Monday, December 6, 2010

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.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

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