Health Care

In this last blog post for the class, discussing a public issue of great importance, I wish to bring health care reform/universal to the table.

Over the past 20 years, since the Clinton administration, this has been somewhat of a fiery topic. In 1994, Hilary Clinton crafted a health care plan and presented it to Congress and the health care industry, only to be completely slaughtered for a major political lose. 15 years later, President Obama worked throughout his first two years in office to get health care reform passed. As opposed to crafting a bill for presenting, he went an opposite route by approaching Congress and the industry, working WITH them to tailor an applicable bill. After months of hard work and influencing an electorate, the act was passed by Congress.

Despite this reform, the question still lingers: should the US resort to a universal health care system?

I say yes, looking at the issue from a variety of contexts:

1. Taxes

What are we spending our taxes on to begin with? An education program that doesn’t work, courtesy of George W Bush (No Child Left Behind), a war that wasted billions of dollars in Iraq (also courtesy of Mr. Bush). As a result of health care reform, we will be taxed for funding a health care system to provide for the country.

Personally, I’d rather spend my tax dollars on funding this imitative, to contribute and help my fellow American receive health care (as opposed to other wasteful spending). These taxes go to a good cause, for almost everyone's well being (physically).

2. Keeps Insurance Companies/big business in-check

Effective September 23, 2010, the new act enacted almost a dozen restrictions of the health insurance industry, banning them from abuses of power (with more restrictions to take effect over the next several years). Many of these include restrictions for dropping a sick patient, charging co-payments/charges for patients in more advanced stages of illness, etc.

Here is even more info on what the new act means for insurance (from AARP): http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/info-08-2010/hcr_explained.html

3. Filling A Void

The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.)

That number is absolutely absurd. We are talking about people and their health, who stand no chance when big insurance CEO's are controlling their lives. You have the put the health back into the people for a vibrant nation.

4. Better Medicine

With a more transparent, accessible health care system, there will be an advanced database of diagnosis and treatment for all patient cases in the country. Additionally, a doctor can focus more on practicing medicine and helping people rather than work for insurance companies.

Many would argue that the thought is socialist, etc. My response is - so I guess letting people die is capitalism?

There is a humanity/morale factor, here. We are not asking people to make the same wage for a living. We are talking about health; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No insurance company should have the right to deny a person's will to live.

Partisan Politics

Before I get into specifics regarding the subject for this post, I want to state that while I am a registered Democrat, I am quick enough to criticize members of my own party as equally as a member on the other side of the aisle for anything that would create a red flag. Additionally, I fully support the freedom of speech. It is what creates a healthy and balanced democracy.

However, sometimes while you grant someone the right to speak his or her mind, you need to step in put things in perspective.

This is exactly the case with the site, RightPundits.com.

I skimmed the site this afternoon and I was shocked by the type of partisan, slandering, inaccurate posts that the site showcases.

Let’s just get into a few points of interest:

1.OK – so you are a Democrat on the site. You could not help but get offended. Post-after-post is directed negativity toward Democrats. The site showcases the following articles, consecutively:

- An article discussing “Gingrich: Obama Administration Is ‘Shallow’, ‘Amateurish’ On National Security”

-The topic of Keith Olbermann attacking Bristol Palin – they refer to Olbermann as Keith Olbermann lacking “…the good sense to put his insincerely incredulity in check…the MSNBC bully-boy”

-An article titled “Hillary Clinton: Still Sleazy after All These Years” – they state “…they [the Clinton Family] were shady when they first entered the national consciousness, and have steadfastly remained so in the intervening score of years. Their latest incursion was provided by our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Notice any bias?

It’s clear that the site is skewed toward one end of the spectrum - not conservative republican base, but rather attacking Democrats & subsequent supporters.

2. Regarding the article on Hilary Clinton that I mentioned earlier.

It essentially discusses Hilary Clinton’s actions to pay off campaign debt. Her camp is selling a DVD of a speech she gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. For an additional fee, she is selling autographed copies. The site is calling this sleazy.

