Buy essay on Health Care Decision

The development of the national health care system affects consistently the life of millions of Americans, especially those who have no health care insurance or who cannot afford their health care insurance any longer. In such a situation, the implementation of the health care reform is essential but the current plan developed by the Obama administration confronts a strong opposition from the part of the Republican Party as well as from some Democrats. The similar trends can be traced not only in the political elite of the US but also in the American society. In such a context, the funding of health care system and the effective use of funds by politicians and statesmen becomes of the utmost importance because these funds can be used effectively for the development of the national health care system in the US, instead of funding electoral campaigns of candidates, for instance.
At this point, it is possible to refer to the case the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in terms of which the Court ruled the re-argument on the constitutionality of limiting corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. In such a way, the Court actually opened the way to reconsidering the existing limitations on independent spending of corporations during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. At first glance, such a decision can have a little impact on the national health care and it does not really affect average citizens of the US. However, on a profound reflection, the Court ruling can increase spending on political electoral campaigns, whereas the funding of health care system will be even more scarce, taking into consideration the health care reform suggested by the Obama administration.
In this respect, the development of the national health care system also reveals a trend to the introduction of socialist elements. The US health care system always relied on the insurance system, but the US government has started to develop programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, which aim at the state financial support of health care services for disadvantaged Americans. Moreover, the new President of the US, Barak Obama suggests the fundamental reform of the national health care system which is supposed to lead to a consistent strengthening of the state control and the role of the state in the national health care system. Simultaneously, the new health care system will be available to all Americans, regardless of the income or social status. In fact, Obama suggests extending health care insurance coverage though expanding the existing private and public programs with the help of federal subsidies and mandates. In such a way, he suggests solving the problem by means of the increase of the state support. As for Obama’s health plan, it is obvious that the increase of the state support of health insurance programs will need additional funding from the Federal budget. The latter implies the increase of tax pressure since the Federal budget needs to increase revenues to cover new expenditures.
In actuality, the health care reform suggested by Barak Obama seems to be too radical for the American society and political elite. Hence, the growing opposition to the health care initiatives of Barak Obama can become an unsurpsssable barrier on the way to the implementation of the health care reform. In such a context, it is possible to return to the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Court ruling. In fact, the Court ruling can affect consistently the health care system because the ruling opens the way to an unparalleled rise of corporations’ independent spending on electoral campaign. At the same time, this decision can undermine the health care reform because the latter implies the rise of the social responsibility of corporations for their employees and the state support and funding of the health care system. It proves beyond a doubt that corporations are interested in outcomes of elections for the Presidency or Congress because through funding of political electoral campaigns corporations can get political support that will lobby their economic interests at the top political level of the US. At the same time, corporations will need more funds to spend on elections if limitations on their independent spending are defined as being unconstitutional. Naturally, to increase spending on electoral campaigns, corporations will need to save costs. They are likely not to save costs they spend on the development of their business, introduction of innovations, market expansion and so on. Instead, they are likely to save costs on their social responsibility and spending on health care insurance of employees, for instance, being costly to corporations is likely to become the first “victim” of the elimination of limitations of spending on electoral campaigns by corporations that derives from the Court ruling.
In such a situation, I absolutely disagree with the court ruling because it stimulates the increase of spending on political electoral campaign, which cost the nation a lot at the moment and will cost even more after the Court ruling, while the national health care system is stumbling and millions of Americans have no opportunities to exercise their constitutional rights and to get treatment and lead a normal, healthy lifestyle.

References:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. January 21, 2010.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rutenberg, M. (January 4, 2008). “The Post-Debate Contest: Swaying Perceptions.” New York Times.