President Obama lifts HIVS travel ban

For the original linke please click here.

President Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 22-year-old travel and immigration ban against people with HIV early next year.

The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration. Criticizers have oppsed it, saying this decision is not proper. The 11 other countries that ban HIV-positive travellers and immigrants are: Armenia, Brunei, Iraq, Libya, Moldova, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Sudan, according to the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

Obama said that by lifting the ban, the U.S. will take a step toward ending the stigma against people with HIV/AIDS, something he said has stopped people from getting tested and has helped spread the disease.

Personally beieving it's about time. The only thing missing is education about AIDS. It's non-existent. And the subject only comes up once upon a year on World AIDS Day. AIDS education is a missing ingredient in the education curriculum. Today's teeans are approching to the deliquency with education, knowledge, understanding and treatment, this epidemic can be eradicated. Meanwhile the AIDS still has its own threat to human's health and there is no reason for it to be forgotten. Unfortunately nowadays, in society, media and everywhere else it looks no one cares about this fatal anymore.

Taking on the Flu

With the flu season fast approaching, President Obama faces one of his first tests of national proportions. While there is a vaccine available for H1N1, its abundance was hugely overestimated by the national government. The questions the Cheif Executive now must answer are these: what is the president's role in the face of a possible epidemic? and, how prepared should he be?
Mr. Obama has certainly done his research. Sitting down with those who had seen this all before, former White House officials from President Ford's administration who also faced a possible epidemic in the 70s, Obama and his team discussed how best to combat the flu, and the implications that may result from being either ill prepared, or, surprisingly, too prepared.
During Ford's presidency, another dangerous flu was said to be on its way to the United States, and the Ford did everything in its power to combat the disease that, in reality, never arrived. While this was a minor political embarrassment that made Ford the object of criticism, Dr. David Matthews, former-president Ford's health secretary, advises President Obama that it is better to be safe than sorry; "You've got to be willing to take the criticisms for being overprepared, because there's no defense for being underprepared."
Like Ford did in the 70s, Obama has already taken steps to raise awareness of the approaching peril, such as the website, flu.gov, his declaration of a "national emergency" just last weekend, and even the use of Sesame Street characters on television to teach about hygeine that prevents the spread of germs to those who are most vulnerable, children. But despite his behind-the-scenes preparation and research, Obama himself has kept slightly detatched from the issue, announcing the state of emergency in writing and having his Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, take much of the brunt for the vaccine shortage.
Perhaps the distance from the issue is an effort to protect his political reputation should something go wrong. Unfortunately, Obama's reputation is not all that is at stake as he decides how to respond to the threat of the deadly virus.

Article: "Vaccine Shortage is Political Test for White House" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg
(New York Times)

Vaccination: Test for the Obama Administration

With the flu season right around the corner, there is believed to be a shortage of flu vaccines. How the Obama administration handles this could-be epidemic is on everyone's mind. With the Center of Disease Control and Protection reporting that the H1N1 virus is already widespread in 46 out 50 states and a shortage of vaccines predicted, the Obama administration is getting mixed reviews.

Taking cues from previous instances similar to this during the administrations of George Bush, and Gerald Ford, the Obama administration is setting out to inform and educate the public on the H1N1 Virus and the flu vaccine. From the moment that H1N1 Virus made the news the administration set out to prevent a shortage and an epidemic. The website Flu.gov was created and public service announcements were made featuring the popular Sesame Street characters Elmo and Rosita. The president even made rounds urging the American people to wash their hands. Obama himself hasn't been vaccinated, allowing women who are pregnant, children, and those with health problems to get their vaccination first.

The administration has received high remarks on its education of the general public on vaccination as well as how quickly a vaccination was able to be put out. However in July it was estimated that by the end of October 120 million vaccinations would be available, but that number has now been lowered to 23.2 million vaccinations. This could be very bad for the administration. If an epidemic does break out fingers will be pointed at Obama, even if this situation spiraled out of control of the federal government, and this will set a precedent in peoples mind on how the Obama administration will handle national problems.

Opting Out: Not As Simple As It Looks

The healthcare bill, as proposed by the Democratic Party, has been through the ringer and back. From death panels to funding abortions this bill has been under constant scrutiny and slander by those who wish to see it fail. Now that the Democratic Party is fully ready to reveal their plans, the slander has begun to pick up pace. Earlier, the argument was that the federal government was attempting to regulate the actives of its citizens too much and that the federal government was stepping over the boundaries of federalism. Now, with the newly proposed option of “opting out” many believe that the federal government is creating a more marble cake version of federalism, giving the states new power. Opting out, as defined by Nevada senator Harry Reid, means that states who do not agree with the government healthcare can simply choose not to follow it. On paper, this sounds fundamentally Americana; it gives Americans choice and freedom, none of the socialist propaganda that President Obama has supposedly been spewing. But, when acted upon, “opting out” will set a precedent for states to exercise power over congressional rulings. For instance, if New Hampshire decided that they do not agree with government healthcare and decides not to follow it under the idea of “opting out”, is it fair to say that if New Hampshire does not agree with a congressional ruling on gun control they can demand the choice to “opt out”? The federal government is setting a dangerous precedent with the idea of “opting out” that they will most definitely regret later.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28791.html

Democrats Ready with Tempered Public Option

The House of Democratic Leaders are ready to show their new public option for the Health Care Bill as soon as Thursday. This versions allows Doctors to negotiate reimbursement rates with the government but, Nancy Pelosi wants a more "robust" versions one that " ties reimbursement rates for providers and hospitals to Medicare rates plus a five percent increase". However, this idea did not get many votes, the newer version has more success which is supported by the Democratic side. This bill will be unveiling on Thursday on the West Front of the Capitol, it is labeled as the "Health Care Insurance Reform Event".
The last remaining issue that still has not been set is the abortion language. Representative Bart Stupak wants to clarify that federal money will not be used to pay for abortions under the new health care bill. he said that if there is not a vote on this issue her has forty anti-abortion Democrats ready to block the bill form getting to the house floor. This issue has yet to still be decided upon.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/health.care/index.html
Rachelle Tischler

Healthcare: A Necessity for both young and old?