In all honesty, I am having trouble seeing how this is on point or sleazy. A few thoughts:

-This is not for personal profit – she is trying to pay off campaign debt. I’m not sure how this is unethical or should be considered sleazy.

-The post is safe to criticize the Clinton family/administration, but doesn’t provide any context for why.

-The post criticizes Hilary Clinton, but doesn’t put her work as Sec. of State in context (policies, etc). It’s 100% about “character.”

-Even anti-Hilary readers commented against the post “As I said, I’ve never been a Hillary fan. I think sleazy is a poor choice of words”

From reading the posts on this site, it is clear that RightPundits.com is stuck in one skewed mindset: to criticize Democrats without providing workable solutions in response.

The other problem with this site is that with all of the criticizing, they are diluting their message. It takes away legitimacy from discussing the core issues without bias.

WikiLeaks

One of the most resourceful, well-known and controversial sites on the web is WikiLeaks.

http://wikileaks.ch/

I’m sure that many of you have heard about the site via the mainstream media (and how disputed the site is); other people may not be so familiar.

Just so we are all on the same page: WikiLeaks is an online database that makes normally “classified”/restricted government documents available to the general public (as a collection of articles). They receive submissions from anonymous sources all around the world.

Check out their entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

While yes, this is the leaking of privileged information, and many could argue that poses a danger to society, I see WikiLeaks playing a much larger role in the grand scheme of things.

Their intent in leaking such information is made clear in their slogan: “We open governments.”

For so long, so many true facts regarding government activities have been masked and classified. Members of society only learned of government activities via mass media (which was either A. government propaganda or B. deceptive government spinning). This struggle decreased with the birth of the Internet – which allows for citizens to share content with other citizens – without a “middle man.” Rumors about government activities have always been on the Internet, but for so long, there was never a source to legitimize said claims.

WikiLeaks provides a “a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.”

With the monopolizing/propaganda creating mass media outlets (essentially in business to make money, as a first priority), WikiLeaks serves as the TRUE fourth branch of government.

I see this site as providing a health balance between government, media and public disclosure. Sure, not everything posted may need to be shown and given the light of day. But it’s this tool that creates true democracy, transparency and freedom for the people. And it serves as a universal tool for sources in various countries all around the world (many of whom live in censored societies). This site helps to tear down the firewall within a country, between a government and its citizens and between countries around the world.

It stands for the demolition of red tape, the restoration of civil liberties - the right that every citizen should know its government's activities.

Check out a few recent, interesting articles on the site in mainstream media:

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20101206/wikileaks-reveals-how-google-was-targeted-china-id-10144107.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12320137

Mac Rumors & Macworld

With the iPhone, iPod Touch and now iPad, Apple seems to be larger than ever. Indeed, it was just in May 2010 that Apple’s worth/market share surpassed that of leading rival, Microsoft.

So where exactly is Apple’s hype in the Internet community, besides social networking?

Well, let’s take two websites for show: Mac Rumors & Macworld.

Here is the gist of what both of these sites are all about (at their cores):

Mac Rumors is essentially a site that focuses on all news and rumors surrounding Apple.

Macworld is a site that provides a number of different types of content. First, they are the website extension of the acclaimed Macworld Magazine. They run news stories, reviews, consumer assistances, etc. While the focus is primarily on Apple product, they also cover non-Apple consumer electronics.

In connecting both sites - obviously, both sites are themed around Mac/Apple (a clear over arching theme in their names).

While they may brand themselves in two different arenas (via their mission statements), they provide extremely similar content that isn’t necessarily advertised in their respective mission statements.

For example, a la Mac Rumors, Macworld partakes in the predicting future Apple technologies (more than the average user would think from their core branding).

On November 29, Macworld ran a piece entitled “The Mac of the future." The post essentially predicted upcoming technologies on future Mac computers. It essentially contrasts their core assets of serving as an “all news & consumer product reviews site.” It follows in the footsteps of Mac Rumors.

