Universal Healthcare, as good as it sounds?

Healthcare is quickly becoming a bigger and bigger issue in America, as a result more people are speaking of universal healthcare. Before we simply jump to this system and proclaim it the answer to the healthcare problem, perhaps a closer look is needed.

Many people seem to be under the impression that making healthcare government run is as easy as it sounds. The government does not have an infinite amount of money, as a result it must choose just how much money to put into each area. Although our government may be able to afford to put a large amount of money into healthcare, it still may not be enough. The idea of universal healthcare would be pointless if the government does not put in the large amount of money to make it work, otherwise everyone just suffers from poor healthcare. Hillary Clinton I believe at one point in the primaries gave everyone an indication of just how expensive a quality universal healthcare system is. I believe the suggestion she made was to simply take the money we are spending on the war and put it into a universal healthcare system. It goes pretty much without saying that no country can fight a war forever in terms of cost. Even if we are able to pay that much by taking from other programs and by adjusting the budget here and there, what happens when the government needs money to go to war in the future? Or the economy starts to go bad? Sounds like a taxpayer's worst nightmare.

Also on the subject of a bad economy, it seems to me like the recent declines in our economy are part of the issue. Housing isn't doing so great, yet there don't seem to be many calls for government distribution of housing. It's quite possible that with inflation and the economy turning south that healthcare is just one of the areas suffering and is trying to keep up by increasing prices.

We also must not forget the nature of the field. Doctors require years of education to meet the requirments of the field, obviously they don't want little pay for the high level of education required. Not to mention, most doctors are only a lawsuit away from losing just about everything. Policies to insure that doesn't happen aren't exactly cheap either.

Finally, a problem with most universal systems is that it is universal. There are many mistakes the government can make here. Too little pay can make doctors worry if they can meet the cost of insurances policies or believe it is worth the high level of training needed for the field. It is also always possible that without competition, quality will go down. With no one to compete with, there is no need for doctors to insure better quality as there will be no reward or risk of going out of business. Also how does the government determine pay? Most government institutions, don't pay that great as it is expensive enough even to pay government employees a decent salary. Naturally there will be turmoil if an ivy league graduate and a local college graduate are paid the same, assuming they will be satisfied with a low wage in the first place. Also, universal systems can take long amounts of time to process things, which can mean waiting 6 months for a surgery you need now.

With that being said, I don't believe getting completely rid of our privatized healthcare is necessary. However, I believe there are some common grounds though. One is to have the government only aid individuals who have very expensive diseases such as cancer after they've paid x amount of dollars, since obviously diseases like the common cold and cancer are not in the same price range. Another is to have local governments decide what best suits their interests, as I believe some governments have already decided to go a different route.

US National Government and Facebook

I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague's article, the US National Government and Facebook. Although the intention of facebook is social networking, wherever there is social activity likely politics will come into discussion at some point or another. Although you may not be interested in discussing politics on facebook (I'm not always wanting too either), certainly many people are. My memory may be off slightly, but last time I checked there was over 85,000 members in a McCain support group I was asked to join. My school even has its own political discussion group on facebook.

On to my main point, you made a reasoned statement in saying politics is a place for TV news channels, etc. However you have overlooked a few things. People are increasingly turning to the internet as a source of entertainment, communication, information, etc. The more traditional forms of newspapers and television are being more overlooked by the increasingly tech savvy population. Advertisers have caught on, and are pouring more and more money into internet advertising because it becoming the best way to reach people.

We must also remember television networks and newspapers are businesses, and compete for viewer attention. While it would likely serve the public interest best to keep them informed about the nation's issues, it is not the best interest of a business. Especially in today's less educated political population, the more sensationalist eye grabbing stories are best in holding the short modern attention span. In actuality, boring detailed legislative plans to fix a national issue may be the quickest way to get a viewer to change the channel. The result is as you see, stories about a candidate's personal life rather than political philosophy.