The question that is posed in Congress lately is Healthcare for all. Should the younger generation purchase health insurance? Health care premiums are seen as very expensive and insurers are cultivating ways to encourage younger people to purchase health insurance. Insurers agree that younger people should be charged less than older people due to the likely-hood of younger person becoming sick or injured as compared to an older person. An increase in the purchasing of health insurance would help balance out the cost of insuring people who use more medical care. A bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee allows insurers to charge 4 times more to older people. This can be beneficial because most people would argue that making premiums to high for younger people would decrease the amount of insurance purchased by younger people. Their is another dilemma. Their are many subsidies for lower income Americans and many younger people fall into this category while the working 55-64 age group do not because they make enough money to exempt themselves from the subsidies but not enough to deal with the high premiums set by the insurance companies. The 55-64 age group is basically paying 20% of their salary to health insurance because they do not recieve these government subsidies. Alissa Fox, senior vice president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, says that the government should provide these middle aged Americans with proper subsidies to help aid them with the insurance premiums. Others also say that health insurance can be forced upon the younger generation by requiring employers to provide it. Congress has a tough choice to make. Should younger people purchase health insurance?

In the end, this seemingly technical choice of where to set age rates may come down to America's unique belief in individualism versus the principal of social solidarity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114202363

Rush Limbaugh and the imaginary thesis

Oh boy! This is completly, not something new. Limbaugh needs to just leave the president alone now, seriously. He's starting to ruin, or rather is in the process of ruining, something important called a reputation. He won't stop accusing president Obama and it's getting to be alot like Sanjia on American Idol. It was fun to watch the fall of "reality" television at first, but after awhile it just starts to get annoying. Limbaugh was entertaining to listen to when outlandishly disrespecting the president by comparing him to Hitler but now it's the same old song and dance. It seems every month, the public wonders what quirky hijinx this childish veteran is up to next. He's starting to write his own magical history of adventures equivalent to that of Harry Potter. He's the politician who's carrer lived(somehow).

This latest Limbaugh bomb dropped when he accused the president off of information he might as well have gotten from wikipedia. The "thesis" that "Obama" "wrote" was read off on Limbaugh's show with signs of treason against our country with "Obama's" criticism towards the ideas of our founding fathers. It's a real shame that after all was said and done that this source became more uncredible than a Beverly Hills teen's credit card on a Friday night. However, this is Rush Limbaugh and because of his political experience he can apparently suspend logic and spin anything. Cows create milk? No, the farmers make it out of vegitable oils. The defandant was caught on video robbing the convience store? Of course not, it was someone of the exact same build in the same cloths disguised as the defendant. I can't prove that president Obama is the political facist of my fantasy world of my blurred reality now that my only evidence is as real as the contents of the Harry Potter books? Not true, I can pretend the evidence is real and so it shall be.
Rush, take a lesson from Mccarthy and take a bow out before someone's credability magically floats out of existance on the back of a Hippogriff. It can happen, I have an essay here to prove it. I found it on a blog too. I don't remember the name of it though.
The point is Rush Limbaugh needs to just simmer down and help the president improve from his criticisms, but that wouldn't be fun or make him feel good.

Arizona May Put State Prisons in Private Hands

With the economic environment of today many states such as, Arizona, are looking to give away there prisons to private prison companies. Arizona hopes to earn at least $100 million dollars by negotiating with private prison companies. Arizona seeks to give up 9 of there 10 prison complexes to privately run companies. “There simply isn’t the money to keep these people incarcerated, and the alternative is to free many of them or lower cost,” said Ron Utt. But, many questions arise such as, will the privately run companies be able to handle prisoners such as serial killers or prisoners on death row. And what will the private prisons do when violent acts arise from these prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/24prison.html?ref=todayspaper

Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation

As the debate over health care reform continues, we have learned on Wednesday, October 21, 2009, that the Democrats are not as successful as they desire to be. They issued a bill to strengthen Medicare payments for doctors to $247 billion over the course of ten years. However, the Senate shot it down.
Of the sixty required votes needed to proceed in the Senate, only forty-seven were won. Since Democrats and an independent voted with Republicans, the Democrats must be blamed. This speaks largely of the Democrats' success with health care reform and their distinct views behind it in comparison to those of other parties. Perhaps the Democrats should reform their own views before they look to reform health care.
The Senate Democrats used a separate bill to discuss doctors' fees. As a result, they have been able to confine the costs of more extensive health care legislation, in addition to keeping their costs minimal and in accordance with Obama's limitations. It seems that the Democrats' tactics are too obvious to hide, and it may be best for them if they utilize another option. Their goal was to protect doctors' fees and appease them. Their bill did gain support from the White House, the American Medical Association, and AARP however. Many of the Democrats who voted against the bill believe that the funding is not strong enough, and "real reform" needs "fiscal responsibility." The bill seems necessary though. As of now, there has been a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors, and for several years, they have experienced five percent cuts. Apparently, the Democrats are making an effort to assist these struggling and worrisome doctors. However, bills cannot simply be passed without thinking realistically. The fiscal responsibility is crucial. Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, proclaimed that when the Senate first voted on health care spending earlier this year, a bipartisan majority demonstrated that the Democrats wanted to spend outrageous sums of money, but had no plan to pay for these extensive costs. McConnell implied that the Democrats were not thinking realistically. If they would have attempted to pass this bill, the economy would plunder even more. The United States's economy does not need to endure any more pain, as we already are experiencing an unbelievable deficit and an ever-increasing national debt. Could our economy deepen into a worsened state? It doesn't seem possible, but it surely could be if the Democrats passed this bill without the proper financial backup.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, stated that she is advocating a "robust' liberal version of a government-run health insurance plan." She needs 218 votes in order to win full approval and work against private insurers. Her plan is logical, as she she has separate alternatives in which she plans to use Medicare rates to pay hospitals and doctors, or she would negotiate rates with insurance providers. It has been discussed, though, that Medicare rates are nowhere near those paid by private insurers.
The Democrats agreed that "they want to revoke the exemption from federal antitrust law that health insurance companies have long enjoyed." This was strongly approved of by the House Judiciary Committee with a vote of 20 to 9, so the Democrats plan to use this as part of their updated, broader legislation. Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) argued that insurers are selfish and committ "crimes" on a daily basis, and they are not penalized when they truly should be. People are placing too much trust in insurance companies. They must be controlled more than they have been.
Since 1945, the insurance business has not had to deal with federal antitrust law, as the Supreme Court (1944) ruled that "insurance was interstate commerce subject to federal antitrust law." Eventually, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and the insurance industry benefited.
The States are in severe need of help from the federal government. They have been responsible in that they regulate health insurance. However, they cannot do it alone. They need support from the federal government. The insurance industry should have their exemption from federal antitrust law repealed, as it is being used too widely (an entire industry). In order to do this, the federal government must take action and support the states so that they can effectively control insurance companies and limit fraud, misconduct, etc. Health care reform is also relying on the Democrats to reach the proper consensus on a bill so that reform can take place effectively. They must broaden their scope, since their detailed bill caused disagreement and rejection on Wednesday.
How long will it take until a bill is passed? The answer may depend on how long it takes the Democrats to make a logical and realistic proposal in which the Senate can finally reach a consensus with.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/policy/22health.html?_r=1

Fate of White House Counsel Is in Doubt

Guantanamo Bay has always been a touchy subject, whether you are for it or against it is a different story. In the case of Mr. Craig the scandal behind Guantanamo is that he is being singeled out for supporting the termination of the Cuban prison. As President Obama's top lawyer he has been in the thicket of political action surrounding the closing of Guantanamo Bay and as such he has been criticized for opinions that are shared throughout the political community.

