Re: Mr. President, you dress like a girl...and throw like one.

In the blog post, "Mr. President, you dress like a girl...and throw like one," my colleague denounces select news sources for focusing on President Obama's attire when he threw the first pitch in the MLB All-Star Game. My initial reaction was complete concurrence, as very few things make me sicker than major news coverage of petty matters, especially when there are more weighty issues at hand. However, there's a difference between major coverage and minor, 30-second clips noting a peculiar event of the day. The news coverage of the president's pitch is hardly major coverage in comparison to the seemingly infinite stream of Anna Nicole Smith reports or the recent, abounding coverage of Michael Jackson's death. When it reaches that kind of caliber, then start complaining about wasted media resources; otherwise, I don't mind taking a few seconds to watch the president throw like a "girl wearing his mommies jeans."

Not only does my colleague criticize the media for concentrating on President Obama's jeans, but he compounds his argument by reprimanding the media for not expounding the fact that our president could be better spending his time trying to help our economy and the ensuing unemployment rate. I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think that taking a day off to watch a baseball game with Michelle and the kids is going to detrimentally affect the state of our nation's economy. We didn't elect a robot into the Oval Office.

Health Care of the Future

All throughout this semester I've been discussing the nation's health care reform. A principal issue of the debate that is a key factor in garnering support for the reform is a financial proposition that sufficiently and responsibly maintains the federal budget as well as the monetary interests of the citizens. From my experiences in other nations with a universal health care system, I can say that, in comparison, the medical facilities and services were on par with the U.S., and the money saved is definitely a plus. I understand that my experience alone only serves to speak for those with a similar socioeconomic background as myself, as the experience would be different for those part of a different demographic. With this in mind, I still believe that the health care reform is still something that can only serve to benefit America, that is, if it is implemented correctly.

I've mentioned this in an earlier post of mine, and I'll reiterate it here. I believe it is possible to satisfy both sides of the health care reform debate, that is, extend health care to more Americans and still maintain a sound fiscal policy to fund its implementation. I think the key to this is in-depth, careful analyses of the proposed methods of funding the reform. As stated in a previous post, the proposal to reward regions utilizing a more efficient health care system has been challenged. On the surface, many proposals seem ideal; yet, under more careful observation, we see that not only may these proposals fail, but that there are solutions to them. Ideas need to be heard, ideas need to be challenged and solutions need to be implemented. I look forward to what the U.S. has to offer in the near future.

Re: The US national government's role in the economy

In the current economic recession, it is easy to judge and critique the actions and measures the federal government has taken to deal with the situation. It is also easy to blame the government for getting us stuck in this predicament in the first place. I am not saying that the federal government has been absolutely perfect in handling the economic situation, but for the most part, there is little more and little less that the government could have done to make things better than they are now.

In the blog post, "The US national government's role in the economy," the author discusses the government's part in dragging the nation deeper and deeper into debt. The author writes:

"It is understandable for our government to use billions of dollars to stimulate the economy in a crucial time of recession. However, our Framers did not intend for the government to establish such broad and powerful institutions involve in the economy. Therefore, there is nothing much in our constitution in restricting the actions that Legislature can involve in the free market."

My only argument here is that just because the Constitution does not explicitly detail extensive information on fiscal regulation does not mean that it is not beneficial for the government to take such actions. In fact, there are many benefits the government provides, such as financial aid for education, that are not stated in the Constitution. Yet, we will not refuse financial aid even if we refuse government bailouts. The author goes on to write:

"I am unsure of how much role the government should has in regulating the economy, however, I strongly believe that there should be a deficit limitation and our government should not easily bailout bankrupt companies just because they are two big to fell. Unless the government had the proper regulations in making sure such companies will not create another recession, it should leave the economy itself punish such irresponsible actions."

I agree that the deficit should be managed wisely; however, the bailouts played an integral part in preventing our economy from declining any further. The positive impact these large companies have on our economy fares far beyond face-value.

