Yes, Enough is Enough!

When reading my classmates blog “The Cake is a Lie” I found the latest entry “Enough is Enough” quite insightful and entertaining. The main theme of the entry is regarding the constant bickering done amongst politicians. I agree that it is no longer a gentleman’s/woman’s arena but has become one of sensationalism and shock factor in a means to be recognized and heard. I felt strongly on this point of view because it is a trend I see throughout all media sources these days. Even when I watch ESPN these days there is an extremely popular show called “First Take”. For a full two hours sports journalists, bicker, yell, scream, and make extreme accusations and statements as their forum of discussion. It is the point that I cannot bear to watch and have lost respect for these “journalists” because they are not making well thought out statements but using loud voices and far-fetched accusations to become recognized. Now this is a sports channel so I can cut them some slack, when it comes to our Politicians representing us they need to keep it together and rise above the nonsense.

Again as mentioned in “Enough is Enough” represent us as a people with class and dignity. Spend less time on the non-issues and attack the matters of importance. “How much time (aka money) was wasted on these topics while jobs were being lost and economy was declining? This causes me actual fear. Although, I’m sure that for every “State Question” being decided there are hundreds of other necessary issues being discussed and problems being solved. Right?” 

Obviously I agree with the stance and would love to see nothing more than for this to happen but I also understand the reality that no politician would ever get elected if they only focused on important matters and spent less time on popularity. As funny as that sounds it is the truth and the world we live in. So in conclusion I stand behind my classmates rant and hope that our leaders and politicians can find a common ground between the bickering and taking care of business!

Obamacare vs. Romneycare

As we gain momentum towards the coming presidential election one of the main topics is the state of America’s healthcare. If you follow politics you are well aware of the Affordable Healthcare Act a.k.a. Obamacare. This proposed law is currently under review by the US Supreme Court. What no one seems to be talking about is what the Republican Party is proposing to reform or improve America’s healthcare.

First let’s review the proposed changes to our current healthcare system under Obama’s Affordable HealthCare Act:

• Prohibiting health insurers from refusing coverage based on patients' medical histories
• Prohibiting health insurers from charging different rates based on patients' medical histories or gender
• Repeal of insurance companies' exemption from anti-trust laws
• Establishing minimum standards for qualified health benefit plans
• Requiring most employers to provide coverage for their workers or pay a surtax on the workers wage up to 8%
• Restrictions on abortion coverage in any insurance plans for which federal funds are used
• An expansion of Medicaid to include more low-income Americans by increasing Medicaid eligibility limits to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and by covering adults without dependents as long as either or any segment doesn't fall under the narrow exceptions outlined by various clauses throughout the proposal.
• A subsidy to low- and middle-income Americans to help buy insurance
• A central health insurance exchange where the public can compare policies and rates
• Allowing insurers to continue to dictate limits on evaluation and care provided consumers by their physicians ("managed" or "rationed" care)
• Avoidance of captivating or regulating premiums which are routinely and in accordance with this law, charged by an insurance company for coverage, which might make the coverage non-affordable vis-a-vis a consumer's income
• Requiring most Americans to carry or obtain qualifying health insurance coverage or face a fine and/or prison term for felony non-compliance.
• A 5.4% surtax on individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000 ($1 million for married couples filing joint returns)
• A 2.5% excise tax on medical devices
• Reductions in projected spending on Medicare of $400 billion over a ten-year period
• inclusion of language originally proposed in the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act
• Inclusion of language originally proposed in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009.
• Imposing a $2,500 limit on contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs), which allow for payment of health costs with pre-tax funds, to pay for a portion of health care reform costs.

 Now that you have a clear understanding of the Affordable Care Acts proposed changes let’s look at what Mitt Romney is proposing. The main change is how Americans will receive their healthcare at work. Currently employed Americans (whose employer offers health insurance) get a tax break because the health benefits are not taxed. Likewise the employers (businesses) that offer this healthcare to their employees receive a tax break as well because their contributions to the healthcare plan are not taxed. Under Romney’s proposal American citizens would receive a tax break to purchase their own independent health insurance. Proponents of this plan say that this will bring the benefits of competition back to healthcare and give consumers more choices. People would be able to purchase what they want and not just what their employers want to provide. Another good point from proponents is the fact that our current system discriminates against those seeking health insurance that do not work or are not provided health insurance by their employer. Critics believe this would involve more risk for people and leave a large amount of Americans without health insurance.

Although we do not have the details on “Romneycare” as we do with Obamacare (Romney has only given outlines of the plan compared to the written law proposed by Obama) the main changes are as stated: receiving a tax break to purchase health insurance individually (outside of your employer); provide strong incentives for companies to not offer insurance to employees; reform the current healthcare law’s by changing the tax laws and bringing free-market competition to our healthcare system. If the Affordable Healthcare Act is shut down and Romney is elected I would not be surprised to also see some of the more popular aspects of this law incorporated into Romney’s plan.