Attorny General Eric H. Holder Jr. has been quoted saying Mr. Graig is "extremely effective." Similarly Mr. Graig is supported by President Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Even those oppossed to closing Guantanamo like Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, are saying that to blame the closing of Guantanamo on Mr. Craig would be unfair.

So why is it that members of the same party as well as other parties have been criticizing Mr. Craig? He is a well liked, experienced individual who has worked under Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. He has been in politics for quite some time and knows more or less how to play Hardball. Why is it that when a few politicians are upset they slander their opponent? is it because they have no other way of showing their opinion? On top of that, what does it say about our politicians in Washington, in this case the politicians at the highest level in the federal government?

As a side note, where do the politicians and people that want to close down Guantanamo plan on putting the people they hope to release since no other country wants to take them? People may advocate to close it down but they do it without realizing that that isn't the only issue when it comes to closing a prison.


By Michael Isaza

Fate of White House Counsel Is in Doubt

Gregory B. Craig faces big controversies over the decisions to close down the prison on Guantanamo Bay, located in Cube. Even though our government is broken down and power does not lie solely on one person, this decision had gone through many of America's top politicians. Mr. Craig is blamed solely for this final decision and may be leaving the White House as early as the end of this year die to these accusations. Although, his political involvements in the past question if he holds America's secrets and if he is trying to cover them up. During the Clinton administration Mr. Craig worked as an advisor to fight off impeachment even though, Bill Clinton would later admit to the accusations. But I doubt he supported this decision to close this prison with out some reasonable explanation. He was a main component in exposing the dangerous interrogation techniques and revising them. No photos were released to the media and he protected the interrogators identities. Mr. Craig may be covering up and protecting the American government, but what consequences will come from closing this prison? It seems like this folder containing the governments mistreatment of prisoners(invading their Natural Rights) is quickly being stored away. What other secrets have the government hid from the public's knowledge? If these secrets are revealed, America may find itself in danger during these tough economic times.


source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/politics/22craig.html?_r=1

Despite Downturn in Traffic, Los Angeles Plans $1.3 Billion Airport Overhaul

Although many people have shied away from traveling due to the recession, the city of Los Angeles plans to spend 1.3 billion dollars in renovations to the Los Angeles Internation Airport. These renovations will include, an expansion on the international terminal, new shops, more passenger lounges, and an increase in the amount of gates. Gina Marie Lindsey justifies this renovation because she believes that places like airports are "the front door to America." Therefore, the major airport must be aesthetically pleasing to tourists. This renovation poses many problems in that, 1.3 billion dollars are being spent where it is not necessary during this economic downturn.

However, officials believe that since the other major aiports such as, Atlanta and Dallas have undergone these expensive renovations LAX certainly deserves their renovation. Also, officials are saying this new rennovation will improve the customs in LAX such that, there will be a larger area for immigration and customs. This new renovation is also said he help the imports and export into California because there will now be more space for airbusses to land and take off with the excessive amount of cargo. However, is this really necessary? Will it significantly help the poor economy in Califorinia? Having reached an unemployment rate of 12.2% as of August, according to the bureau of labor statistics, is this the last resort to help California's faltering economy and unemployment rate?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20lax.html?_r=1&ref=us

Supreme Court To Hear New Guantanamo Case

A group of Chinese Muslims, called Uighurs, have been detainees in Guatanamo Bay since 2002 and are no longer threats to the U.S. However they may need to sit in prison until the U.S. government can find a country to settle them in. The U.S. Supreme Court has now reentered the issue after a federal appeals court overturned their decision from last year stating that, "the lower court judge had exceeded his authority."The Supreme Court originally declared that the federal courts could release men being held without a justifiable reason. The Obama administration needs to find residences for these men within the next few months to possibly resolve this case. Habeus Corpus is being argued by the detainees saying there is no reason for them to be in prison since they aren't "enemy combatants."

This article leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Why couldn't these Chinese Muslims go back to China? What made them suspicious in the first place? Why is it taking so long to find a residence for these men? What makes this so important now after seven years since they were first in Guantanamo? Also, which branch of government is going to decide where these men go? I like how in the article it mentions how this case may bring up the issue of separation of powers. If anyone else knows more or has heard about this case please comment.

Click here if you aren't a bum and want to read the article :P

Christie seems no match for Corzine in race for NJ governor

Corzine has seemed from the beginning to be much more likely to be re-elected but now it looks like Christie is falling even further behind. Corzine's powerful campaigning looks like it may leave Christie's efforts in the dust. With boosts from the current president and vice president of the United States, there may be no way Christie can keep Corzine from beating him. According to this article not only is Corzine's campaign strategy looking very powerful, Christies campaign strategy is completely going in the wrong direction.

To Read the article visit this link.

Indecision in Afghanistan

On Sunday Obama announced his uncertainty about scaling up troop levels in Afghanistan. Political turmoil in the country surrounding the election of the country's current president, Hamid Karzai, who was elected august 20th. This situation entails that he has not attained above 50% of the national vote although he and his adversary, Abdullah Abdullah, have received combined above 70% of the national vote, which is believed will forge some sort of national unity and give the government some credibility.
This political struggle has led our country to be unsure about whether the current Afghanistan government has the ability to give support, justice and dignity to its people with aide from the united states. This uncertainty in our government and in President Obama on Afghanistan, due to allegations fraud in the Afghanistan government on numerous angles, has been reflected onto other issues at home such as the climactic health care debate.
I believe that it is unfair some of Obama critics to draw parallels between the two issues, as they are unrelated. Regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan government and the decision to increase troop levels, i believe as well as numerous others like Senator John Cornyn, we should not be so insecure about a situation such as this because this empowers the enemy, and the safety and security of the afghan people should not be determined by the consequences of actions of a few corrupt officials in the Afghanistan government.

