In this instance, changing the current system should occur, so that people can keep insurance and afford to buy medicine. On the flip side of this argument for change, many people who wouldn't have been able to obtain health insurance at all because of health issues now are able, and a change in the opposite direction would have dire effects. So when and how do you decide to make the change?
Change should occur in any situation when it has a defined benefit, without repercussions or low detrimental effect. In our healthcare example, did the system benefit everyone? Most would argue that it has not. So, a change should be warranted, but not without careful planning. Something that has such a large impact on the well-being of so many people has to be scrutinized by many different experts to ensure that the best possible change will be implemented. With that being said, the key to such a change is in the implementation; making it easy to embrace by everyone with little disruption to the normal routine. Because let's face it, we are all creatures of habit and naturally are adverse to interruption. If we can make the change that is best for everyone without disdain, it will be successful. So, on that note, we wish Bob Costas and Mike Tirico the best, and we hope that the change will benefit everyone. We can't help but say that it does feel like "the times they are a changing"-Bob Dylan.