Rarely does an issue electrify our nation like the issue of health is right now. There is passion on both sides of the issue. Though, as President Obama said in his speech last Wednesday, there is bipartisan support for 80% of current reform proposals, the debate has been heated. Conservatives have argued against a government takeover of health care and excessive government spending, and liberals have fought passionately for universal health care.
Single-payer health care is the best way to cover America’s uninsured. The single payer system guarantees health care to all. In such a system, the government would provide affordable health insurance for everyone, and one could still choose to purchase supplemental insurance from private companies. However, this system does not have the support in Congress to pass. I support a realistic approach to reforming health care which includes bringing down health care costs and making sure everyone is covered. Medical care costs and health insurance costs are both running rampant, and both must be addressed. To provide coverage for everyone, a government-run, non-profit health insurance plan (known as the “public option”) must be a part of reform, and health insurance companies must be regulated.
Health care costs are out of control. America spends more money on health care than any other country, yet the U.S. health care system is ranked 37th in the world overall and 42nd in life expectancy. Our health care system is largely inefficient, and to improve the basic infrastructure we must have medical malpractice reform so that doctors do not practice defensive medicine (order more tests and perform more treatments than necessary to make sure they don’t miss something) out of fear of lawsuits. Reforming the delivery of medicine is also essential; currently doctors are rewarded not for their success in treatments but for how many treatments they order. To prevent doctors from abusing this system and to bring down rising health care costs, this fee-for-service program must be changed.
Reforming and regulating the insurance industry is also vital to reforming the health care system. Insurance companies cannot be allowed to deny coverage to a consumer because he has a preexisting medical condition, and insurers cannot be allowed to cut off a consumer’s coverage when he gets sick. Practices such as these are killing people, or leaving them in dire financial condition. About 22,000 uninsured people ages 25-64 die each year, and health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. Health insurance costs, even for the insured, are excessive. Amy from Kingston, Massachusetts is self-employed and paying an $800 monthly premium for health insurance coverage that basically covers only health catastrophes. The actions of the insurance companies have contributed to leaving close to 50 million Americans uninsured.
The public option is another essential part of reform. This plan will act as just another insurance company, but it will remove the profit motive which private insurers have. The goal of the public option is to increase competition between insurers, bringing insurance costs down and holding insurance companies accountable. The public option is essential for health care reform and cannot be imitated by other proposals. Non-profit health insurance cooperatives for example, which are joint ventures by the government and private insurance companies, have not worked in the past, and they cannot have the same effect as the public option.
Cost control, insurance reform, and the public option are the three most significant elements of President Obama’s health care reform plan, and for this reason I endorse the President’s plan, though it is not perfect. If the private sector cannot provide care, it is the government’s moral responsibility to make sure all Americans have quality, affordable health care. Universal health care is vital. And as the debate rages on, we must remember one thing: health care reform is not an economic issue, and it is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.
-Martin Page
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Newsweek/ The Economist: Quotes of the Week
"To call banks casinos, as is often done, is actually unfair to casinos, which are required to hold certatin levels of capital because they must be able to cash in customer's chips. Banks have not been required to do that for their key derivatives contract, credit default swaps." -Fareed Zakaria, "The Capitalist Manifesto: Greed is Good (To a Point)," Newsweek, June 22, 2009
The Economic crisis in a nutshell. -M.P.
"Britain complained to the United States that it was not consulted about a deal under which for men held at Guantanamo Bay were sent as refugees to bermuda, a British territory. Hundreds of locals demonstrated against the decision to admit the men, all Uighurs from western China. The Uighurs went fishing." - The Economist, June 20th-26th 2009
Why is everyone afraid of Uighurs? They are being released, and they are harmless. -M.P.
-Martin Page
The Economic crisis in a nutshell. -M.P.
"Britain complained to the United States that it was not consulted about a deal under which for men held at Guantanamo Bay were sent as refugees to bermuda, a British territory. Hundreds of locals demonstrated against the decision to admit the men, all Uighurs from western China. The Uighurs went fishing." - The Economist, June 20th-26th 2009
Why is everyone afraid of Uighurs? They are being released, and they are harmless. -M.P.
-Martin Page
May I rip this Letter Apart?
I found this letter, and I decided that it needed to be ripped apart. My thoughts are in Italics.