This war in itself brings about a rousing concept. Is our "crusade" into the middle east as some have ignorantly labeled it just? In my opinion a government does not have the moral, ethical or social justification to go and dismantle the failing government of another nation and to establish a government like their own. The inhabitants of that nation should be left alone to establish a framework for the new government of their own accord without outside intervention.

by,
Joe Lalor

LINK

New Energy Bill Sparks Pluralism between the energy companies.

As we have read, C Wright Mills stated his belief in a government ran by the power elite, a group of people given the authority to make decisions for all people. This power elite consists of the heads of the three influential spheres of economical, political, and militaristic powers. In this case, the New York Time's article, "Energy Firms Deeply Split on Bill to Battle Climate Chang" by John Broder and Jad Mouawad focuses on the economical part of this elite. All of the leaders of energy providing companies, including gas, electricity, and coal are in a bitter dispute in whether selling pollution permits would benefit or hurt the success of these many companies. For example, coal companies despise the permits due to the huger amount of carbon they emit compared to other energy source based companies. On the other hand, Natural Gas companies are happy to show that they don't need to create as much carbon emissions as the coal companies.
However, while these companies used to have a more united stance, one factor, the inevitable creation of a new policy, is causing these companies to get the new energy bill to benefit their company. Suddenly this coalition of power has been breaken down into factions. So who wins? ultimately the political branch of the power elite, who have now created a less unified economical branch that can't violate the rights of the people. Now that these companies have accepted and are contributing to this bill, new differing ideas and interests are being made, encouraging the creation of a bill that will not benefit just one company, or the companies themselves for that matter (if a company wants Congress to listen to a word it say, it's going to have to be somewhat anti-pollution in its proposed policy).
So here is an early proof for the year, that Madison's theory of separating the inteests of the people to defend the rights of all, stated in Federalist No.10, actually works. And yes, if it hasn't occured to you yet, I have started this year leaning VERY federalist, but let's see what happens.

From the one an only,
Chris Sanfilippo

Pricing the Kids Out

In a time when the average family can barely skim the surface of what monetary gain is left in this country, we are reminded of what we cannot have. What is the opportunity cost of having a roof over our head, and heat in our homes? All the things that were once a luxury. 

  The best seats in the house at the new Yankee stadium would cost you about 800,000 dollars for the season. Think about it. That would be like buying two houses on Long Island. These prices are helping contribute to the gap that separates the richest and the poorest of our country. The prices were eventually brought down. Herbert reminisces about when he was a boy. The cost of a football game then compared to now has skyrocketed. It was an event that let a family sit back and enjoy themselves while having pride in their team, food in their bellies, and still have money in their pockets. 

When you stop to think about the pricing of hot dogs, waters, baseball hats or football jerseys, everyone knows they are overpriced but they buy them anyway. However, when you stop to think about the price of a stadium, that may be a different story. Herbert mentions that a new stadium is going to be built for the Jets and Giants. Our economy is in shambles. Do we really need to squeeze in just one more form of debt?

My question is where this money comes from. Governor Patterson just the other day cut education funding for New York by a few million and most families are just barely making it with their below average salaries. Are our tax dollars being pumped into projects like these stadiums or something such as the Light House Project?

It may be good for New York. There is a possibility that joblessness will decrease slightly or more houses will be kept from going into foreclosure. However, the question still needs to be asked if projects of these enormities should be dealt with right now in the midst of an economic crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/opinion/17herbert.html?ref=opinion

New Orleans Relief Action

Today President Barack Obama held a conference in New Orleans on the progress of relief efforts in the Gluf Coast area. Many residents of the area are becomng impatient and feel that their wealfare is being neglected. One resident, Gabriel Bordenave age 29, had this to say "I expected as much from the Bush adminitration, but why are we still being nickeled and dimed in our recovery?" It is true that many casualties have occured, about 1,600, and the damage costs have been estimated as $40 billion dollars. However the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has stated that out of 120 of the reconstruction plans 76 of them have been completed, and that over $1.4 billion dollars in federal aid. The President has stated that yes we have a long way to go, but we are making progress.

These people are suffering yes and I agree fully that they need help here and now to save lives. However to rebulid we need time. We only have so many people to help out and so many hours in the day. The government can not rebulid everything in one day, no one can, but we call all work together to help rebulid over time. In truth thats all that can be asked. Also another point to bring up is the fact of whats to stp this from happening again? New Orleans is bellow sea level and the next hurricane that hits will most likely do the same to the Gulf Coast as Katriena did. So what is this money and effort really going to? Obviously these people need help yes, however can we risk rebuliding to just have it be destroy again in years to come? What we need is a plan of action for the defense of the Gulf Coast, to prevent the extreme damage that occured in the last storm.
source:Yahoo News Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_new_orleans;_ylt=AlEK2qJMlc16pcZcOlI9v6Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2cXN1NWpwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDE1L3VzX29iYW1hX25ld19vcmxlYW5zBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDMQRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA29iYW1hZGVmZW5kcw--

Healthcare for one, Healthcare for all?

Today the Senate Finance Committee voted on the Healthcare bill; without any shock, the bill was cleared. However, what might of been a surprise to some is that it was passed with a 14 to 9 vote - which means one Republican voted in favor of this bill. The Republican was Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine. One must wonder, could this be the start of a bipartisanship that President Obama had talked about? We'll have to wait and see, but I'm not all that hopeful. When talking about the bill Senator Snowe said "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow." What a true politician.
The Healthcare bill is on thin ice right now. One wrong part, and the possibilities of it being passed could end it all. Some parts of the bill that was passed today included expanding Medicare to help those who are uninsured, government subsidies for moderate-income families to help buy insurance (in a government regulated market), and stricter regulations on the insurance industry. It is predicted that within the next ten years 29 million more people would be insured, but that still leaves about 25 million people who are uninsured. This bill is expected to cost around $829 billion, made up in part by new taxes and fees put in place, over the next ten year span. These projections/predictions are just that though predictions. No one can be absolutely positive of the outcome of this whole bill. It's impossible. I wonder though, how much trust should we put in these politicians? Enough to put the fate of our health in their hands? And why, because they're the ones who went to the top schools?
There are still many unanswered questions to go along with this bill, atleast some of which will be answered for us. This bill is expected to reach the Senate as a whole by the end of the month. This is just the tip of the iceburg though; there is still a long way for this bill to go. Hopefully the politicians will drop the arguing based on which party they're in, and look at what is good for the people. As Mr. Grassey had put it, "There is a lot in this bill — it’s not a case of Republican or Democrat or bipartisan. There is just a consensus that it needs to get done.” I hope he's right.

