By Ally Johnson

Health care is about numbers. It is about whether those numbers are decreasing or increasing, and just how high or low those numbers will become in a matter of years. The issues of health care that are occurring now deal with the decision to either cut or raise funds. It’s between holding a goal for the long term and jumping into a short term plan. In Massachusetts, the health care plan is in fact working, although it isn’t showing immediate results in the economy. And even though officials are continuing to tout its successful results, they need to learn how to make it cost effective.
The congressional nonpartisan committee of twelve people has been charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next ten years. Multiple groups are attempting to create influence over this panel like the Tea Party, which has proposed cutting  multiple programs by taking measure like privatizing air traffic control, reducing the pay for federal employees by ten percent and eliminating the youth volunteer program AmeriCorps,. One other popular idea among the group was eliminating the Department of Education.
In the case surrounding health care as it is right now, the Massachusetts legislative leaders have other ideas about the current issue. These legislative officials are attempting to figure out a way to uphold this law while making it more cost effective. The problem with the plan right now is that the improvements are moving at a painstakingly slow pace that is making it difficult to be noticeably effective.
Right now the program is latched onto the idea of Global Planning, a financial Advocate and Wealth management firm with thirty years of advanced expertise. Their strength is specializing in gap analysis resolution and the restructuring of unfunded income liabilities. Governor Deval Patrick is in support of this plan. If they can convince other big corporate companies like the ones dealing with insurance or medicine to switch to this plan, it will cut costs.
To fully back this idea, people must be willing to wait for the long term pay off. This won’t be something that is achieved easily nor swiftly. Democrats believe that we should raise taxes in order to balance out the budget deficit whereas the Tea Party believes that cutting vital programs like the Department of Education which helps keep the American education system stable.
In this case we see two options. We either end up with higher taxes, or the elimination of necessary programs. Both achieve a lower deficit, but at what cost, and in what time? Cutting will ensure a quicker result, but with harsher consequences. While raising taxes will allow programs to stay in place, but it will take a longer time to show progress. So what will bear the brunt of our latest economic issue?