-M.P.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
President Obama wrote an autobiography. Biographies have been written about him. His policies are clearly outlined on whitehouse.gov and barackobama.com. All you have to do to learn about President Obama is to read, Lou.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
President Obama worked as a State Senator and taught law at Chicago University. Michelle was also a lawyer. President Obama also made a lot of money on speaking engagements after the 2004 Democratic National Convention, at which he gave a moving key-not address. President Obama worked hard and fulfilled the American dream.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
President Obama spent his High School years going to Punahou Academy in Hawaii. The teenage years are often the most formative.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
So what?
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
See my earlier post comparing the military judgement of John McCain and Barack Obama.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
Not humble? He is more above-the-fray than anyone in politics. He stayed out of the trenches. He doesn't attack others on unfair ground. He is always polite, especially during the debates of the 2008 election. He is humble in dealing with other countries- he reached out to Iran.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
President Obama was in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. Obama was a member there. But he said that he disagreed with what Wright preached. As for the terrorist William Ayers, Obama sat on a board with him. The President never said that he agreed with what Ayers did or preached.
-Martin Page
-M.P.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
President Obama wrote an autobiography. Biographies have been written about him. His policies are clearly outlined on whitehouse.gov and barackobama.com. All you have to do to learn about President Obama is to read, Lou.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
President Obama worked as a State Senator and taught law at Chicago University. Michelle was also a lawyer. President Obama also made a lot of money on speaking engagements after the 2004 Democratic National Convention, at which he gave a moving key-not address. President Obama worked hard and fulfilled the American dream.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
President Obama spent his High School years going to Punahou Academy in Hawaii. The teenage years are often the most formative.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
So what?
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
See my earlier post comparing the military judgement of John McCain and Barack Obama.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
Not humble? He is more above-the-fray than anyone in politics. He stayed out of the trenches. He doesn't attack others on unfair ground. He is always polite, especially during the debates of the 2008 election. He is humble in dealing with other countries- he reached out to Iran.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
President Obama was in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. Obama was a member there. But he said that he disagreed with what Wright preached. As for the terrorist William Ayers, Obama sat on a board with him. The President never said that he agreed with what Ayers did or preached.
-Martin Page
Friday, June 5, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Last Friday while watching a clip of The Rachel Maddow Show, I heard the story of Lieutenant Dan Choi, who was discharged from the military because he announced on Maddow’s show that he was gay. I heard the story of how, after hearing Lt. Choi was gay, members of Choi’s unit approached him and told him that they didn’t care about his sexual orientation and that they still respected him. How can we, as a country founded based on the premised that all men are created equal, still discriminate against non-heterosexuals as our military and government do? How can the United States army and the Congress who passed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” institutions which are supposed to fight for our ideals of equality, still allow such a policy?
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy which was implemented by the Clinton administration which states that non-heterosexuals can serve in the army provided that they do not reveal their sexual orientation. Something as simple as Lt. Choi’s revealing his sexual orientation qualifies as “homosexual conduct,” which leads to discharge from the army. This policy not only discriminates against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community, but it also encourages the silence that the LGBT community is hidden in and discourages the LGBT community from serving in the military.
We as a society have come so far in achieving equality, but we have a long way to go. Women and people of color have gained the rights that they desired for so long, yet the LGBT community is still looked down upon by many in the country. Most conservative Christians speak out against gay marriage, and some speak out against homosexuality in general. The Mormon Church spent $8 million for Proposition 8, which repealed the legalization of gay marriage, in California. Society is still afraid of homosexuality, as the country is about split in support and in negation of gay marriage, a split which demonstrates an overall fear of homosexuality. It is not right for the United States government to have a law such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community. Being openly gay as Lt. Choi was does not constitute “homosexual conduct.” Lt. Choi did not bother anyone in his unit with his sexual orientation, and his conduct was no different than that of anyone else in the unit. He did not deserve to be discharged from the army. He was discharged because of his sexual orientation, and that goes against the founding principles of our nation.
Our Federal Government and our military, with the use of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, are encouraging members of the LGBT community to stay silent on their sexuality. Society is extremely cold and it already makes members of the LGBT community so uncomfortable that some of them don’t want to come out about their sexual orientation as it is. The United States government, of all institutions, should not be encouraging such silence among the LGBT community. By saying that those who serve in the military cannot come out about their sexual orientation, encourages members of the LGBT community to stay silent, and this is the last thing that the government should be doing. I am ashamed that my government has such a policy.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is also impractical. The U.S. military has enough trouble recruiting; people are disheartened because of an unnecessary war, and there is no draft. The military should not discriminate against the LGBT community because it discourages service of both heterosexuals and members of the LGBT community. I will not serve in the armed forces until the policy is repealed, and many members of the LGBT don’t want to serve if they cannot be open about their sexuality. If the military wants optimal enrollment, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed.
