Obamacare- My Take

      In response to Chrystina Goin's blog post, I think she bring up a good point. Healthcare is a very touchy subject at the moment, and if Obamacare was perfect for the US, I too think it would be a law. The problem is that we are split. Not just Republican and Democrats, but rather into classes within those subsections. The majority of the ridiculously wealthy disprove of the law whereas the majority of the people below poverty level approve of it. This is self-explanatory though, since the rich can afford their own "premier" healthcare while the poor cannot- but what about the poor that do not want to buy healthcare? Why would it be mandatory?

      I find it hard to believe that the President will be able to cope for the cost of this law in addition to the 4 trillion dollar deficit cut, especially when we are currently heading for the fiscal cliff! Candace Fitzgerald says that if everyone pays, costs will go down. This may be true, but they will only be reduced from what they are going to be, not from what they are today. The government still will have to fund the "tax cuts" for the people under the poverty level.

      She made a good point about raising taxes- it seems to be the solution to every budget problem, but I believe the central government is beginning to get too large. The Obamacare system will only increase the size, which will in turn increase the taxes. With the costs of healthcare rising to accommodate this law, people will hire less because they can't afford to pay the healthcare for their employees. Then, the system will crash and we will have to devise a new one. Why don't we create a solution now; one that everyone agrees on- perhaps not fully, but at least accepts. If we are having so many arguments over the healthcare system currently, why should it be implemented?

      My biggest concern, like she mentioned, is the effect on the quality of care and on us. If the doctors are not getting appreciated and valued for their success, where is there motivation to succeed? With Obamacare, equal care would be given to all, so the medical staff would be very restricted on their actions. I believe that this system deprives us of our freedom, something that should not be allowed tampered with especially in this great country. If we throw away all the Republican, Democrat, rich, poor, all of that nonsense, we are all, in our hearts, citizens of the United States- this is what we should make decisions as. I hope that we as a nation will reach consensus on which method of approaching healthcare will serve us best soon- even if it is socialist, capitalist, or even a mixture of both.

Candace Fitzgerald's comment:
http://chrystina-goin-acc.blogspot.com/2012/11/repeal-and-replace-obamacare.html?showComment=1354044827469#c6906761552650593362

Oh Higher Education!

      When finishing my Texas government research paper, I stumbled across an article from the Austin American Statesman that highlighted some growing concerns pertaining to higher education. Although it is from 2010, the information is still rather up to date because it discusses the worries of the universities about the appropriations they are receiving. Also, it has a good summary of the issues at hand: public colleges, without partial government funding, cannot keep up with the financial need they are dispersing to satisfy Affirmative Action.
      College today, lets be honest, is very pricey. In some institutions, the price to attend is unfathomable; the majority cost over $30,000 and many cost even more. Take SMU, for instance: it's one of the colleges I'm looking at and it would cost me about $56,000 a year to attend if I didn't receive any scholarships. Or Oklahoma State University, which would practically cost the same because it is out of state. The colleges get so much money from each individual student, so it seems hard to understand why they need more funding.
      Well, every college gives out scholarships in the form of financial need or merit-based. Many pay for full-ride scholarships, so that alone is as much as the student would pay out of their pocket. The amount of merit-based scholarships is generally lower in universities, so the primary loss of money is from financial need scholarships. Since the U.S. government declares what financial aid a student needs, the funding is supposed to come from the colleges, and, in turn, the state governments.
      This wouldn't be a problem if there was more money available to disperse, but, as everyone has probably seen, the state programs are already being cut by a large margin. Schools are having to lay off hundreds of teachers in order to keep in line with their budgets, so it is hard to imagine how the higher education institutions will receive the necessary increase in appropriations in order to keep up with the financial need. Also, the institutions themselves are not culpable because this issue came from attempting to help more people get a higher education. That is a good reason! In response to these, the article shows that the schools are ready to develop a plan in order to facilitate any necessary cuts.
      As the freshman class for colleges rise and as more and more individuals choose to attend them, the problem will only grow larger until a fool-proof plan is devised. For my sake, and for the sake of any future college students, I hope that plan doesn't include raising tuition, lowering scholarships, or even converting into private schools because that would only make things worse.

The Two-Sided Road

I'd like to start my response to Candace Fitzgerald's "Republican Freakout" post by describing myself briefly: I am a 17-29 year old Hispanic male who is planning on studying engineering in college. Also, another big belief: I'm a Republican, yet I am not freaking out. Although not all Republicans are "Rich, White, Racist, Liars, Hateful, Arrogant, Childish...  Religious Zealots, Self-Centered, Narrow-minded, Stubborn, and Silly," it seems as if she classifies them to be.

The media is, as a rule, more liberal than conservative. I'm not implying that they have a "socialist agenda," I'm just stating the facts. Republican Joe Wilson was out of line when he had his outburst, but he apologized formally shortly thereafter. Even though a Republican had that outburst, how is there a complete resistance? Sure, they don't see eye-to-eye on many topics, but how is that different from when Bush was President and there were Democratic representatives that didn't agree with him?

