Internet

The Internet played a significant role in Egypt and the many other revolting countries in the Middle East this last year. Protests were triggered in Egypt, late January, where young people grouped up and coordinated on Facebook. They protested the government and the government blocked internet sites. However, citizens continued to display information online via Facebook and twitter where people from across the world watched. The revolts occurred with much influence from these social websites and the help of young people with new ideas. The internet is playing a larger role in politics than ever before and is affecting participation, especially in young individuals in their late teens to early twenties.

Political Advertising

Embed examples of political advertising from opposing candidates and explain which one you feel is most effective.

E-Commerce Taxation

Electronic commerce is trade taken place on the internet. This form of trade is hard to regulate because people can buy and sell items across states, which makes taxation difficult. There is nothing telling people where tax money should go and to how much items should be taxed. Websites such as Ebay also foster person to person trades, which produces no money for the states. 
There were $525 Million in lost tax revenues in 1999 as reported by Forrester Research. 11 years later, this number is bound to be doubled. Much more shopping is done online and much more tax money is being lost. The issue of electronic taxation is extremely difficult to regulate because of personal trades and interstate commerce.

Censorship

The most recent and noteworthy censorship issue occurred with WikiLeaks this last year. We don't hear about it as much now, but the website (which may be due to be taken down) releases countless articles about the U.S. Government and other countries. America did not take much issue with it until cables were released harming the U.S. government and employees. Countless governments are on a quest to take down the website to censor what information is released.

Freedom of speech can only be legally detained if the speech threatens national security and/or to people, such as those fighting in wars or extremist targets. The censorship of WikiLeaks is a layered problem because 1. The website can not be taken down due to many mirror sites. 2. There is no threat to national security in many peoples' eyes. 3. The site is run by people of different countries, not just America.

I believe WikiLeaks should be censored because some secrets should be kept away from the public to follow through with positive relationships with allies. However, I also have a soft side to WikiLeaks because people should have the right to know what is going on between world powers. Either way, the website is still streaming documents and is not close to being shut down. No censorship has taken place as of yet, just attempts of censorship. 

Online Print Media

One website I have just started to read is the Drudge Report. I really enjoy the simplicity of the website; a plain white background with many other links. The website updates multiple times daily and features many of the latest news stories. I believe this is one of the best news websites available, coming from a mildly right view, unlike news programs such as Fox.
The Drudger Report is one of those websites that supports the education of millions, bringing together the top stories on one simple medium.
Here is a snapshot of the website minutes ago:

How good is the media at informing the people?

Embed an example of political commentary on television and describe how it works to support or detract from keeping the public informed.


People have been bringing up the issue of Obama's birth certificate recently, most notably Donald Trump. I beleive news stations have detracted from what is really important, such as Japan's crisis, the Middle East, and our budget. However, news stations have focused in on whether a president, who has been in office for two years already, was born in Hawaii. Donald Trump gained news recognition after Obama came out with the certificate with a press conference. Here is a video retaining to the issue this last week.

E-Commerce Taxation

New York Times Co. v. United States

The New York Times Co. received the "Pentagon Papers" from Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg stole the classified documents from the pentagon related to the Vietnam war and U.S. policy. The NY Times published and distributed the papers. The government ordered them to stop temporarily, moving the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that The NY Times should be allowed to publish the papers because of the First Amendment of free speech. Even the period where the publication was delayed was a violation of the constitution. Unless the issue being debated could potentially bring people harm, the speech should not be held back. Furthermore, it was the government's responsibility to keep the information confidential.
I believe it was the right of the NY Times to publish the work, especially since there was no direct harm done to anyone. The Vietnam war still followed through. The censorship issue comes into part today with the website Wiki-leaks, which leaks confidential information from the government. It should be a right to let the information go to the public, as long as it does not deemed harmful to individuals.

Gitlow v. New York

In 1925 Benjamin Gitlow taught people to overthrow the government with two published works. His work violated New York law which prohibited organized government overthrow with force or violence. The case was moved to the Supreme Court after issues were found relating to the First Amendment of free speech and press.
The Court emphasized that states were bound by the First Amendment because federal rules over state law. Furthermore, it was decided that speech could only be bound if it formulated "clear and present danger", said Justice Edward Sanford. States could not punish speech unlawfully because doing so would actually cause more problems for the government's own constitutional state. there could be even more reasons for overthrow, because of the lack of legitimacy within the government.
I agree with the outcome of the trial, except cases censoring speech vary from case to case. Some cases are on border with causing actual harm or not. It is hard to decide weather or not speech is lawful or not.

Brown V. board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In 1954, multiple cases were brought up to the Supreme Court in relation to segregation of public schools based on race. The courts ruled that separate but equal facilities had no place. The separate educational facilities fostered sub pa education for African Americans and deprived individuals of equal rights to attend white only public schools. The Court's decision took out public schools' inferiority complex for minorities.
The segregation of African Americans from functional public schools is obviously bad and did not agree with the constitution's intent of equality.