I do not support the endeavors of our military for numerous reasons, but above all I am ashamed of the U.S. government and military for passing and implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a very discriminatory policy. It is disgraceful for a country which is based on the premise that all men are created equal to pass such a policy. President Obama has promised to repeal the policy, and he must fulfill his promise and take action. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy that goes against the core values of our nation.
-Martin Page
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy which was implemented by the Clinton administration which states that non-heterosexuals can serve in the army provided that they do not reveal their sexual orientation. Something as simple as Lt. Choi’s revealing his sexual orientation qualifies as “homosexual conduct,” which leads to discharge from the army. This policy not only discriminates against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community, but it also encourages the silence that the LGBT community is hidden in and discourages the LGBT community from serving in the military.
We as a society have come so far in achieving equality, but we have a long way to go. Women and people of color have gained the rights that they desired for so long, yet the LGBT community is still looked down upon by many in the country. Most conservative Christians speak out against gay marriage, and some speak out against homosexuality in general. The Mormon Church spent $8 million for Proposition 8, which repealed the legalization of gay marriage, in California. Society is still afraid of homosexuality, as the country is about split in support and in negation of gay marriage, a split which demonstrates an overall fear of homosexuality. It is not right for the United States government to have a law such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which blatantly discriminates against the LGBT community. Being openly gay as Lt. Choi was does not constitute “homosexual conduct.” Lt. Choi did not bother anyone in his unit with his sexual orientation, and his conduct was no different than that of anyone else in the unit. He did not deserve to be discharged from the army. He was discharged because of his sexual orientation, and that goes against the founding principles of our nation.
Our Federal Government and our military, with the use of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, are encouraging members of the LGBT community to stay silent on their sexuality. Society is extremely cold and it already makes members of the LGBT community so uncomfortable that some of them don’t want to come out about their sexual orientation as it is. The United States government, of all institutions, should not be encouraging such silence among the LGBT community. By saying that those who serve in the military cannot come out about their sexual orientation, encourages members of the LGBT community to stay silent, and this is the last thing that the government should be doing. I am ashamed that my government has such a policy.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is also impractical. The U.S. military has enough trouble recruiting; people are disheartened because of an unnecessary war, and there is no draft. The military should not discriminate against the LGBT community because it discourages service of both heterosexuals and members of the LGBT community. I will not serve in the armed forces until the policy is repealed, and many members of the LGBT don’t want to serve if they cannot be open about their sexuality. If the military wants optimal enrollment, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed.
I do not support the endeavors of our military for numerous reasons, but above all I am ashamed of the U.S. government and military for passing and implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a very discriminatory policy. It is disgraceful for a country which is based on the premise that all men are created equal to pass such a policy. President Obama has promised to repeal the policy, and he must fulfill his promise and take action. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a policy that goes against the core values of our nation.
-Martin Page
Friday, March 27, 2009
Protectionism and the Case for Globalization
The global economy is falling apart, and economists and lawmakers alike are searching desperately for solutions. Protectionism and globalization are two approaches to our economic crisis. Complex economics aside, protectionism is the protection of a nation’s domestic industries by stifling foreign competition with tariffs and other means, while globalization is the encouraging of industries to expand and sell across the world. While it was agreed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that globalization is key to getting us out of this crisis, protectionist policies and sentiments are becoming increasingly potent across the globe; Russia is putting tariffs on automobile imports, “buy American” provisions are being proposed for part of the U.S. Stimulus package, and Timothy Geithner and others are accusing China of manipulating its currency. To give a historical example of protectionist policy: In the run-up to the Great Depression, the U.S. begin to put tariffs on outside goods, that is, the government charged a higher “tax” on foreign imports. This was an effort to protect American farmers, but it ended up starting trade wars that led to a 66% decline in World Trade. Protectionist policies will slow down our economy even further by stifling interaction between economies, while globalization will help us solve our economic crisis.
