What Are the Worst Cities for Asthma?
This article briefly describes a recent ranking of US cities in regard to their air quality as it is related to asthma. Shockingly enough, both Cleveland and Youngstown (each within an hour of my hometown) ranked in the top 10 worth cities for people with asthma out of 100 cities.
After today's class discussion about smoking, this article seems to be an appropriate follow-up. Many students felt that if the government were to try and ban smoking it would never be successful and in fact, would lead a greater cost for the common good (much like prohibition did in the early 1900's). The only solution this article seems to point to for people in these cities with asthma is to seek proper help and treatment and they do not seem to push for more non-smoking laws or pollution regulations. I am curious as to the cost of asthma treatment compared to the cost of pollution/smog reduction. Will it be more efficient for the government to regulate asthma and (other lung conditions') treatments than to implement anti-smoking/pollution regulations and more importantly, will Americans be willing to accept this? Would the benefits of cheaper asthma (& related) treatments outweigh the cost of current air quality conditions?
4 comments:
What should be done and what will be done by the government may be two different things. It is likely that it is cheaper for the government to treat people with asthma than it is to reduce air pollution. It is also likely that it will be easier for the government to regulate asthma treatments than it is for them to make smoking illegal. While these solutions are cheaper they only treat the problem rather than eliminating the problem. The government probably should take the harder route and fix the problem rather than treat it, but like I said before, what the government should do and what they will do may not be the same.
There is no doubt that air quality control is a heated issue in our society today. Unfortunantly this issue should have been an important factor from the start of our industrial revolution, not something to try and fix in 2006. Sure, significant actions can be taken to reduce air pollution and more and more restrictions are placed on them everyday. But the cost for a company to lower the pollution produced as opposed to the cost of paying a fine set forth by the EPA are sometimes giving the financial advantage to the pollution. As a society we need to try and take action for our mistakes in the past and set stricter punishments for companies not complying with air quality standards and even consider raising the standards that already exists. As for the asthma aspect of the scenario i suppose it would have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Programs to treat and help asthma patients would be great but what if your health insurance couldn't cover it(would it be free?). And last but not least it is said that the mid-ohio valley is one of the most polluted areas in the nation due to the great amount of factories surrounding us so we all better move after graduation.
According to the American Lung Association, some people have more of a tendency to develop asthma than others. Government has a responsibility to improve the quality of life for its residents. Cities which pass smoke-free workplace laws improve the accessibility to those in the workplace and public places. It ensures a quality of life that the "market" doesn't provide for millions suffering with disease and disability. In the case of Cleveland and Youngstown, the two cities to make the top ten here in Ohio, they are forcing residents to perhaps compromise their health needlessly.
If the government has a choice as to the approach that they take to manage asthma they are going to go with whatever is the cheapest. To change the pollution codes would cost so much more for everyone that it would be more practical for the government to just treat the asthma opposed to preventing it.
Post a Comment