A video from the Discovery Channel about the case:

Gideon v. Wainwright

In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering with the intention of burglary. He was denied an attorney at the court and was found guilty after trying to defend himself. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison. Gideon petitioned to the Supreme Court via in forma pauperis.

The court overturned the decision in the Betts v. Brady case. This case made it possible for the Sixth Amendment of counsel in criminal cases to not be required in special cases.
The supreme Court took the Betts case decision away, making a fair trial with counsel required. A counsel is needed to assist lawyers present cases well before a Judge. Gideon was acquitted of his charges.
 I agree with the decision that counsel is required. It was not in the constitution's (founding fathers) interests for people to be unjustly violated by the law. Before this case, convicted criminals could be unfailrly treated and sentences without adequate help.
Here is an educated summary of the case by PBS.

Miranda V. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for kidnap and rape. He gave a written confession after two hours of interrogation. Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court because he was not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. The court ruled that Miranda's conviction was to be overturned on the basis of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees no one to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Without being read his rights, Miranda was not protected under the law and was unlawfully stripped of his rights.

The result of the Miranda v. Arizona case of 1966 was that convicted individuals must be told their rights of silence and an attorney. If they are not told these rights, everything said afterwards is void and can not be used in the court.

Here is a tid-bit of info relating to the Miranda Rights;

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Before 1973, UC Davis' medical school admitted students differently based on race. Minorities and disadvantaged students were admitted separately and subsequently, were accepted with lower GPA's or Medical College Aptitude Test scores than regular students. Alan Bakke was denied from the university even though he had substantially higher aptitude scores than average. He sued the school and California's court found the admissions unlawful, violating both federal and state constitutions.The Supreme Court agreed with his appeal and forced UCD to accept Bakke.

The Supreme Court decided that the admissions program did not follow the fourteenth amendment for equal individuals. The amendment was originally made to bridge the differences of the white and black communities and to block out any form of preference based on ethnicity or condition of prior servitude. Justice Powell explained that

it was no longer possible to peg he guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority.

The university was justly found to have unfair advantages for minorities.
I agree with the case's outcome because the admissions were not carried out equally. I am personally going through college admissions and feel as though this is a very important issue today. I hear people talking about not putting down a race when applying especially if they are Asian. UC's admit more individuals who are less fortunate financially or are part of minority groups. I know people who are 1/16th or 1/8th native American who use their race for better admission rates.

Here is an exceptional article about the case from Cornell University's Law School website.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1890, Plessy refused to give up his seat on a section of a train in New Orleans Louisiana. Even though he was only 1/8th black, he was arrested and ordered to be imprisoned by Ferguson, a local judge. Plessy appealed to the US Supreme Court on the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, which forbade slavery and gave everyone equal protection of the laws respectively.
The court ruled that the 13'th amendment issue about a legal distinction between white and colored people "had no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races." For the fourteenth amendment issue, Justice Henry Brown argued in favor of absolute racial equality before the law. The court decided that segregation laws were a matter of public policy, not a violation of the fourteenth amendment. I do not agree with the court's decision, where segregation was still excepted. The whole issue seems backwards

Miller V. California

Miller sent out a large amount of explicit pornographic brochures in 1973 and was found guilty of breaking obscenity laws in California. Miller appealed, challenging the state's power to prosecute him despite guarantees of free speech and press under the first amendment. The Supreme Courts voted 5 to 4 on the side of California, stating that Miller's material could harm people. Chief Justice Burger therefore suggested that each state should have diverse regulations on the law, because every state has different tastes. Burger defended himself saying, "this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity..."
I completely agree with the decision to limit pornography. Seeing porn everywhere would not be in most people's tastes including my self. There has to be a line drawn, specifically where there is obscene material. Although the porn did not directly hurt anyone, it was still serious. The matter crossed the first amendments jurisdiction and California came up top.

Roe V. Wade

Back in 1973, 21 year old Jane Roe filed a suit against District Attourney Wade of Dallas County Texas. She wanted to have an abortion, but the fetus did not endanger her life in any way so the doctor did not give her an abortion. Even if a woman was a victim of incest or rape, they could not abort a baby in Texas.
Roe argued that it was a right to obtain abortion with the help of the fourteenth amendment and the right of privacy in the bill of Rights. She won in a 7 to 2 vote on both points. This case sent shock waves through America, affirming the right of privacy, fetal rights, and womens' rights.



Even though Roe was adamant in her argument a few decades ago, she is not a Cristian who believes in the illegality of abortion. She cites that there have been 50 million abortions since her Supreme Court case in 1973, and that these children deserve to live. No doubt, this statistic is sad, but I do believe women should have the right to abortions. If these children were born, they would live in potentially dangerous environments without care.