Globalization is one way we can get the global economy working again. Free trade and globalization go hand in hand. With policies that support free trade, we are supporting the free movement of goods between nations. This in turn, believe it or not, leads to more prosperity for everyone. It is better for emerging markets because jobs are being brought to their countries, but it also helps economic powerhouses such as the U.S. because American companies are making profits overseas as well as at home. These profits lead to higher wages for American workers and more employment in America. With more people employed and being paid more, more money is flowing through our economy via consumer spending. This spending will help stimulate our economy.
But Globalization has another unique effect; if companies have branches all across the globe, governments are forced to work together. This allows us to have a truly global economy, one that brings countries together to help prevent and deal with economic recessions and depressions. We are already a global economy, full of companies that have globalized and of countries that are working together. We have the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, two international organizations the help facilitate economic growth among nations. Nevertheless, protectionism is rising and is threatening our global economy.
The most obvious example of the negative effects of protectionism is it can cause trade wars. Protectionist policies wouldn’t be a threat if they were isolated, but if one country implements protectionist policies so will another. This is a trade war, and these “wars” halt trade. A lack of trade can have devastating effects. An example would be if Canada, from whom we get 25% of our oil, stopped selling oil to the U.S. if the U.S. decided that all steel for the infrastructure projects in the economic stimulus package on the Senate floor right now had to be made in America. Fuel prices would shoot up drastically and slow consumer spending, slowing down our economy. The goal of “buy American” provisions such as this is to create jobs in America, but in the long run, these policies hurt our economy.
Many in favor of protectionist policies such as “buy American” say it will help the American economy because it will facilitate job growth. Proponents claim that if more American steel were bought, there would be more jobs in America. But if America were to stop buying Canadian steel and Canada retaliated (as they have threatened to do) by not selling key resources to the U.S. and not buying American goods because of such as provision, the American economy would feel much more pain. American companies lose nearly all profits from Canadian sales, so they would have less money to employ American workers. They also wouldn’t have the money to produce goods for America, therefore causing a shortage of goods. Small businesses, which form the foundation of the economy, would not be stimulated due to less spending caused by low wages and high unemployment. Low wages and high unemployment can be attributed to the Canadian boycott of our goods.
The negatives of protectionism outweigh its positives, while with globalization the exact opposite is true. The U.S. can’t pass “buy American” provisions because the U.S. risks starting a trade war which would lead to a reduction in trade. This reduction would never be good for a supposedly global economy because in a global economy it is vital that economies are working together for greater prosperity for all. We see from the Great Depression what protectionism can do, and since this global economy is currently deep in recession and could be on the verge of depression, protectionist policies that will dig us deeper into this hole cannot be encouraged. Instead the U.S. along with other nations must encourage free trade and globalization. When economies are working together and trade is happening, people are working and spending, and our economy is working like a well-oiled machine again.
-Martin Page
Globalization is one way we can get the global economy working again. Free trade and globalization go hand in hand. With policies that support free trade, we are supporting the free movement of goods between nations. This in turn, believe it or not, leads to more prosperity for everyone. It is better for emerging markets because jobs are being brought to their countries, but it also helps economic powerhouses such as the U.S. because American companies are making profits overseas as well as at home. These profits lead to higher wages for American workers and more employment in America. With more people employed and being paid more, more money is flowing through our economy via consumer spending. This spending will help stimulate our economy.
But Globalization has another unique effect; if companies have branches all across the globe, governments are forced to work together. This allows us to have a truly global economy, one that brings countries together to help prevent and deal with economic recessions and depressions. We are already a global economy, full of companies that have globalized and of countries that are working together. We have the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, two international organizations the help facilitate economic growth among nations. Nevertheless, protectionism is rising and is threatening our global economy.
The most obvious example of the negative effects of protectionism is it can cause trade wars. Protectionist policies wouldn’t be a threat if they were isolated, but if one country implements protectionist policies so will another. This is a trade war, and these “wars” halt trade. A lack of trade can have devastating effects. An example would be if Canada, from whom we get 25% of our oil, stopped selling oil to the U.S. if the U.S. decided that all steel for the infrastructure projects in the economic stimulus package on the Senate floor right now had to be made in America. Fuel prices would shoot up drastically and slow consumer spending, slowing down our economy. The goal of “buy American” provisions such as this is to create jobs in America, but in the long run, these policies hurt our economy.