The Executive branch has been split between the two parties for a long time now, but, if you recall, Obama had the Democratic majority in BOTH houses. He could have passed the healthcare reform much easier then, but he didn't until later in his term. Once the houses of Congress were split, it became much harder to pass laws, as she said. It is important in any situation to see both sides, but both parties are sticking to their own beliefs rather than trying to work together. Overall, the blame for gridlock goes both ways due to rigidity of beliefs, and, therefore, both parties need to work towards moderation and cooperation.

The Tea Party faction is some of the worst of the worst, in my opinion, of the Republican party. However, I wouldn't liken them to the KKK because that is a little drastic. Have they killed anyone? No. Yes they are racist, but it is not to the extent of the KKK's hatred. All of their general characteristics aside, they do hold core views about the government that could aid us. Like every other party, they plan to reduce spending and the deficit, but they also value smaller central government. The framers of the Constitution did find that a small central government could not get much accomplished, but what would they say about the size of our government today? It's massive. The Tea Party is the farthest right in the party, much like the Socialist party is the farthest left of the Democratic party.

Mitt Romney, or "Mitt-Freaking-Romney" as she names him, is a confident and well-off individual, yes, but what else is bad enough to warrant the "Freaking?" He actually is quite liberal in some of his views, so what is wrong with that? Also, Romney was chosen due to his oratory skills as well as his resources. Money, believe it or not, plays a big role in election and nomination. He was able to get his name out there to win the nomination, but most people simply disliked him because he was rich; he couldn't "relate" to the people. Believe it or not, Obama isn't doing so bad either.

Another question, when is it the case that the party that does not hold the presidency isn't freaking out? The only time I can recall was on 9/11/2001; no one doubted President Bush's actions against terrorism. After that, however, Democrats were "freaking out" as well because of his persistence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From her editorial sounds as if she is Democrat rather than an Independent, as she identifies herself. This isn't bad, but it might shed some light on the very strong opposition she holds against Republicans. If they are, as she claims, "alienating everyone who isn't rich, white, and christian," how am I a Republican? Shouldn't I be alienated? She states that Republicans have irrational emotional strategies to govern, but what are they? Although companies are not people, they are made up of people who work hard to make a living. Both parties receive donations from companies; how else would they pay for campaigning? The main point I want to bring to light is that the blame, the fault, the silliness, the bias, and the need for improvement goes both ways.

The Electoral College Today

      The voting system in the United States is an interesting one. Even though we are in a democracy, the people don't completely choose who lead us. We have an Electoral College that is constitutionally charged with electing the president, which was indirectly put into place by the framers of the constitution. According to the constitution, electors are to select our president, but it is not specifically an Electoral College.

      The problem I have with the electoral system is that it is outdated. Plain and simple: it was put into place in order to protect us from voting the wrong president due to incompetence. In today's technologically advanced society, there are multiple mediums through which to learn about each candidate. This is entirely different from when the constitution was written because the only ways to learn about the candidates was through people's word and the newspaper, which was brand new at the time. At the time, it was hard to know what was truth and what was fibs, so people could just attain the political viewpoints that someone tells them they should have. Also, the population was much smaller so one vote made a significantly larger impact (even though still not massive). Although this wasn't always the case, it brought concern to the framers of the constitution so they decided to put a provision in place to protect it..
      Nowadays, there are so many sources to receive information from that the lack of personalized opinions should not be of concern. These options available allow everyone to formulate their own views and thoughts about what the government needs so that they can pick the candidate that fits the profile together. The plethora of information negates the need for the Electoral College due to incompetence, but others think that is not enough to prevent inaccurate results. 
      Another way that we could change the system to accompany the concern of insccuracy would be to increase the difficulty to register as a voter. Even though voter turnout is already low due to this, increased rigor to register would assure that only politically knowledgeable people could voice their opinions. Perhaps a basic test on governmental process would suffice to regulate the voters, or maybe even a recitation if the Bill of Rights. 
      In my opinion, the implementation of stricter voter registration would hinder our democracy more than it already is because it only takes in the views of the elites. Democracy is a system of government where the people rule, and we are not currently in that. The opinions of everyone need to be considered; the popular vote should be the deciding factor in our elections. Take this past week's election results: Obama won overall, but he had already won through the Electoral College before all of the votes were counted. At the same time that Obama won, Romney was up in the popular vote by 1 million votes. It is mind blowing how the Electoral College's vote can technically end the election even though the "losing" candidate may be up in the popular vote. As a country, I believe we should look towards changing the existing system to accommodate the change in society. 

Gun Control Problems!