U.S. vs Nixon

During the Nixon reelection campaign in 1974, burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters. These burglars were found to be tied with President Nixon. Nixon recorded many conversations in the Oval Office, which he refused to hand over to the court. He claimed that he had executive privilege, which protected him from being forced to turn in confidential Executive Branch material. The court decided that Nixon had to turn in the tapes, which in turn led to limitations for presidential powers. I agree with the court's verdict that Nixon had no right to hold the tapes. He was guilty for recording tapes of the opposing party (democrats) and was forced to resign after the scandal. He deserved the repercussions of his actions. Here is a video of his resignation speech.



As a result of his scandal, the courts argued against executive privilege. Nixon claimed he was out of the jurisdiction of law, as he was the president. As history shows, he was not, and had to give over his stolen tapes and resign.

The Past and Future of Healthcare

Part I:

            Health care has been a human issue since the beginning and an economical issue since medicine was developed and sold. Health care consists of helping people cope with diseases, injuries, and the economical costs of treatment. In the past, few centuries we have developed exceedingly advanced medicines and diverse lifestyles that provide long healthy lives for the people who can afford it. This is where the problem arises, where people cannot afford the expensive medicines, treatments, and doctor visits. People who cannot take the tremendous costs of insurance and medicine have to live with the risk of being sick or bankrupt. There are roughly fifty million Americans who lack insurance and many more who simply skip doctor appointments to save money. One variation of this is medical tourism, where people go as far as to travel to other countries for cheaper medicine or care. American citizen Julia Shay crossed over the Mexican border to receive cheap dental care for years for her dental problems. As the prices of medical care and insurance rise, lower income brackets resort to radical behaviors to eliminate excessive costs. (“The Health Care System Favors the Wealthy and Harms the Poor”) 

             I believe that health in America is an important issue because it affects tens of millions in the nation. An effective health care system adds to the overall healthiness, which also helps the economic wellbeing of a nation. We currently have highly developed and widespread health care as it is, which is ranked among the best of the world. However, millions pay outrageous prices for treatment because we do not have a universal health care system. The high prices stimulate more bankruptcies and significant financial losses for people in the lower economic levels. (“The Health Care System Favors the Wealthy and Harms the Poor”) Not only are the current system’s costs towering, but also revolve around the wrong motives, methods, and preferences of health care consumers. Insurance companies, hospitals, and medical research entities typically run health care as a profitable business rather than a service or a right. (“The U.S. Health care System”) Insurance coverage is almost a requirement when receiving treatment because prices are so oversized, so giving low-income citizens insurance has to be made easier. Health care reformation, as proposed by President Obama, has potential to improve the nations healthy living standards and overall economic burden for every citizen.

            In general, Americans look at health care’s negative sides are being expensive and unequally distributed. The positive side is that our health care system is one of the most advanced and well regulated in the world. Currently, people are focused on the controversial healthcare bill proposed by President Obama. Health care reform opinions are polarized around the two political parties. Republicans are typically against Obama’s plan for universal health care. Aside from individuals that singularly argue that the bill is socialist, there are other well-educated arguments against it. Republicans more concretely argue that a socialized health care system provides lower quality care because there is less competition, longer waiting periods, and other inefficiencies. Democrats, on the other hand, often argue that America is the last industrialized country that does not have universal health care. Other countries with similar health care plans pay for it with a fraction of their yearly cost. (“Does Universal Healthcare Work in Other Countries?”) Fundamentally, Democrats argue that everyone deserves the same quality of medical services. The public’s attitude is still polarized even after the bill’s passage in 2010.

            In the past, when democratic presidents were in power, bills intended to improve health care have been proposed. These attempts have been trampled by republicans and other opposition forces until the recent Obama administration. In his election campaign, Obama started to promote his own bill for universal health care for support, and continued to push the idea for the two years after he won office. Obama based his drafts of healthcare on Massachusetts, which is a state health care system. Democrats claim that the bill will make health care more affordable, hold insurers more accountable, and cover all Americans no matter their financial shortcomings, as reported by the White House’s website. (“Health Reform in Action”) No American President has been able to pass an entire universal health care law. Even though the bill was successfully passed, it still has a long path to go on before it is fully in place. The bill is in the process of being challenged by the courts for its constitutionality. As a result of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.” (“Judge Rules Health Care is Unconstitutional”) The case is most likely going to go to the Supreme Courts in the future, where it’s fate will be decided. This will be a long process and much of the bill may already be passed at that time. (“Repealing Obamacare”)

Part II:

            Multiple democratic presidents have pushed for health care reform in the past. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, and Clinton were a few that sponsored health care. Even though there have been many presidents who wanted America to develop a universal system, Obama was the first to be successful. (“U.S. Presidents and Health Care Reform”) The President formulated the bill with Massachusetts’ statewide health care bill in mind. Governor Mitt Romney signed this revolutionary law in 2006. It required people to buy health insurance if they were out of a job. The law also granted health care to around 50,000 people who did not have enough money to buy insurance. In the past year, the law has faced significant rises in costs and is generally seen as unsuccessful. (“Massachusetts health care program, model for Obama’s reform, strains state budget”) Even though the bill is facing problems today, it paved the way for Obama. He based his original campaign on health care for all Americans and succeeded in March of 2010. (U.S. Presidents and Health Care Reform) http://www.suite101.com/content/us-presidents-and-healthcare-reform-a147138 The lengthy bill had trouble getting past the republican house, which vehemently attacked the bill and refused to pass it. The measure passed through the Senate by a vote of 220 to 215 and through the House by a vote of 219 to 212. (“Health Care Reform News”) Ever since its passage last year, health care has come under harsh criticism from republicans. In addition, the supreme court which deemed it unconstitutional because it violates individual mandate. In other words, the government is forcing people to buy a commercial product, insurance. Judge Hudson asserted at a hearing that the government was passing its federal power limits. Forcing someone to buy insurance was congruent with forcing people “to eat asparagus.” (“Health Care Reform News”) Whether or not the bill is deemed unconstitutional, there is bound to be continuing attacks on health care until it is at least revised.

            I have volunteered at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek for the past three years for around four hours a week. Working at Kaiser gives me the opportunity to volunteer consistently every week where I can see the hospital environment first hand. This job includes helping people get around the hospital, discharging patients, managing the hospital gift shop, and assisting in other ways for customer service. My work at Kaiser is not just limited to knowing the hospital’s directions; I also get the chance to develop people skills and business skills, such as in the gift shop. I deal with many different types of people that come through the doors, which reflects the diversity of people who require medical care. Customer service plays a large part when dealing with stressed out patients or visitors. I have had experiences dealing with irritated patients that do not want to comply with the emergency fee. Patients are required to set up an appointment for minor injury, which is simply, an impromptu doctor visit for injuries that do not have immediate danger. Some people usually go to emergency to be safe and quick, but most people tend to rather wait because the emergency bill is not worth it for them. Even if people have insurance, which people are almost guaranteed to have if they live in this area (middle to upper class), people are still reluctant to have to pay exorbitant fees. When people do not have insurance, the idea of traveling to the emergency room is out of the picture. Hospitals receive most of their revenue from insurance companies. Hospitals act like businesses when looked at economically. Even though Kaiser Hospitals are all non-profit, this does not mean their treatments or medications are cheaper than any other hospital. Even as customer service and wealth increase such as around Kaiser Hospital in Walnut Creek, people still are reluctant to pay the high prices for medicine, doctor visits, and emergency care. The high prices of medical supplies affects all types of people, as I have seen in the past few years volunteering at Kaiser.

Part III:

            America’s complicated issue of health care has been changed significantly as Obama’s came into office. He took initiative to change health care for the better. The health care measure will take a decade until all of its components are fully adopted, even though it was successfully made into law. This process of adaptation is bound to stop because of the large population of the opposition. The republicans are determined to repeal the law before it is put into place. With the law being over one thousand pages and filled with confusing jargon, the majority of Americans do not understand the bill, which includes many politicians. There is much confusion and uncertainty about the bill, as shown by Fox News and AP polls. (“Poll: Americans Do Not Understand Health Law”) Even though the bill has good intentions, it needs serious revisions. I want there to be universal health care in this country without causing more problems than it solves. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world so we have to try to pass the next best thing. Having some, socialized aspects, could help balance out the costs and restore the budget with incoming revenue. Social programs such as the police force and public schools are success stories, so health care should be able to follow in the same footsteps. As long as the following administrations follow in Obama’s intentions of universal health, a bill should be passed in the future to grant everyone with insurance without seriously crippling the government’s budget.

            My service at Kaiser the past few years have taught me people skills, communication skills, leadership, professionalism in the workplace, and empathy for others in stressful situations. Having these qualities helped me understand that people treasure quality customer service, treatment, and affordability. I also realize why people are angry at large institutions and medical expenses. Becoming a shift leader almost a year ago also added to my growth. I teach new volunteers how to do the job and lead others throughout the day. The responsibility often puts me in situations I would rather not be in; such as being called to tell people where to go more often than regular volunteers. Even though I do not enjoy answering questions all the time, I can use these instances to understand people and to help them out the best I can. Through process of researching the topic of health care, I have learned how revolutionary universal health care is for America. I also understand the extraordinary amount of work Obama and his administration put in. Even though I do not agree with the bill, I respect the amount of hard work went into it. Health care is a convoluted and costly problem in America. I believe that the recent measures will not solve every problem, but are steps in the right direction. Though the bill has yet to be put into place, health care has increasing potential to improve America’s wellbeing next few decades.