Many in favor of protectionist policies such as “buy American” say it will help the American economy because it will facilitate job growth. Proponents claim that if more American steel were bought, there would be more jobs in America. But if America were to stop buying Canadian steel and Canada retaliated (as they have threatened to do) by not selling key resources to the U.S. and not buying American goods because of such as provision, the American economy would feel much more pain. American companies lose nearly all profits from Canadian sales, so they would have less money to employ American workers. They also wouldn’t have the money to produce goods for America, therefore causing a shortage of goods. Small businesses, which form the foundation of the economy, would not be stimulated due to less spending caused by low wages and high unemployment. Low wages and high unemployment can be attributed to the Canadian boycott of our goods.
The negatives of protectionism outweigh its positives, while with globalization the exact opposite is true. The U.S. can’t pass “buy American” provisions because the U.S. risks starting a trade war which would lead to a reduction in trade. This reduction would never be good for a supposedly global economy because in a global economy it is vital that economies are working together for greater prosperity for all. We see from the Great Depression what protectionism can do, and since this global economy is currently deep in recession and could be on the verge of depression, protectionist policies that will dig us deeper into this hole cannot be encouraged. Instead the U.S. along with other nations must encourage free trade and globalization. When economies are working together and trade is happening, people are working and spending, and our economy is working like a well-oiled machine again.
-Martin Page
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hill Yeah!
Last night Hillary Clinton, to say the least, did what she needed to do. I think she did the best she could to rally her supporters behind Barack Obama. Hillary's speech had Bill Clinton, along with so many others, in tears. Many people wonder if she meant what she said up there on that podium, if she really does want Senator Obama to win. All I have to say to those people is this: I don't know anyone who could fake a smile like that. Hillary was truly happy to be there and truly does want Barack Obama in the White House.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was confident that Hillary would do what she needed to do. I am a little more skeptical about Bubba (Bill Clinton) who is slated to speak tonight. It may be a good idea for him to repent a little bit, saying something like, "I have said some stupid things during this campaign, but that was the past. We don't have the time to think about the past or talk about the past. But we desperately need Barack Obama in the White House so we can fix the mistakes of the past." Bill cannot afford to make any blunders tonight; he has made enough this year. Bubba needs to make sure that his support for Barack Obama comes accross as genuine. Knowing him, we don't know what he'll say. But if for no better reason than your own reputation Bill, don't say anything stupid.
-Martin Page
Photograph Courtesy of Newsday
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Senator McCain's Latest Hypocritical Ad
Senator John McCain has recently released a suprisingly positive political ad (I didn't know he knew how). In it one of the creepy narrators McCain has hired (some of them actually scare me) says three questionable quotes.
1. "We're worse of than we were four years ago."
You're right, but I don't think this helps your cause. This is because of Bush, who you support, and among other things the war, which you support. This is what we call a gaffe.
2. "Only McCain has fought corruption in both parties."
Maybe you have Senator, I don't know. But practice what you preach. You have 29 oil lobbyists in your campaign. You have taken $1.3 million in campaign contributions from big oil and promised $3.8 billion in tax cuts to the top 5 oil scam artist organizations (I mean companies).
3. "He'll battle big oil."
You make me laugh! Along with the facts above you oppose a windfall profits tax. You'll fight big oil Senator. Just like George W. Bush will sometime recover from his stupidity and admit he was wrong in invading Iraq. You won't battle big oil, Senator. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this: stop lying to me.
View the Progressive Accountatbility Video that Lays Out These Facts
View the McCain Ad: "Broken"
1. "We're worse of than we were four years ago."
You're right, but I don't think this helps your cause. This is because of Bush, who you support, and among other things the war, which you support. This is what we call a gaffe.
2. "Only McCain has fought corruption in both parties."
Maybe you have Senator, I don't know. But practice what you preach. You have 29 oil lobbyists in your campaign. You have taken $1.3 million in campaign contributions from big oil and promised $3.8 billion in tax cuts to the top 5 oil scam artist organizations (I mean companies).
3. "He'll battle big oil."
You make me laugh! Along with the facts above you oppose a windfall profits tax. You'll fight big oil Senator. Just like George W. Bush will sometime recover from his stupidity and admit he was wrong in invading Iraq. You won't battle big oil, Senator. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this: stop lying to me.
View the Progressive Accountatbility Video that Lays Out These Facts
View the McCain Ad: "Broken"
Source: Progressive Accountability Video, McCain Ad: "Broken"
-Martin Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)