Mac Rumors does not solely post news and rumors regarding Apple. They, in addition to Macworld, have a Buyers Guide to assist consumers in providing information on Apple products.

While yes, both of these sites have various points of interest, the overarching theme on both of these sites is to provide information (news, rumors, reviews, consumer reports, etc) - a complete 360 degree package - on Apple products.

Has Apple hit a sweet spot?

So Black Friday has passed us. And we are officially in the holiday buying season.

In terms of consumer electronic devices, what do people want to buy? What kind of laptops?

I saw this article online that basically states Apple is officially playing hard ball with competitors. The once underdog is now a consumer favorite - yes, it has been on the rise for several years. But now there are statistic to back up the claim.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20023909-64.html

This article states that of users planning to buy laptops in 90 days, 36% plan to go the MacBook route. Up 11% points since last month. Dell is down, HP is down.

Simply put - Apple is controlling over 33% of the market share within the next 90 days in the laptop category.

Don't forget, this does not include ultra-portable devices such as iPads or iPhones.

This can certainly be attributed to the new release of the MacBook Air - both 13" and 11" models, featuring .68" at its thickest point and complete flash storage.

The fact that these new MacBook Airs are classified in the laptop category, one would think it would not effect netbook market share (two different classifications, technically). But traditional netbook sales are down. Consumers realize that although the Macbook Air is technically classified as a laptop, it has the core features of a netbook - though much more advanced.

I'll be curious to see how sales ultimately pan out after the holiday season.

Michael Vick

Michael Vick is one of the comeback stories of the NFL.

Scratch that. One of the comeback stories in all of sports. History.

To think, two years ago, Vick was confined to a prison cell - solitary confinement, with only the thought of what he had been and where he wound up. And the accumulation of regret...inconceivable to me.

Well it is certainly a different picture for Vick, now.

While initially, it was the story that garnered attention - now it is his play. A quantitative look at Vick would not reveal any backstory or indefinite suspension.

Food for thought - here are stats for Vick's performance to date this season:

- 1,608 passing yards.

- 11 passing TDs.

- 5 rushing TDs.

- 375 rushing yards.

- 0 interceptions

- 0 fumbles.

- Quarterback rating: 108.7

All of this despite missing three games with a rib injury. Incredible.

He is statistically the best quarterback in the NFL at the moment. His story is the sweetener.

The Eagles took a leap of faith when they decided to sign him last year. But it payed off. Ultimately, they had nothing to lose and Vick had nothing to lose. He had seen the worst and could only go up.

That he did.

His work ethic improved. His attitude improved. His focus improved. He became lighter, more in shape, faster, leaner.

Overall, he is better than he had been in his "prime."

Regardless, the most important aspect of all of this - he is a leader.

His team is now first in the NFC with a 7-3. Poised to clinch a playoff berth.

Now, all we can do is wait and see the end result.

News

I own a MacBook Pro, iPhone 4, iPad 3G and iPad (and do not watch TV).

You would expect me to acquire almost 100% of my news online/digitally.

If so, you would have been right...6 months ago.

Recently, in effort to enrich my reading skills, I began picking up free papers in the lobby of my building. You know, the usual suspects: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today. I thought, hey, why don't give this little thing called print a try.

25 days later, I am still at it and can't get enough.

Most younger people do not realize - there is something about getting your news from the page - the ink, smudging on your hand, rubbing against your fingers. The precise turning of the page along the perforated edges...ok, now I sound like an english major ;)

No, all funny business aside, I have gathered that the content in the paper is just better.

First of all, in comparison to a paper's online site, there is more content in print (for the most part).

Second, there is a sense of legitimacy/representation in the fact that an article is in print (as opposed to solely online). The historical context of print is there back to the days of the printer press.

Third- tt can be archived and shared with all.

Lastly....it doesn't need a battery ;)