Source: The New York Times

Trial to begin on Plant's Illegal Workers

The trial of Sholom Rubashkin, a former chief executive at Agriprocessors Inc. which is a meat-packing plant in Postville, Iowa, is set to begin on Tuesday. Rubashkin who is 49 is accused of being closely involved in efforts to employ illegal workers, as well as fraud related charges. The first trial he faces will deal with nearly one-hundred charges of fraud, including making false statements to a bank and not paying livestock providers; it is expected to last five to six weeks. The preceding trial that will take place a week after the first one will deal with numerous immigration related charges.

Roughly half of the work force at Agriprocessors Inc. was arrested in a May 2008 raid because they were illegal. Hundreds of workers were convicted on federal charges after the raid, and most served five months in prison and then were deported. The illegal workers reported the use of under-age employees and abusive working conditions at the slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant. Agriprocessors Inc. is a one of the largest kosher slaughterhouses in the country and Rubashkin is a Lubavitch Hasidic Jew.

Prosecutors in Iowa faced criticism for punishing the workers but not Agriprocessors' executives and owners. However, Rubashkin is now the highest ranking executive to face arrest in increased immigration raids at packinghouses nationwide since late 2006. The trial originally was set to take place in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is near the slaughterhouse, however, a judge granted a venue change to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, because he felt news coverage of the case posed a risk of influencing potential jurors. Rubashkin denies all charges against him and is thankful for the courts ruling that changed the venue. Days before the raid, a criminal complaint said that Rubashkin participated directly in efforts to obtain forged documents that would pass the workers under examination by immigration agents. This suggests that the mangers of the plant had prior knowledge about the upcoming raid and they told their workers they would have to present valid identity documents or be fired.

In my opinion, executives and managers who hire illegal workers should face harsher punishments. If only the workers are being punished then there is no example being set and also no justice since hiring illegal immigrants is a crime. Also, if Rubashkin was involved in the actions he is accused, then i believe many of the other executives and mangers at Agriprocessors Inc. were also involved and should be investigated. Also, Rubashkin should probably reconsider his status as a follower of Hisidic Judaism since his actions don't comply.

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13kosher.html?ref=us

Insurance Industry Assails Health Care Legislation

Washington-In a blistering new attack, the health insurance industry said Sunday that the health care legislation drafted by Senate Democrats would drive up premiums, rather than making coverage more afforable, as the White House contends.

A lobby for the industry, America's Health Insurance Plans, focused its criticism on a bill likely to be approved Tuesday, by the Senate Finance Committee.

Democratic aides on the Finance Committee disputed the conclusion. They said the bill would provide tax credits to millions of people to help them afford coverage. Moreover, they said, people could keep the coverage they now have if they wanted. In addition, they said, some provisions of the bill would reduce administrative costs of insurance.

The report says that the cost of the average family coverage, now $12,300, will rise to $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if the Senate bill is adopted. Likewise, it said, the cost of individual coverage , now $4,600, will average $6,900 in 2016 under current law and $7,900 under the bill.

From what the White House states, this bill seems a little redundant since its purpose is to make health insurance coverage more afforable; meanwhile, the prices are scheduled to increase anyhow. However, if it is true what the Democratic aides are stating, then this bill may actually do some good if passed. For example, since we are already in a treadful economy, by making coverage more affordable will help many families make due with what they have. In addition, it will help them get the Swine flu vaccination since it is in high demand right now, as well as the regular flu shot. Since many of the people who will need this coverage have young children, this will be most benefiical to them since children under 18 are most affected by the Swine flu.

The downside to this bill is that since coverage is due to increase, government will be spending a a great sum of money, and may make us as a country even more into debt. Although this would be of great help to our people, we must ask ourselves if we can truly afford spending this type of money; especially since we are currently at war and are in a recession, and will most probably be paying for the war within the next few decades. Thus, although this bill if passed will definitely be a positive side to the healthcare bill, as a country, we may not be able to back up everything we promise at the present moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/health/policy/12insure.html?ref=politicshttp://

Readers Question: Obama's Prize Money

On Friday, the white house stated that Obama would donate the $1.4 million that accompanies the prize to charity. Previous winners have donated the money to various origanizations in which they were apart of. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. donated all of his prize money to the civil rights movement. The question arises of to what charity this money will be donated. Theodore Roosevelt made 28 donations of various amounts.

In my opinion the smart thing to do with the money is maybe put it toward the health care bill or use it to help the economy in which ever way will work. I however, do not think this is where the money will go. I think the the money will go to either helping organizations involving under privalged students of color and/or impoverished cities.

Finally, it is stated that when Theodore Roosevelt was in office, he didn't go to Europe to accept the award until his term was over. The final question was if Obama will attend the award ceremony.

I believe that he will in fact attend the ceremony. This will either be for publicity and/or tomake good relationships with various countries in attendance. Winning the prize will show the other countries that we are looking for peace.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

Obama Says He’s ‘Surprised’ and ‘Humbled’ by Nobel Prize

Obama has won the Nobel peace prize today for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," and his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Obama is the first president since Jimmy Carter to win a Nobel Peace Prize. The award was decided by the Nobel Committee in Oslo, Norway this morning, while the President was sleeping. The news that President Obama has joined an elite group of world leaders, such as, Mikhail Gorbachev and Neslon Mandela was delivered by his press secretary Robert Gibbs. The atmosphere throughout the White House was not quite what anybody expected. There were no celebrations or incoming phone calls congratulating the president on his award.

As the President accepted this award, there already has been statements on how it was a "slap" to Bush's administration and his lack of a well thought out foreign policy. The award also has been said to be given to Obama as a "Welcoming back into the World community." The reaction from around the world about his award has become well known that people are mostly accepting that he won and acknowledging it as a step forward in the United States actions to become more active in foreign affairs in a good way. Recent polls have shown that Obama's popularity has increased as he pushes froward his intentions of limiting Iran's nuclear program. Obama has had success with that and Iran has agree to a new nuclear talk, which is a huge accomplishment for the United States.

Republicans however, have already began to criticizes his award. They have claimed that all he has done is talk about how he is going to fix the problem, and that the award was too shortcoming and none of his plans have even proven effective yet. Other leaders have also sided with the Republicans that the award was only based on good intentions, and not actual accomplishments.

Obama faces some struggle though on the home front. He is trying to pass all his new plans which include, his struggle to reform the health care system in America, an internal debate between whether or not to send more troops, up to 40,000 extra troops, to Afghanistan and his push for overhauling the educational system in hopes to bring the United States back to the top of the list for graduation rates and college diplomas.