Women's Health

For the past century women have been taking hormone treatments for menopause and other hormonal symptoms, starting out in 1898 when women were fed cow ovaries (for their similar hormones). The industry of hormonal medicines has come a far way, except there have been a few contradictions in the past decade. The NY Times reports on a 600 million dollar research study by The Woman's Health Initiative;

But the findings have consistently surprised, debunking conventional wisdom time and again — about hormones and health, calcium to protect bones and the importance of a low-fat diet. The results, while invaluable, have also had a negative effect, leaving some women feeling frustrated, betrayed and whipsawed by what often seem to be contradictory headlines. And they have fueled cynicism about the medical establishment’s treatment of women. 

Many women jumped off their hormone treatments after this result in 1991. Treatments were shown to have some benefits, but there were also some contradictory affects. These included increased rate of heart problems and breast cancer. Furthermore, there have been fairly recent studies that show estrogen's beneficial affects. The result is a net loss of interest and trust in these medicines.

Backroom Deals

I recently watched a documentary on Obama's health care bill in government class. I can not remember the name for the life of me, but I do remember a section about a backroom deal between Obama and insurance lobbyists. When Obama was starting out his campaign he claimed he would strongly promote universal health care, which he did as the president. However, he was forced to take out the public option (option of citizens to buy government insurance) as a result of a deal with the hospital industry. Here is a Huffington Post blog excerpt from a year ago which reported on the deal.

This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.

Obama went back on his initial word that there would be a public option. I am not attacking Obama, but I am frowning upon the actions of the insurance industry. Because of their backroom deal, the public option was taken out. I may have been a supporter of the bill if there was a public option. On the other hand, insurance agencies would be hurt by the bill because the government would take away their business. If everyone was morally straight, the insurance agencies would allow the government to cover everyone, depending if people want it or not. Sadly, this is not the way our economy acts.

Budget Deal Cuts Affect Health Care Bill

The budget deal made last Friday before the potential Government shutdown will affect two sections of the health care bill. One of which will be completely taken out while the other will suffer funding cuts. Fox News reports from the Wall Street Journal,

The agreement would eliminate a provision of the health-care law enabling low-income workers to opt out of employer-offered health insurance and shop for more affordable coverage on insurance exchanges to be created in 2014, according to congressional aides and business groups. 

The second initiative will be cut a significant amount;

The budget bill will also cut $2.2 billion in funding from a program that would encourage the development of health-care cooperatives-not-for-profit entities that would compete with private, for-profit health-insurance companies.

The second initiative promoting funding for non-profit entities sounds extremely negative, because non-profits relate to a health care system where money is not the most important thing, such as with insurance agencies.  However, the massive budget cuts slashing the Obamacare bill are required and unavoidable. We are way over our deficit and need to take hits in some facets of the government. 

A Look into the Future of Health Care

What is happening and what might happen to Obamacare you ask? CNBC gives us a few ideas and gives us an overview of what is already starting to happen. Republicans have already started to repeal health care because they say it gives too much power to the government and does not decrease costs enough. The democrats argue that the bill will improve care and increase ranks of the uninsured. The bill is inevitably going to be altered and pronounced unconstitutional in some ways, either as a whole or parts.

Courts are also challenge the laws,

A number of states have challenged the constitutionality of the law's requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. The rulings have been divided, and the issue is certain to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Once again, the law will problably not make it to the end without being repealed in some way, shape, or form. I do not want to see the law completely destroyed, as there are obvious problems with our current health care, basically being too expensive for people to have. The future will reveal to us weather the bill completely passes, partly passed, or rewritten by Republicans.

Republicans have yet to put forward a proposal to replace the current law and are not likely to take a comprehensive approach. Instead they most likely would take it step-by-step, starting with limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. They also would push to allow insurers, who are regulated at the state level, to sell policies across state lines. 

Did Obama violate the Constitution?

This question arises when we look at our attack on Libyan airbases, or on Qaddafi, depending on how you look at it. The president did not need to consent with congress because this is not legally a war, yet. However, the president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", as said in the Constitution. The starting of wars is a gray area and many politicians have trouble pinning it down. This blog 'First Read' from MSNBC speculates the constitutionality of this recent attack on Libyan air bases.

"Judging just from the pictures of what we are seeing happening on the ground, this is quite substantial, and this is the sort of thing that would have needed Congressional approval," said Professor Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School, an expert on executive power and international law.
While the president has stressed the international component of the operation, she believes that makes no difference. "The fact that the Security Council has authorized an imposition of a no-fly zone does not answer the constitutional questions," she said.