The author does, however, make an insightful final statement that I agree with:

"I think that even thought the government should not assume a broad role in the economy, it should regulate and promote the welfare and social insurance for the public in general. I believe with deliberations and proper cautions, we can prevent most recession and stimulate the economy without ineffectively involve deeply in the economy or having greater deficits."

Though, I do not completely oppose the federal government's involvement in our nation's fiscal matters, I do think there should be a limit in their spending. I think this limit should be derived from careful management of funds and more in-depth analyses of any course of action the government plans on taking. See my recent post, "Health costs --no quick fix."

The U.S. Government

Since grade school, I have read and learned about democracy and how it serves as the foundation of our nation. I read about the structure of our government and how power is fairly distributed in such an ingenious way that prevents any kind of tyranny. I am grateful to live in a country where I do not have to worry about oppressive rule or my basic liberties being threatened. The government has also taken measures to go beyond just protecting my freedoms and helping me fulfill my life goals. Without the financial aid I receive from the federal government, attending college would be that much more difficult and thus obtaining the job of my dreams would be daunting to say the least. So what is there to complain about when there are other nations out there whose citizens suffer impoverished conditions with no aid from the government and cannot afford food, let alone education? Yet, after learning and revering the concept of democracy, I still feel like something is lacking with our government. Were it not for the promises of democracy that I have been taught, then I would not feel this paucity, but the fact that I know what democracy is suppose to provide brings to light a discrepancy between what is promised to me and what is actually delivered.

One of our essay questions on our most recent exam asked whether it was possible for a legislator to represent citizens who do not match the legislator’s sociodemographics. After some thought, I knew the question of possibility was easily answered. Of course it is possible for a legislator to adequately represent citizens of a different demographic, as long as they feel compelled to be the voice of that demographic and will solely focus their efforts with that demographic's best interests in mind. However, I felt the greater question was whether or not enough members of Congress actually felt this obligation to sufficiently represent their constituents. I feel the answer is no. Unless the legislator is a robot, it is human nature for he or she to look out for his or herself before the constituents, and since the sociodemographic of Congress drastically deviates from the general public, there will be a conflict of interests. Who determines the victor of this conflict? The congressman, and he will decide in his favor. I am not saying I would rather a member of the general public to represent us; I would obviously prefer a more educated individual making decisions that would affect my daily life. However, to be able to find an intellectually sound representative who is completely selfless and can identify and empathize entirely with his consituents is a near impossible task. A person with such qualities would almost cease to be human.

I do not blame the government for this disparity; it is an issue that may very well have no perfect solution. We just have to trust that in the big picture, the representatives we choose will live up to our expectations.

Health costs -- no quick fix

Continuing with my mini exploration of the health care debate, this week we take a look at an opinion article by John Stobo and Tom Rosenthal from the Los Angeles Times, "Health costs --no quick fix." As the heated health care debate rapidly escalates, more and more research is being put into how to effectively reduce the costs of health care while providing universal coverage. Particular interest is being placed on regional discrepancies in medical costs, which could help determine which regions are more cost-effective. From there, some legislators aim to redistribute Medicare payments to the more efficient regions. In this article, Stobo and Rosenthal delve deeper into the purported claims of these research findings and discuss why the approach taken by these studies may be biased and how this bias could lead to monetary mismanagement by the federal government. The article warns legislators as well as the general public of the dire consequences of using these studies as a basis for healthcare financial management.

Stobo and Rosenthal examined the design structure of the research studies and discovered that regional cost discrepancies should not be the sole variable in determining where to cut corners financially. The authors point out that poverty level, per capita income and uninsured rate all need to be taken into consideration in determining efficiency. When these factors are taken into account, we see that some regions can be further divided into subregions, with each telling a different story. The core of L.A., for example, houses healthy, wealthy patients and "vibrant, integrated healthcare infrastructure," while South and Central L.A. suffer from inadequate medical facilities and impovershed patients as a result. Not only do the patients have to put up with lower quality medical services, but they have to pay more as a result because poorer medical attention compounds the medical conditions and attention that one may require, thus leading to more costly healthcare. Without observing these aspects within a particular region, the measure of efficiency can be drastically misleading.

