Laura Cristina LHoeste Roldn 118744-9 ESSAY 3 "AMERICAS HEALTH-CARE DIVIDE The article begins by stating that it is historically

recognized that providing healthcare to the population must be a governments first priority, because a healthy population provides for a stable economy. We can look at this as an example of a positive externality: by providing for a good healthcare to the particular residents in need, the whole community eventually benefits from their wellbeing, since they can join labor force and participate actively in the economy. Even though I am in favor of this position, as I was thinking on the topic, a line of thought occurred to me, which I would like to introduce only briefly. If we look at this problem strictly economically speaking, we know that chronic diseases are the most common nowadays. So even though if there is a health supply, diseases will continue aggravating, leading to severe life disabilities. Consequently, instead of returning to labor force, this peoples life expectancy lengthens (but also their disability lengthens; so we increase the years in which these people are dependent of a healthcare supply, becoming a further weight to the governments economy (In this case, providing healthcare would actually become a negative externality). But this becomes an ethical trouble, and furthermore, this is not really the subject debated in the article. Now, the article follows by introducing the implementation of ObamaCare in the United States, following by a criticism of the bipartisan competitiveness evident in this country; suggesting that the political rivalry has reached the point in which they have failed to consider the actual welfare in the community which implementing the law would create. Nevertheless, this article parts from the belief that the ObamaCare would be highly beneficial to this country (since as we have already stated, providing healthcare is a main priority); but it calls my attention the authors role in a Republican Administration so his evident criticism to the Republican actions must be based purely on his economical knowledge on the law. Consequently, even though I have done some research on the topic, I am really in no position to question the decisions made by this government, however, what I have learned is that the law doesnt actually provide for healthcare but it requires everyone to have health insurance. So even

Laura Cristina LHoeste Roldn 118744-9 though this will obligate employers to supply for and insurance, it introduces all the economical troubles that the insurance sector brings with it. For once, there are more choices that could lead to bad decisions, and since asymmetric information and non-aligned interests are very frequent in this area, unconformities and legal severe legal issues might arise from the implementation of the law. So what Im trying to say is that even party rivalries are evident in this country, in this case, I think it is improper to criticize the Republicans opposition to the ObamaCare attributing it merely to political affairs, when in reality, further studies could be made in order to determine the viability and benefits of the law. While it gives certain securities to the population because they would have someone to cover for their health necessities, it also introduces the insurance sector to the equation, which really complicates the transactions and decisions of the society. So what I think is that even though, health insurance is a good way of stabilizing the economy because it reduces the incidence of free riders, in my opinion, it could be much more beneficial, high-quality and satisfactory to supply directly for the communitys healthcare, instead of introducing third parties which might worsen the principal agent problems and complicate healthcare supply. Word Count: 593