I believe that Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was long overdue. Obama from the first day in office put in the executive order to close Guantanamo Bay which should have been closed already. People are criticizing him for receiving the award saying he has not done anything yet, but, he has already helped fix the economy from the poor decisions of the Bush Administration, and already has resolved an agreement from Iran to agree to nuclear talks, which could prove a huge success for the United States.

Source: The New York Times

House Votes to Expand Definition of Hate Crimes

Since the 1990's, the number of hate crimes has been in an upward trend. Also the rise of crimes motivated by one's sexual orientation. Currently, a hate crime with federal jurisdiction is a crime motivated by the victim's race, age, nationality, or religion. This new bill hopes to change this to include safeguard the rights of those who are homosexual, lesbian and transgendered. Five Million dollars per year would be allotted to Justice department to fund investigations in circumstances such as these hate crimes.


In addition, included in the bill is a $681 billion dollar military policy. This includes authorization of military pay, weapons programs and other necessities. Some Republicans find this an outrage, claiming an important bill is being overshadowed by this small provision on hate crimes. Several Republicans denied the passing of this bill simply because of this added legislature on hate crimes.


The bill was approved in the House of Representatives 281 to 146. The President has shown support for this bill and the change on the definition of hate crime. This weekend Obama plans to make a speech at the Capitol to the Human Rights Campaign on issues similar to those stated. In the past, similar bills have been brought up, but have failed to be passed into law in the end. However this bill has high hopes, and "solid" support in the Senate.


Personally, I am in full support of this provision. The United States has always claimed to be equality. I think it is time the United States enforced such a policy which expands the consequences of crimes based on sexual orientation into the definition of hate crimes. Strategically, it was wise of the Democrats to pair such a provision with a cause so close to many Republicans heart. While I don't believe such large amounts of military spending is necessary at the moment, with such a compromise, hopefully it may sway enough Republicans to pass the bill. When the Senate finally votes on this bill, I hope that it is passed without too much fuss or objections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/us/politics/09hate.html

Former Judge Goes On Trial In Sex-With-Inmates Case

In Alabama, the process of creating a jury is in progress for a former judge named Herman Thomas, who is being put on trial due to accusations of kidnapping, sexual abuse, extortion (which is obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right) and sodomy (which is anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman). “He is accused of checking male inmates out of jail and forcing them to engage in sexual activity.” Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson has said that a jury may be seated by Thursday but Thursday was the seventh and today is already the eight so the case probably has been pushed off for the last few days of the week.

In March, an indictment, which is a charge of a felony, returned with fifty seven counts against Thomas, than a second charge in August that added more counts. The article states that at some point Thomas had about one hundred and five counts but the judge threw some of them out because the statute of limitations, which is a law that sets the maximum period which one can wait before filing a lawsuit, depending on the type of case or claim, had expired. Also during this week, charges dealing with one of the fifteen victims were dropped. This brought up an interesting controversy because that victim had filed a lawsuit against an attorney who represented him in a different case, so the prosecutors were questioned if that had any impact on their decision to drop him as a victim, and they simply denied stating that it was an effort to simplify the trial.

In a scramble of defense, a racial statement was also made regarding Thomas by his defense attorney Robert Clark, stating that Thomas was the only black circuit judge that Mobile County has ever had, and that the right-wing Republicans have purposely gotten rid of him. Personally I believe if there were a small number of counts against Thomas, with a limited amount of victims, then that may have been a possibility. But when there are eighty counts, not including all of the ones that have been dropped, with fourteen victims, then the odds are very against Thomas, and a racial issue seems beside the point. He has also been previously accused of ethical violations, which were dropped after his resignation in October of 2007, which means that this is not the first time he has been targeted.

The best supportive evidence the article provides against Thomas is another newspapers report of a semen stain of one of the victims found by a forensics team on the carpeting of a storage room at Mobiles Government Plaza that belonged to Thomas. The same exact room that other defendants have alleged to being mistreated in.

I would never doubt that things like this occur, especially when dealing with somebody of great authority. I mean if somebody is being put on trial where if charged guilty is going to face ten years in jail, and the deciding judge threatens him with up to twenty years unless he has sex with him, then I’m sure that there are a group of people who would avoid ten extra years and do as told. It is sick to think that things like that happen, especially considering that the man has a wife and a few daughters, whose lives are going to be dramatically affected. But that’s reality and this can be looked at as a simple example of why it is beneficial to have power split up rather than given to one leading authority. Most importantly the one lesson we men can all learn from this is that if you are in Mobile County, Alabama, at all costs avoid being arrested because you do not want to enter the storage room of Mobile’s Government Plaza.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/alabama.judge.inmate.sex/index.html

Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force (October 7th)

President Obama met with the leaders of both parties of Congress, to discuss the issue of a requirement for an increase in troops in Afghanistan brought up by his commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal. Obama wanted to reach a middle-ground in the war, something that was different from just simply sending in more troops or just leaving the country altogether. He plans to have one more meeting before he decides wether or not to grant the General's request for up to 40,000 troops to be added to the war. In response to Obama's stance on finding a middle ground, Senator McCain stood against it, citing experiences the Bush Administration had in Iraq, saying that having half measures "leads to failure over time and erosion of American public support."

Many of the officials present to the meeting said that there was no real option that allowed for a substantial withdrawal of any troops from Afghanistan, and also that President Obama seemed hesitant about sending another 40,000 troops into Afghanistan. Vice President Joseph Biden proposed a different option: to increase the amount of surgical strikes [attacks aimed only at the legitimate target of the military (in this case Al Qaeda), with minimal or no damage to any surrounding areas], while maintaining a constant number of troops, which currently numbers around 68,000. Biden's option for the war makes perfect sense, given the success of recent missile strikes and Special Forces raids against Al Qaeda.

According to the Congressional Research Service, on October 7th, the Afghanistan War reaches the 8-year mark, making it the third longest war in the history of the United States, behind the American Revolution by only 4 months and the Vietnam War by 6 months. If something is not done quickly about this war, public support will diminish greatly, and it will be just like another Vietnam War with such distaste towards it.