      Looking through Think Progress's posts, I stumbled across an intriguing story involving national gun control. Now, many people are on the fence about the federal government's need to get involved in controlling the sales of guns, but in this instance I'm all for it. In this Story, a mass murderer, who would otherwise be unable to buy a gun, found a loophole that allowed him to purchase one easily. According to the post, the man had killed three and injured four in a day spa before killing himself. Also, in the United States, only people with clean criminal records are allowed to purchase a gun. However, he was able to purchase it online without restriction since most online sellers just want the cash without the hassle of background checks.
      This post caught my attention because gun control is a big issue in the United States. Some believe gun control should be stricter while others think the entire opposite, that guns should be more easily attainable. After reading the post, I believe his intended audience was the general public in an effort to rile people up enough to bring this to the attention of the authorities. Although I'm net very sure of his credibility, he did do his research. Ian Millhiser, the author, quoted the results of a New York police investigation in which the online illegal arms sales were taking place.
      The whole story seems pretty serious, and it seems that the police should be cracking down on this. If they've already been investigating, why hasn't this loophole been brought to the attention of lawmakers? The author doesn't explicitly say anything supporting stricter or looser control of firearms, but the tone of the post is generally that of disapproval. His thought process is very clear though; he organized the post in an easy go understand way that had the reader make an opinion and then read about what is currently being done. Overall, I agree with the thought of stricter gun control, or at least the closing of the loophole that the author seems to support. The fact that a mass murderer was able to commit his crime because of this loophole should be grounds for the immediate closure. If there wasn't this easy way out, maybe those lives would've been saved, and the others without injury. The man's wife was killed by him as well, only adding to the ridiculousness. It's sad to think that this horrible mass murder had to happen for the problems within the system to come to light.

Roe vs. Wade Under Romney/Ryan (Supposedly)

     After reading the editorial: If Roe v. Wade Goes on The New York Times online newspaper, several questions were brought to my mind:
     1. Could a president actually overturn a Supreme Court decision?
     2. Why would Romney retract his past support for Roe v. Wade, especially when he had such a touching   story?
     I'll come back to these questions, but first I'd like to explain what the editorial claims. From the beginning, Romney/Ryan are made as opponents to abortion by Ryan's "essential" answer in last weeks debate that abortion supporters should be scared. Now, Ryan never uttered this word for word, but the editor seems to think this. However, the editor does give Romney/Ryan a grain of approval when he says that they will sway from the extreme Republican platform by allowing abortion in the cases of rape/incest/the life of the woman. The editor continues by describing the effects of reversing Roe v. Wade; the decision of abortion would be up to the states, and an extremely low number of states would actually allow it. In turn, he claims that the health problems that were evident before abortion was legal would resurface, and many women may even turn to self-aborting or going to illegal practices. The culmination to his attack on Romney/Ryan is the recount of Romney's past support of abortion, and the elaboration of his plans to take down everything the family he was touched by supported.
     It seems to me that the author is targeting the unsure voters - the people who are caught in the middle of the two parties. By arguing that Romney/Ryan will do away with abortion, the author helps convince the abortion supporters to vote for Obama and Biden. However, even though Romney/Ryan want to get rid of abortion, they have to jump some serious loops to receive their wish. According to Ed Grabianowski's 10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases, there are two ways to retract a Supreme Court Ruling:
     1) States can amend the Constitution themselves by receiving approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
     2) The Supreme Court can overrule itself.
     The author claims Romney will seek to do the latter by reappointing new Supreme Court Justices, but even then it seems far-fetched to me. This would require Romney's appointed justice(s) along with the residing justices to reach a majority rule decision in the opposite direction it has been the last 39 years. Overall, the author provides good points that would turn the opinions of readers who don't look further into the details, but the editorial as a whole is too rash and quick to make decisions in my opinion.
     As a side note, the story about Romney and his past support for abortion involves a close relative who died from illegal abortion complications, and how her parents asked for money to be donated to Planned Parenthood. Evidently, Romney has vouched to retract federal funds to this organization, much like his retraction of abortion support. It's hard to discern Romney's change in beliefs, but if I were to take an educated guess on it, I'd have to say it's due to extremist Republican pressure.

High Anticipation!

After seeing the Presidential debate last week; seeing Romney walk over Obama like that, Democrats seem to be in a lot trouble coming towards the Biden and Ryan debate. However, after all of the lies Ryan sold at his convention speech, tomorrow night could be a disaster for the campaign. I decided to look towards mainstream media to try to get an idea and understanding of what to look for, and I found Michael Tomasky on Joe Biden’s Turn to Take Down Paul Ryan on The Daily Beast. It offers a more detailed look than I could ever offer anyone about what Joe Biden has to do in order to clean up the mess last week.
He talks about Biden needing to press Ryan on the "Loopholes" he will be cutting, and if they are legitimate, how he plans to cover the deficit. Also, Tomasky claims that Biden needs to grill Ryan on Obamacare and his plan if they get elected. Rather than the numerous articles about the debate, I wanted to look at something  new and exciting about the election race, and I think it is worth reading due to its predictions of what to come. So exciting! This upcoming debate is going to either make-or-break the lead Romney created for the Republicans, so we'll see if Paul Ryan can keep this up, or if he'll crash their campaign back to ground zero.

(If the embedded link doesn't work, try: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/michael-tomasky-on-joe-biden-s-turn-to-take-down-paul-ryan.html)