I sympathize with Professor Hathaway in that the constitutional questions do not seem to have been answered. However, I do side with Obama in a way because it would definitely be hard to get Congress to allow for this attack quickly. It depends on the outcome of this attack to see if the attacks were worthwhile or incorrect. Actions have to made quickly to prevent more deaths in Libya.

Other than preventing Qaddafi from killing more of his own people, there is and was no direct threat to national security. If there was a threat, it would validate Obama's orders. Still, I feel like Obama did the right thing unless he escalates this into a war effort.

Health Care's Hidden Costs

Consumers of health care may be paying hidden costs of up to $1,355 a year as reported by a new industry report. A quote from CNN;

These "hidden" costs of health care -- like taking time off to care for elderly parents -- add up to $363 billion, according to a report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a research group.

That amounts to $1,355 per consumer, on top of the $8,000 the government says people spend on doctor fees and hospital care.

These costs arise from insurance related costs. It is expected that out-of-pocket payments will increase even with the health care reform. The main problem with healthcare is that the costs are too high and are rising too fast, resulting in people not being covered. The bill may bring about more problems than it solves.

Qaddafi May Choose To Go Into Exile

Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya's leader for more than forty years made his first public appearance today saying that he still wants to beat his opposition. He was quoted,

"In the short term, we'll beat them, in the long term, we'll beat them”

Secretary of State, Clinton, said that Qaddafi may be trying to go into exile, but it is too early to accurately predict how he will act or how he wants to act in the future.

Clinton hinted at Qaddafi’s possible search for exile and also said she heard reports of one of the leader’s sons being killed in the airstrikes. But she could not confirm either.

"A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It's somewhat unpredictable. But some of it, we think, is exploring. You know, what are my options, where could I go, what could I do,” Clinton said. “And we would encourage that."

Clinton would also not comment on whether or not the U.S. believes Qaddafi can be ousted from power.

Only time will tell if Qaddafi will take off his strong front and step down, or stay in power despite his obvious opposition in Libya, the U.S., and Europe.

Japan Continues to be Harmed by the Earthquake

Even after the 9.0 earthquake hit Japan, the tsunamis, and the nuclear meltdown, there are still an increasing amount of problems with the food supply and farm-able land. The surrounding area of a few hundred miles around the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex was and is still being hit hard by radiation released by the plant. It is reported that spinach plants many miles south contain 7x the legal limit of radiation and milk from cows in the Fukushima province containing 5x the legal limit. The radiation is also said to have entered the food chain when it enters the northern pacific ocean, contaminating the fish. Fox news reports,

Japanese foods make up less than 4 percent of all U.S. imports, and the FDA said it expects no risk to the U.S. food supply from radiation. Officials and health experts say the doses are low and not a threat to human health unless the tainted products are consumed in abnormally excessive quantities.

Still, the World Health Organization said this week that Japan should act quickly to ensure that no contaminated foods are sold. The most common imports from Japan to the United States are seafood, snack foods, and processed fruits and vegetables.

 This situation must be frightening for millions that have Japanese food imported, however, I feel reassured that American and Japanese officials are making sure that the radiation does not affect us. This is definitely bad for Japan's economy, even more so that it is presently, because much of it's food is not being sold because of radiation poisoning or because of fear. They need more foreign currency now more than ever.

Mental Health Break

Republicans introduce legislation to redefine Pi as 3. Not as the difficult 3.1415... number.

"It's no panacea, but this legislation will point us in the right direction. Looking at hard data, we know our children are struggling with a heck of a lot of the math, including the geometry incorporating pi," Roby said. "I guarantee you American scores will go up once pi is 3. It will be so much easier."

I understand where the republicans are coming from.

Budget Cuts Affect Mental Health

32 states and Washington D.C. have been dramatically cutting budgets for mental health services. This process brings in billions of dollars, but it also crowds prisons, emergency rooms, and dangers the public. The additional savings may be used again for more prison space and additional treatment. The Washington Post quotes;

California slashed funding by more than $587 million, or 16 percent. Kentucky gutted its mental health budget by an astounding 47 percent over the last two years.
In many states, the picture is likely to get uglier for those relying on state mental services. Starting this summer, some $87 billion in federal stimulus money for Medicaid assistance to the states starts drying up. Because virtually all Medicaid-funded mental health services are optional, states projecting another couple years of budget deficits are likely to chop mental health services further.

For one, I want to see mental patients being treated and cared for rather than let on the streets. Secondly, I want to see less money wasted by changing the game plan for health services. I don't think the Obamacare bill will come into affect the way it is in the next few years, but a for of it will be a step forwards in assisting the mental health of millions of patients. The article ends with;

Mental health advocates hope that the federal health care overhaul taking effect after 2014 will help add services for the mentally ill - but their hopes are dim that things will get better before then.