Many people present at the meeting also expressed caution for getting deeper into the war and when the end will be. It would be beneficial to the United States if Mr. Obama declined the proposal, because it would signify an approach toward the end of occupation of US troops in Afghanistan. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that it would be irresponsible to send in more troops until it became clear what exactly is possible in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/world/asia/07prexy.html?scp=4&sq=october%207%202009&st=cse

Coming Soon: $500 for Every Newborn?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Coming-Soon-500-for-Every-usnews-3217986354.html?x=0&.v=1

According to this article, a bill is trying to be passed that will award every newborn in the United States $500 when they are first born. This money would be put into a savings account for the Newborn. Lawmakers are looking to pass this bill because this money, down the road in the newborn's life, could help it pay for education, car payments and even retirement. The ASPIRE (Americas Savings for Personal Retirement, Investment, and Education) would give this newborn babies money to put away for this future, which could also affect the country's future.

The ASPIRE Act states that in addition to the $500, lower income households would receive additional funding that could help them set up and get through their life without having to worry about fees. The recipient would be able to add money to the account at any time, but many people feel that this money wouldn't do much since it is such a low amount. Supporters argue that the $500 could help shape the person's life and give them security money wise. Others argue that only people with low-income should receive this for their children. This presents a conflict because usually programs aimed at helping the lower class, such as welfare, receive less political support.

The United States isn't the first country to think of this (what else is new? America ripping off some other country...) The United Kingdom has been giving newborns $500 in an account since 2002 in an act similar to ASPIRE. The difference, which is very big, between America's proposed act and the UK's is that in the United Kingdom, the recipients aren't allowed to touch the money until they are 18 years of ages, whereas in the US proposal, there are no age restrictions.

You may be wondering 'How much will this cost the United States?" Lawmakers have stated that it will cost $37.5 billion over the next decade but are arguing that this could help turn around the ailing Nation economy.

I, for one, completely support this act and I think it should be passed. Not only doesn't it supply SOME security to lower income families, but it also helps the recipient get ready for life and it provides a little economic relief also. To throw in the mix, if it were to help the ailing economy, why would people not support it? The only thing that is really turning me away is the no age restriction. The restriction should be 18 like in Great Britain, so that this money is only used for helpful this in the child's life, not blown away on something useless.

Al Qaeda's support is fading....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/06/cronin.al.qaeda/index.html

Due to unstable war conditions in Afghanistan, the U.S must decide whether or not to send a fleet of 40,000 more troops overseas in addition to the 60,000+ already stationed there. In opposition to this addition of United States troops, some argue that it is wiser to focus more on targeting Al Qaeda rather than frivolously wasting large sums of money on a war that the U.S may not even be able to fully win.

The writer of this article, Audrey Kurth Cronin, makes it a point to mention how the United States has recently taken care of major terrorist plots against the country. Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year old Afghan immigrant, pleaded not guilty of the conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction in New York, a Jordanian was arrested and accused of conspiring to destroy a skyscraper in Texas, three men in North Carolina were arrested for a plot to attack a Marine Corps base, and another has been arrested for a possible attack on federal buildings in Illinois.
The article goes on to state that Al Qaeda is losing popular support; that history provides valid evidence that terrorists groups don't always survive the tests of time such as, "The destruction of leadership, failure to transition between generations, achieving their stated cause, negotiating a settlement, succumbing to military or police repression, losing popular support and transitioning to other malignant activities such as criminality or war." Audrey Kurth Cronin actually stated this, "A loss of popular support has ended many terrorist groups, and it is a plausible scenario for al Qaeda." Sure the United States has done its best to find and prosecute terrorists within the country. However, with the amount of national security in modern times, the real outrage over terrorists in our country should be: How did this happen in the first place? We may be able to catch some of these terrorists, but certainly not all. Let's face it, although Al Qaeda may be losing popular support, is it really plausible that a terrorist group that has survived since the late 1980's will dissipate any time soon? Not really.

"Is the Is Al Qaeda resurgent? Is the United States under threat because of the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden? Americans need to take a deep breath, because the answer to both questions, while requiring some caveats, is no." This quote from the article literally made me laugh. Though it is true that the failure to capture Osama bin Laden is not posing a threat to the United States, and Al Qaeda may not be resurgent, does it really make a difference? Clearly, although Al Qaeda may not be reviving, or resurging, they are still making their objectives clear by the continuation of terrorist plots within the country.

Personally, I believe that we should not continue wasting money on this 8 year long gridlock of a war, but we should continue monitoring Al Qaeda. The war has proven relatively unsuccessful. We've wasted an enormous amount of money, and lost an unnecessary amount of American lives. However, Al Qaeda terrorists continue to pose a threat to the United States, no matter how much popular support the group has lost, when there is evidence of terrorists plots being conspired within our own country. If the amount of troops we've had stationed overseas for the past many years hasn't stopped conspiracies against the United States, what's to say that a resurgent of 40,000 more will do the trick?

Economic Crisis to Shape Court's Stance on Economic Regulation?

Today, the new Supreme Court term began in Washington D.C. Following the current economic downturn, it's not surprising to see an increase in the number of cases concerning business; 24 of 45 cases the justices have agreed to hear concern business issues, in comparison to the 16 of 42 from last year. The nature of the cases have changed as well, from questions on "employment discrimination, federal pre-emption of injury suits and the environment" to the new questions on "bankruptcy, corporate compensation, patents, antitrust and government oversight of the financial system."

Although regulatory constraints on the economy are obviously needed to bring us back to stability, we must ask, "To what extent will the initiatives of the Obama administration affect the Court's stance?" and "How much will the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression shape the attitude of the Court?" However, one thing is certain: the citizens of the United States will be watching the Court's every move.

Quite frankly, these new court rulings should lead to stricter regulation of the economy. A laissez-faire economy is incapable of working because of each man's selfish desires for self-preservation, as stated by Thomas Hobbes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/us/politics/05scotus.html?ref=todayspaper

(For October 4th)

In our eight year war, we must contemplate our security and stature in Afghanistan, and understand the severity of the combat taking place. Reported in at 3am, a supposed “tribal militia” of eastern Afghanistan allegedly attacked American soldiers from a village mosque. Eight Americans are now reported dead. The location of attack was amidst a close-by village, one that a year ago, due to the close contact of the village, caused a few innocent causalities. As a result of the combat last year, the villagers have become extremely wary of Americans, and are evidently despised and unsupported. The military did not include if the combat team was overrun. American forces had previously, “planned to pull out of the sparsely populated area as a part of the strategic shift to place more troops in heavily populated areas.” This strategy may prove faulty, as this past event displays, because the people of the villages are most likely taking action to slow the American troops, and some people of Afghanistan are even willing to charge from their place of worship. The only way this strategy may prevail is if the Afghanistan fighters understand that causalities are probable to occur, and they defend against American troops instead of cause more harm to their village.