Stobo and Rosenthal definitely did their homework in their evaluation of the research studies; the argument made was logical and coherent. Geographic-specific data requires a closer look before any conclusive statements can be made on where costs can be reduced; otherwise, an unfair and actually harmful legislation would degrade our nation's healthcare and defeat the purpose of reform.

Aravosis' Trip to the French Doctor

Recently, I posted a reference to an article discussing the inter-party divide caused by the current health care reform debate. Today we take a look at the argument of one side of the debate presented by John Aravosis from DC in his post on AMERICABlog.com, "My whopping $32 emergency room visit in the land of socialized medicine." In the post, Aravosis basically recalls a recent trip he made to an emergency room in France. Aravosis details his experience with the prompt and timely service he received, making intermittent comparisons with experiences in the States along the way.

The purpose of Aravosis' article is to point out to nonbelievers why America would be better off with universal health care and that the feared "socialism" that universal health care supposedly subscribes to is irrational.

In two separate contexts, I agree and disagree with Aravosis. If this article were not intentionally written in light of the current health care debate in its present state and was meant to be taken as a more general approach to viewing health care in America, then I would have agreed with his points. Much of Europe and many other countries have adopted universal health care, and based off not only Aravosis' experiences but some of my own as well, a trip to the doctor is rather pleasant in some of those nations compared with the U.S. However, Aravosis makes clear the context for his post: "With the national debate on health care raging in Washington, it seemed timely to share my story." The issue I have with his post when it's taken in consideration of the current debate is that it pits his argument against the arguments of those against the health care bill discussed in my previous post. When taken in this context, Aravosis' article fails to address the arguments of the opposition, notably the effective costs of the bill, and instead, simply reiterates the proposal of universal health care in the U.S. Essentially, Aravosis' account, however enlightening, ignores the issues with universal health care that the opposition presents and does next to nothing in resolving the health care debate. His experience simply tells us what we've already known about universal health care: it's cheap.

Health Care Vote Illustrates Partisan Divide

A New York Times article recently covered the health care debate and the division a new bill has caused between parties.

A recent bill proposing one of the most substantial changes in social policy in more than 40 years was met with a partisan split from the Senate committee legislation vote. The bill aims to provide insurance coverage to all Americans. For those without insurance, the bill prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone based on pre-existing conditions, and as for those already with insurance, Senator Christopher J. Dodd explains that the bill "eliminates annual and lifetime caps on coverage and ensures that your out-of-pocket costs will never exceed your ability to pay." However, even with the promising effects of the bill, the Senate committee failed to reach a bipartisan consensus, a good indication of clashing troubles in the future. Some Republicans, like Senator Michael B. Enzi, argue that the bill in its current form is much too costly and hardly affordable in our current economic state. Others say that from the onset of the health care debate, Democrats has taken complete control, as Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah said, “Democrats have completely shut us out of the process.” Republicans on the voting panel are hoping for a consensus bill from the Senate Financing Committee, which shares jurisdiction over health issues. It is up to the finance committee to state how it intends to fund the bill's proposals through tax legislation and manipulation of Medicare and Medicaid. Some Democrats respond that it is the bottom line refusal of universal health care by Republicans that is preventing the progression of bipartisan support for the legislation. The White House has also introduced a new standard to measure bipartisanship. Rather than the number of Republic votes for a Democratic bill, the measure would count the number of Republican ideas incorporated in the legislation. President Obama said the health committee bill “includes 160 Republican amendments,” and that that was “a hopeful sign of bipartisan support for the final product.” Republicans argue that much of these amendments were technical.

This article covers one of the most controversial topics in politics today and that is the nation's health care system. The stances on our nation's health care have widened the gap between Democrats and Republicans, and the outcome of the debate will undoubtedly determine the future of the U.S. and affect every one of its citizens.