What Are The Pros And Cons Of Obamacare

Abstract
The blunt reality is that our economic wants for exceed the productive capacity of our scarce (limited) resources. We are forced to make choices. This unyielding truth underlies the definition of economics, which is the social science concerned with how individuals, institutions, and society make optimal (best) choices under conditions of scarcity (McConnell, Brue, & Flynn, 2012). Scarce economic resources mean limited goods and services. Scarcity restricts options and demands choices. Because we “can’t have it all’, we must decide what we will have and what we must forgo. At the care of economics is the idea that “there is no free lunch”. You may be treated to lunch, making it “free” from your perspective, but someone bears a cost.
Obamacare will likely remain controversial because it is complex and raises taxes to fund entitlement benefits (Carley, 2011, p. 1). The advantages increase for those who don’t have health insurance, but the disadvantages increase for those and businesses that pay more taxes or incur higher operating costs. Millions of people that are uninsured will have access to healthcare; however there would be an increase for taxpayers. The plan must cover ten essential health benefits: outpatient care, preventive and wellness visits, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and prenatal care, prescription drugs, mental treatment, lab tests, pediatric care and services and devices to help people that are injured, disabled or have chronic conditions. For people that cannot afford insurance the federal government pays the states to add them to Medicaid. Millions of people that purchase their own private health insurance have had their plans cancelled by insurance companies because the plan didn’t meet the ten essential health benefits, and the costs of replacement insurance is higher because of the services included that some don’t need. The increased coverage could also raise the overall health care costs in the short
North America’s interior is laden with large deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas, such as oil sands in Alberta and subbiuminous coal in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Many of these deposits are remote from consumers, and face serious obstacles to domestic use. For the firms that stand to profit from selling these fuels, the growing economies in Asia seem to provide a ray of hope. In order to reach markets in Asia, fossil fuel interests are planning to build a range of large infrastructure projects in the Pacific Northwest (De Place, 2013). Across British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington there are active proposals for five new coal terminals, two expansions of existing terminals, three new oil pipelines, and six new natural gas pipelines. The projects are distinct, but they can be denominated in a common currency: the tons of carbon dioxide emitted if the fossil fuels were