As our government is now attempting to withdraw few troops to begin the settling of one war, these same troops will be placed in yet another foreign land to uphold the American principle of Democracy, and our values. Regrettably, it is evident that, when regarding financial and foreign policies, we are an immature nation. Where the United States of America has always been industrially inclined in contrast to many other countries, we must also appear inclined to infiltrate and press our values onto others. Our men are in a war that a significant amount of our civilians don’t fully understand, and as our financial burden deepens and our military population decreases, Americans are most probably viewed as ridiculous for attempting these battles, and even more ridiculous for still participating. Unfortunately, the few Americans that do comprehend the war are probably lumped in with the extremists, and are still beaten down in the collective dislike for Americans by other countries. As students of American Government and Politics, we can all understand that many of the nation are moderate in their public opinion, differing political stance on many issues, but do other countries realize that as well?http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp

Bloomberg Three Term Limit?

Last year Mayor Bloomberg changed his term limit from two terms to three. Previous mayors have tried to extend the limit however the public has rejected the idea. In 2008 Bloomberg changed the limit to three years on the eve of his last months in office. One would think that this would get public attention however, the 2008 Presidential election left Bloomberg's sneaky actions in the shadow. Bloomberg is running again for re-election against William C. Thompson Jr. who is not as wealthy or well known as Bloomberg. Bloomberg's campaign has recently totalled $65 million to promote all his good deeds while he has been in office. Well with his popularity and all his money going into the campaign what could really stop this "elite" figure.

The re-occurring question is proposed to what ends does the government govern? If rules are set how is it okay for a mayor to break them. It's not, Bloomberg is allegedly qualified and many New Yorkers seem to like him but no matter what he changed the rules to benefit him. Being as popular as he is, re-election is not an obscure thought. What are Bloomberg's motives in being the mayor for another term. Is it for the power, the title of being Mayor or simply just to help New Yorkers out? Although the election for the mayor is local..isn't that what it really comes down to what the people vote on. Clearly, this matter was not voted on and that simply just challenges what our country was based upon democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/nyregion/04limits.html?pagewanted=1&em

The Swiss Model

Switzerland, like all its neighbors in Europe, has a universal health care system. Switzerland’s system, though, is not a government run, socialized, single-payer, health care system. Like the United States, Switzerland has many private insurance companies competing against each other. Unlike the United States, these insurance companies are required to provide health insurance for each citizen, and each citizen must buy health insurance. All people have a choice of which insurance company they would like to be insured under. Under this plan, Swiss people are healthier and happier than their American counterparts. The life expectancy for both men and women, and the infant mortality rate is better in Switzerland than in America. Costs are also lower.

Many have compared the Swiss style of health care to what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. Although, one big thing is missing in Switzerland that President Obama would like: a public option of government run health care. The big question is whether the U.S. should follow Switzerland or devise its own plan including a public option.

Following Switzerland could be a good move for the U.S. Support for a public option is diminishing and taking it away could possibly increase support for health care reform as a whole. A Swiss style of health care has, ironically, gained support from the right-wing Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. The health care bill proposed by the Senate Finance Committee’s Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, doesn’t even include a public option and amendments to the bill to include the public option have been voted down. As it looks right now, the public option is not going to make it into the final bill and that may be a good thing. It seems that following Switzerland would be the right direction. That is until we look again at what Switzerland is doing.

The Swiss system uses some socialist ideals that might not be suited for America. Switzerland keeps health care costs down by “regulating drug prices,” “fees for lab tests,” and fees for “medical devices.” This policy is somewhat socialist, and definitely not something for America. If a Swiss model is followed and a public option, along with this policy, is left out there wouldn’t be any decrease in the cost of health care. If there is no decrease in costs, is there even any point in trying to reform health care? For this reason – to lower health care costs – the public option is necessary. The whole point of the public option is to compete against insurance companies and bring prices down, along with creating an affordable option for those less fortunate. Another aspect of the Swiss system that Americans might not like is that there is no break in costs for senior citizens. This means no Medicare system. Seniors are already skeptical enough of health care reform fearing that they will lose their precious Medicare. An equal system for all would certainly never pass in America. Also, under the Swiss system, each person pays for insurance themselves with slight help in the form of government subsidies. This means no employer based insurance. Americans are happy being supplied health care from their companies. They don’t have to search themselves, and they get help from their employers. The employer based system certainly cannot go. These problems are only the major ones of all the policies in the Swiss system that would never work in America.

Some may be looking to Switzerland as a model for shaping America’s health care reform, but clearly that is the wrong direction to look. America is a unique country, with very unique values. An English style single-payer health care system could never run in America on account of being too Socialist. A Swiss style system would not work either based on how America is run. Also, as it looks right now, the public option isn’t getting very far. America needs to form its own unique system of health care – with a public option, hopefully – and it is imperative that we do it now. What America will do with health care reform nobody knows, but what is certain is that the Swiss model is the wrong one to follow.

Source: The New York Times

Government Eyes Crackdown On Texting and Driving

Liz Halloran says:
"...cell phone chatters have become the new drunk drivers."

How many of you think you can drive safely on the highway with your eyes closed for 15 seconds? As I sat in APLit to think about that (where Mrs. MW introduced me to the topic), it dawned on me that there is no way humanly possible to drive with your eyes closed. PERIOD.
Seven states, including NY have already established texting against the law, but personally, I believe it should be banned in all states. The article on npr.com continues about how people have lost their lives and have been injured due to other people consumed with their cellular devices. I honestly like the idea of banning texting while driving, but pushing it to the line where talking hands-free also becoming an issue, is a bit too much.

I think we have to first understand that texting is not an okay thing to do on the road. Not only is it a hazard to the person driving, it's a hazard for the surrounding drivers. One wrong moment, and you'll end up in the hospital or worse. But as for the hands-free talking.. I guess we could look at this both ways. Hands-free talking was established as an "okay" thing to do, but what if you were to get into an argument with the person you're on the phone with? This could lead to other dangerous situations such as road rage, speeding, etc. If prohibiting texting is sent through the government and made into a federal law, I predict things could get ugly.

As we were talking in APLit, I think a point that Brianna Mark made is very vital to us and had me thinking the same thoughts. In today's society, we like to listen to the radio or hook our iPods up to the car, no? What if we were to, say hypothetically, be changing the radio station or song and we look down for a moment, and a cop pulls us over immediately? Do they have a right to check your phone and the last messages you sent? Are they allowed to search you to make sure you weren't texting?

We'll have to see what happens.
(I suggest you read the article.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113325341