In short, the internet currently is the best way to raise awareness for just about anything. The other traditional forms are simply not reaching our younger tech savvy population effectively. These traditional forms are losing appeal and several of them have even established footholds in the internet. (Such as a new's networks website)

Congress is unfit to solve the nation's problems

While many people in any time want to criticize the president for the nation's problems, the real truth is there may not be much the president can do one way or the other. The executive office can be influential to help causes, but when it comes to reform through legislature, the executive office holds no real power. While the president can find congressmen through which he can present his legislative ideas, it is still up to congress. Congress is the only real institution that can change the nation's issues such as healthcare or education, because it is the only one of our three branches of government that can pass legislature. In the end, any president can propose changes, but congress can easily ignore these proposals. Also, even if congress makes a commitment to solving national problems, it is likely it will no be able to do so. We must remember it is not the nation which elects representatives of congress, but the state or smaller area of the state that these representatives reside in. This means pleasing these people are a congressman's top priority because it is these people who are able to elect this representative. Congressmen will not risk passing unfavorable legislation to their constituents that will cost them reelection. Any national reform is bound to conflict with the interests of the constituents of some of our congressmen, causing these congressmen to vote against the reform. On top of constituent interests, congressmen must agree on the way to go best about solving the issues on the national scale such as education or healthcare. This is heavily based on political philosophy, which can divide congress heavily among partisian lines. Our congress is also a two chamber house, both of which must agree to pass an identical bill. When these three factors are combined, it makes it extremely rare for congress to pass legislation to solve broad issues.
A look at history might help. Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, the federal government has played an increasing role in our lives. There are times when national power helps the nation, and other times when more local power such as states help. It might be time for the states to regain some of their lost power, since the federal government is not capable of solving the nation's problems, at least of now. Although national legislation can help, each area has different needs. Local government should do more to help, since they are the ones who know their area and constituents best. Things can work in one area and not another, perhaps making local government more suitable for taking some national crises apart, area by area. People have also increasingly failed to look towards local government when national government fails to meet their needs, which defeats the purpose of federalism. People must not look to the national government for everything, some parts of its structure simply do not allow it to solve every problem.

The detainee policy in the war on terror

I have to disagree with the title of this editorial, Justice 5, Brutality 4, and feel I should offer reasoning from a different prospective to help balance this out. During the war on terror an issue through the past has been how to treat detainees. This author certainly seems confident when he labels Guantanamo as a "Constitutional-rights-free zone" that root from an "Imperial overreaching" president and "compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats." Yet, some of his own evidence seems to contradict some of his words. The central part of his argument seems to be the importance of habeas corpus to the American legal system and constitution, and so by denying this right we are denying detainees the protection of justice. However the author later points out that a specific place in the constitution states habeas corpus may be denied only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It seems clear to me that even if we have made a mistake, we had the right to deny habeas corpus under the constitution at the particular time if they were suspected of being "enemy combatants" because it falls under public safety. With that being said, it seems a little bold to make such allegations that the supreme court justices who voted against it were brutal and that people should be disturbed that they strayed away from a clear line of reasoning. It seems to me there is reasoning to vote for or against it. Not just the justices, but the author uses several other self-declared labels for other representatives of our government to sway the reader. I'm not saying what happened at Guantanamo is right one way or the other, detainee policy if a fine constitutional line for any government at war. However I do feel this particular author used labels that were simply too harsh and is out to demonize anyone who will not agree with his opinion, thus I felt it was my duty as a citizen to show the other side of the fence in this particular issue.

US to tighten visa restrictions

The secretary of US Homeland security, Michael Chertoff, announced that starting January 12, 2009, all vistors to the US who do not need visas will be required to register online with the government.

(Announcement here with more details)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7434374.stm

This waiver programme was initiated in 1986 to stimulate the tourism industry by " eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel ". However this has come under attack by some US lawmakers who are concerned by how easily the program allows citizens of other countries to enter the US, specifically terrorists. The new security measure set to take place, " aims to make it more difficult for [these] potential terrorists to enter the US " the article stated. The article details that citizens are required to register three days before traveling so they can be screened by the US government and that their registration will be valid for two years. Overall, citizens of 27 countries will be affected.

I recommend this article to everyone. It is great to read because it combines two issues in modern US politics, terrorism and border security. It allows the reader to see how one area of politics can affect another or even multiple other countries. The details also show the line of reasoning this area of our government took to conclude this measure was necessary for the time.

Welcome

Welcome to R. Lampert's blog about the U.S. Government