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?
1 comment:
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.
Post a Comment