Polsby States Is the House of Representatives

¶ … Polsby states is the House of Representatives has become more institutionalized as time progresses. He believes the necessity of institutionalization is due to the fact that as the House grew, the functions and duties it took upon expanded, too, which demands a system of organization. The consequences of said institutionalization were it became effortless to bar the workings of legislation than to advance it. Furthermore, institutionalization means decentralization of authority, which then creates numerous jobs in the House thus attracting individuals to potential careers. However, this reduces the effectiveness of Congress and the value of the House is reduced with employees wanting to stay within the administration. In the end, reduced blunders are taken upon the House, which leads to a creation of hierarchy, or known as "uniformly centralized patterns of authority" (Polsby, 168).

The article I've chosen is titled "Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why That's A Hard Question." It is about Congress and Health Care, specifically, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA was drawn to provide affordable health services to Americans, but at the same time, protecting companies of private insurers. However, the dilemma begins because under the act, private insurance companies can not deny coverage to anybody. Presently, companies can refuse to offer a person insurance because of his or her past illnesses. However, under the ACA, such circumstance is not permitted, along with invoicing people who are "in poorer health premiums that are much higher than average." The power of the health-care industry is in the hands of Congress due to the Commerce Clause. The quip to preserving the private insurance market is to have the thirty million Americans who are not insured to buy insurance, which will then reduce the cost of insurance. The first critique is why is Congress so eager to preserve private insurers. It is no surprise the medical industry has become a business in that because of the high cost of doctors' malpractice, the cost of seeing them and their services have become expensive. As well, the drugs at the pharmacy are expensive but those drugs cause other side effects, which we will then have to go see the doctor, pay him or her again, get a prescription, purchase more drugs and get more sick, and pay money to do it. Unfortunately, physicians are afraid to get sued, which helps drive the cost of insurance up. Also, let's not kid ourselves that the interest of private insurance companies are after our health, when in fact they are just looking out for their own pockets of profit. I'm no suggesting that universal health care will be the end-all be-ball but it's better than living deciding whether I want to eat or I want to be able to pay for medical insurance each month. Also, with private medical insurance, there are so many loopholes that even the cheapest policy will have me paying out of pocket each time I go see the doctor, which may or may not cover drugs.

The article continues to talk about whether not having insurance impacts interstate commerce, whether Congress can punish people because they have not purchased this "product." Those who oppose ACA say Congress can't penalize someone because he or she can't afford insurance. However, those in support say not buying insurance affects the state of the economy, thus affecting interstate commerce. Personally, I do not believe the Commerce Clause should be interpreted where Congress can force people to buy insurance. It is because not everybody can afford it, and it's not fair for the government to make that decision for people. Sure, Congress can say it's affecting the state of commerce but first and foremost, it's going to influence the economy within the individual's home. If he or she has not purchased insurance in the first place, it is most likely because they can't afford it, and when Congress forces them to buy it, what monetary means will the family have left. Furthermore, if Congress is allowed to tell the people and coerce them to buy something they don't want, then what's next? Where's this "freedom" that American deems the people have, and where does the encroachment on the lives of citizens begin and/or end? The Obama administration says "virtually all people do get care," which is completely not true. For example, Fidelis is a NYS government funded insurance, and a person can get it if she or she makes less than $903 a month. If he or she makes more that that amount, they are then not a possible candidate. However, that amount is equated to working part-time, which does not offer benefits, and it is not enough to pay for rent and food and other miscellaneous bills. So, if I do choose to work full time, I will either sacrifice at least half of my paycheck to buying insurance and scraping by to pay for the rest of my bills, or I will live meagerly off of $903 dollars, having insurance, but never really getting anywhere with my career. Much like food and water, I believe nobody should struggle to attain health-care, and nobody should be paying through the roof in premiums to obtain such services.