I side with the health advocates on this one, in hope that funding will improve for mental health services.

NYC Teen Faces 2 Years

In NYC, a 19 year old choked and threw a sibling's 4 ounce hamster. She is facing a felony charge and was arrested Tuesday night. Msnbc reports;

The 19-year-old is accused of choking and squeezing the 4-ounce hamster and throwing it on the floor. It was then thrown across the street, though a necropsy concluded the animal was probably already dead by the time that happened.
Pentangelo says the charges include aggravated cruelty to animals and child endangerment. He says three children witnessed the hamster's demise.

The charges are outrageous, and I feel that our justice system has better things to worry about. Granted, the 19 year old probably needs some mental help, but killing a hamster of a 9 year old sibling and being charged is outrageous. I cant help but laugh and shake my head at the same time at this arrest.

Premature Births Drugs Outrageously Priced

The price of preventing preterm babies is about to go through the roof because of KV Pharmaceutical has sole ownership of a drug. This form of progesterone cost $10 to $20 per injection, but now may cost $1,500 per injection ($30,000 per pregnancy). This outrageous hike in price occurred when KV won approval to sell the drug as opposed to special pharmacies that were not federally approved. A few doctors responded to the drug's new price;

"That's a huge increase for something that can't be costing them that much to make. For crying out loud, this is about making money," said Dr. Roger Snow, deputy medical director for Massachusetts' Medicaid program.
"I've never seen anything as outrageous as this," said Dr. Arnold Cohen, an obstetrician at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The pros of KV owning the rights to the drug is that it is better regulated and is safer, but this includes the outrageous price increase. Even if insurance covers the prices, I still don't agree with the price, nor do many other people. It is obvious most women can not afford this treatment, even so, KV has not dropped the price. This is just another negative view of America's medical providers.

Wisconsin Senate Separated

The Senate in Wisconsin has passed the bill to end state workers' collective bargaining rights. Even with all the democrats gone from the meeting, the republicans still managed to pass the bill, causing unrest and protests. Fox News reports on this;

All 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois nearly three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to consider Gov. Scott Walker's so-called "budget repair bill" -- a proposal introduced to plug a $137 million budget shortfall.. 

The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved that bill a short time later.

The republicans are strong to cut many measures that spend money. This bill was included in this quorum and has passes even with obvious opposition. The bill was passed hastily and completely ignored the democrats. I'm not sure if the democrats would do this if they were in the same position, but passing such a bill is quite shady. We will see how this goes when the democrats choose to come back.

Mental Health Break

Caution, may contain a bit of offensive material. However, this is very funny.

Typical Views on Gay Marriage

The basic view is this: Democrats = Pro Gay Marriage and Republicans = Anti Gay Marriage
I side with Republicans on many things, but I blatantly do not understand the opposition to gay marriage. Maybe this has to do with me being in a newer generation that

are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations.

 I believe that gay marriage is just another civil rights movement, where people should simply have the right. I side with the liberal idea that marriage should not be regulated and should be free. We are definitely moving towards this space as a country. Here is another part from the Fox News article:

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

'This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage,' creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. Hard-core liberals support gay marriage, while others, including President Barack Obama, take a more moderate position of civil unions and defer to states on gay marriage.

 The democrats can be seen as "using" this position on gay marriage to get the support of the newer generations. I have no strong argument against gay marriage, and don't think I could ever muster one up. The arguments for it are strong and concrete.

People Skip Meds to Save Money

What's scary about America's present health care system is that many men and women would rather go without care than to pay medical costs. This story is not too surprising to me, but it does provide some statistics. Here is an Excerpt;

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, the number of people who went without needed prescription drugs because of costs nearly doubled to 11 percent in 2009 from 6 percent in 1997. And the percentage of Americans who put off needed dental care because of costs rose to 17 percent in 2009, compared with 11 percent in 1997.

I do not blame the 17%+ Americans who skip drugs to save costs. The prices of medicines can be outrageous without a government that takes care of everything for free. This part of health care hits a chord with me, everyone should have at least some health care, or better health care than we have now where people have to cut back on medicine. I can't wait to see how Obamacare is changed for the better in the coming years.

Calorie Counts Don't Deter Adolescents

America is well known as one of the fattiest countries in the world. Some states have obesity rates exceeding 60% for adults and 30% for kids. This portrays a dim picture of this nation. Obesity is one of the top contributors to heart disease and countless other problems as you've probably seen if you watch major news channels. However, obesity is still a problem and will continue to drain money from incomes to pay for health care.
In a study on how fast food restaurants calorie counts affect peoples' choices in New York City, it was shown that only 9% of people were affected and the others still chose in relation to flavor. MSNBC reports on this study.

'It means we're going to have to rethink what other sorts of interventions might be more effective,' Dr. Brian Elbel of NYU, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.

Mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus is part of President Barack Obama's new health care law is included in the White House's push to reduce rates of obesity, which is one of the biggest health challenges facing the United States.

I am glad Obama is hunting for a a healthier, thinner America. The rates of obesity in some states is outrageous.  Cutting back on fat will also cut back on health care costs significantly even if the obesity rate is lowered a few percent. We can only wait and see if America slims down the next generation.

Mental Health Break

New Radiohead Album

And if you're into tasteful skate videos, watch this gem from Nike SB.

The F-Scale and Politopia

Today I took two quizzes to see where I land when it came to politics. In both tests, the F-Scale and Politopia, I scored in the middle, maybe a little to the right. I placed no where near extreme, which is what I expected. 

This was my F-Scale result;

3.266666 (out of 5)
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

I liked this test because it forced you to make a decision, not just go in the middle. The only bad part was that the test asks some weird questions that did not even relate much to political party, or so I think.

This was my Politician result;

Centerville-You would feel most at home in Centerville, which means that you are more or less pleased the status quo-you think the US government has just about the right amount of control over your economic and personal decisions. Your neighbors include democratic and republican party leaders and others who call themselves "moderates" and "centrists."

This test scored me as a moderate, and a little to the west side. I think this means I am a little left. My views were basically; I am happy with how the US is governed as is.

Take these quizzes in the links posted in the first paragraph.

Health Care in China

Health care in the US is far from perfect, but so is China's health care. China has a system where they pay around 60+ percent on health care expenses for patients. The country tries to give every social class the same type of care. The problems for China could be that there are so many people living in one country, or that rich patients can get better care because doctors like them. This 2009 CBS News article explains major problems China's health care is facing. Here is an excerpt;

China's health-care system is in disarray, a side effect of the market reforms that have spurred private enterprise and rapid growth since 1980. Before then, state-owned companies offered cradle-to-grave care, part of a system based on danwei, or work units, that provided health, education, pensions and other benefits. But as the economy has grown more diverse, an increasing number of Chinese have had to fend for themselves, with only a porous government insurance program to help.

As U.S. lawmakers engage in a tense debate over health-care reform, Chinese authorities, too, are attempting to fix their system. Over the past five years, the government has tried to provide coverage to more of its 1.4 billion people. But even people covered by a minimal health insurance program are often left with big hospital bills and must pay for most outpatient services and medication. More than 300 million people do not have any health insurance.

There are similar problems of coverage for both China and the US. I hope that our proposed health care bill is further changed to evade the problems China is having.
On a separate note, my mom has first hand experience with Chinese hospitals, saying they included long waits and poorer service than US hospitals. This may be another downside to adopting a "socialized" health care program, but I still need to do more research into our health programs to make a more intelligent diagnosis.

Upsides to Obamacare?

A Fox News poll and a recent house vote force me to question the information and opinions I have been fed about the health care bill. If this many people oppose the health care reform, there must be some good reasons. I try to ignore comments about it being socialist, mainly because this does not add much to the anti argument.
The Fox News article and poll stats are here:

On the issue of how Congress should handle health care, over half would like to see the new law either repealed entirely (27 percent) or parts of the law repealed (34 percent). Another 20 percent want the health care law expanded.

About one voter in seven (14 percent) would leave the new law in its current form.

Views on what should happen to the new law have held fairly steady for the last few months, with anywhere from a 54-to -61 percent majority supporting repealing part or all of the law, and about a third wanting it implemented as is or expanded.

The views range from wanting to completely take health care out of the picture, repealing parts of the bill, or keeping the whole thing as is. However, the majority seems to believe that the bill should at least be modified to better fit everyone. In it's current state, it seems there is no way it will pass as countless stated deem it unconstitutional to force people to pay for health care.

Sicko Facts

I recently watched the movie Sicko in my government class and had an eye opening experience. Sicko, produced and starring Michael Moore exposes the extreme sides of health care in the US, but it also brings up many questions.
Here is a fact sheet from Sicko,

• "The United States is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system.
• In 2006, the U.S. census reported that 46 million Americans (recently revised downward to 45 million) have no health insurance.
•  “Over a third (36%) of families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Hispanic Americans (34%) are more than twice as likely to be uninsured as white Americans, (13%) while 21% of black Americans have no health insurance.”
• More than 9 million children lack health insurance in America.
• Eighteen thousand people die each year because they are uninsured.

This is just a small bit of the facts pulled from the movie (made in 2007). I find these facts fascinating because of their weirdness, for lack of a better word. These facts are weird, because America is highly industrialized and is viewed as one of the best countries in the world to live in, yet many people die because they do not receive health care.
Granted, Sicko takes many extreme cases and does not look into the bad sides of other health care systems. I am going to derive my own health care views from what I research in the upcoming months.