts you are eliminating a life that "could have been".The argument of whether or not a blastocyst is a live human being is a complicated argument and depends solely on one's opinion of when a life technically begins.For example, the Pope and members of the Catholic church claim that a human life begins at conception, while others claim a human life begins later on down the road when the human fetus is more developed.Because a group of cells can't think, feel, or make conscious decisions for itself right? 
Well, while this may be true I heard a statement made by the con side's argument during our class debate that to me accurately portrayed an example similar to the existence of a blastocyst.They stated that if someone is in a vegetative state, cannot act physically for themselves, and cannot make conscious decisions for themselves do their family members just automatically pull the plug?Life should not be destroyed until one can determine whether or not the chance to live has diminished from being a possibility.Many of the embryonic stem cell lines that are already available for use were obtained when couples went through the process of in-vitro fertilization.In in-vitro fertilization more than one of the female's eggs are paired with the partner's sperm in an attempt to increase the chances of a successful fertilization ocurring.But usually a couple will only choose to have one or two children at most and have the other fertilized eggs simply thrown away.Embryonic stem cells can be harvested from these fertilized eggs that are scheduled to be disposed of.So in a way why would we let these embryonic stem cells go to waste?In my opinion before opening the flood gates on embryonic stem cell research the existing lines of embryonic stem cells should first be tested on a wide range of possibly curable disabilities and diseases that many individuals suffer from.And then if there are extremely promising results then we should more than likely harvest stem cells from parents who do not want them and plan to simply dispose of them.But with the many ethical and moral concerns that are circling around this issue I believe it should at least be proven first that embryonic stem cells do what we think they do before we begin to harvest them in higher amounts.I mean if I wasn't sure how a certain company or corporation would do when they first open would I invest all of my stock into them?The answer to that is no.So I don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket with embryonic stem cells before the proper experimentation is done and we learn more about their capabilities and the processes they can and can't be implemented in.With the supposed ability to clone human beings through the use of embryonic stem cells also arising as an issue in the past it only complicates the situation further.
While if possible, the ability to effectively clone human beings would take much time and effort to perfect.Therefore I do not believe research on embryonic stem cells will focus solely on the technology of cloning human beings at least not for now.But down the road it could most likely be another issue that mankind will have to deal with.I agree with George W. Bush that by just doing research on the effects of using embryonic stem cells using the already existing lines is the safest way to go.Because that way we can first learn more about what they do before investing lots of time and money, and it would also help to avoid having to make the life or death decision when it comes to the "blastocysts" themselves.If the existing embryonic stem cells are used then no one will likely argue against it because it's in the past and the chance for a human life to develop passed a long time ago.It is usually the further practice or activity of harvesting embryonic stem cells that bothers the majority of people.Also the fact that the average American man and woman probably does not know very much about the facts of what embryonic stem cells are, how they are harvested, and the possibilities they've been said to have.It's like a lot of other issues in society in that most people are not well educated about the subject either because they don't care or they have no way of finding out.People cannot fully make a conscious decision as a whole without first understanding all of the facts about the subject.Therefore a lot of individuals who are accounted for as either being for the harvest and research of embryonic stem cells, or against the whole process may or may not know or have heard all of the facts about embryonic stem cells.Take myself for example, I'll admit that I do not know and understand all of the stages of development in human beings therefore I don't believe I can rightfully or knowingly choose one side or the other.I would have to understand the full development of a human embryo up until the moment of birth before I could say whole heartedly when I believe a human embryo can truly be considered a human being.Therefore, I believe that many people simply have chosen sides on the subject just to back up there political party, family's views, friends views, etc.And sometimes individuals simply choose a side just out of spite, because they do not like a certain group of people and their beliefs and consequently they automatically choose to oppose them from the very start.If it was up to me I would allow only government scientists (not privately owned corporations) do research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines but I would discontinue and put a stop to the harvesting of new stem cells.This is due to my belief that to steal these embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst is similar if not the same as murder.To me it's simply logical to dispose of these stem cells because couples enter the process of in-vitro fertilization for one reason which is to have a child or children and not to donate embryonic stem cells.Although I do not understand why the possibility of placing these fertilized eggs into the body of another female who is struggling to conceive naturally possibly with the consent of the initial couple.Similar to a surrogate birth mother scenario and like an extremely early adoption of a child. Here is a link to a website that explains some of the pros and cons of stem cell research: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm.