As an Obama supporter I must say I am intrigued by Romney’s ideas. I believe in the Conservative view that the tax law needs to be revised to bring competition to the healthcare system and this is essential if you are going to achieve any kind of healthcare reform. As with any market, competition will provide more beneficial options and pricing on health insurance for the consumer. 

Education and America

As I read my colleagues most recent blog entries “The Crisis of Education in America” stood out as an interesting topic to me. Nothing grabs my attention more that true hard numbers and those were provided in this blog entry. Anyone can write conjecture on a topic but when backed up by numbers there is truth and fact. As I finish up my degree I am on the tail end of my educational journey but as a father of two children just starting school this is an extremely important topic to me.

As pointed out in the blog, “a college degree is necessary, and translates into greater success and higher pay over a person’s lifetime.” Nothing could be truer in today’s world. Not only is it necessary but if you follow the trends of the business world it is going to be even more important for our children. For example, 20 years ago you would find far more individuals with high paying jobs that do not have a degree. Today those same individuals will now not even get the opportunity to get in the door for an interview. Without a degree they will have the door shut on them regardless of their expertise and experience.

Backing up just a bit before attempting to complete a college degree we start at Kindergarten and Elementary school. As mentioned in the blog, “We must begin to bring greater focus on how to better prepare the next generation for success. We must increase k-12 education spending and hold educators accountable for where their students should be.” This is also a great point because I truly believe that when your education starts with great teachers you develop better skills early on, are more educated early on, and therefore more apt to succeed and excel throughout the years in school and of course afterward. Also, notice the mention of holding educators accountable. As a nation, let’s invest in education, make sure we are employing good teachers and keep them educating America’s youth. Having employees that are unvalued or unqualified and possibly just moving children through the system is a terrible scenario.

The bigger picture aspect of this argument is the future of our children in America’s workplace. As I mentioned in one of my previous blog’s, “What is happening to our Middle Class?”, due to an exceptionally efficient global marketplace, people holding Middle Class jobs are already paying the price. Without a college degree you will be staring right at a Middle Class job. When our children are old enough for employment these jobs will be even sparser and low paying. What this tells me is that the value of a higher education continues to trend as even more important moving forward. Improving education is vital to the future of an individual but also will be vital to our society as a whole.

Is the mandate in the Affordable Care Act necessary? Is it Constitutional?

As we all know, the constitutionality of this law is being discussed right now in the Supreme Court. Really, it’s not the constitutionality of the law but of the mandate in the law requiring every citizen to purchase Healthcare. Now at first glance this mandate does seem heavy handed and intrusive but on the other hand would we feel the same way if this was introduced as a social insurance program like Social Security. We are all mandated to pay into this yet the constitutionality of this program is not in question. Ask yourself the following: What is more important, your health or retirement? Now for me personally that is an easy answer. Without my health what good is retirement funding going to be. I believe the law is within the framework of our Constitution even though I do not think it will pass and I do not like the idea of being forced to pay anything. What I think is important to touch on is that if the law passes the mandate is necessary, this law cannot be “salvaged” by trying to piece the remains together without the mandate.

There is now way around getting the benefits of this law without the mandate. Without the insurance providers getting the extra exposure of clients buying in, it is impossible to receive benefits such as banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions or keeping your kids on your plan for a longer duration. Simply put, insurance companies need more people buying insurance to balance the cost of providing these new benefits. Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at MIT, who advised both Massachusetts and the Obama administration on their respective healthcare bills, told the New York Times in 2011: “The mandate is the spinach you need to get the chocolate you want.” I’ve seen arguments about trying to salvage the law without the mandate but do not believe that is a viable option. If this was the case, individuals could take advantage of the system by not purchasing insurance until they were sick. This will result in an extreme drain on insurance plan funding and then drive up costs for everyone else which of course is one value and benefit of the reform the law is trying to resolve.

The Constitutionality of the law is definitely in question and I will leave that up to the Supreme Court Justices. There are limitless tangents I can touch on regarding this based on previous court rulings, interstate commerce, the 10^th Amendment or will this open up Government for even more power that could or could not be abused or mismanaged. The “Broccoli Argument” – if our government can make us pay for Health Insurance can it make me buy broccoli?

Based on my research and findings mentioned earlier, my argument is that this law is a package deal. We take it all with the mandate or we take none of it. 

Left vs. Limbaugh

When I initially heard about Rush Limbaugh’s comments directed at Sandra Fluke I was shocked. In this day and age to hear a supposedly educated person attack an individual and ongoing argument about government funded contraception with such rude, tasteless, ignorant, close minded, vulgar comments honestly scared me. Are we regressing in our social interaction and communication to just be as aggressive and controversial as possible to be heard? Believe me Rush Limbaugh makes me extremely proud to be a Liberal and as far removed from his thoughts and belief’s as possible. The thought that a segment of our society is saying, “Yeah Rush, you tell em,” is the scariest part of the big picture regarding the scope of his influence on the conservative voice. The more we learn about politics the more we realize it is two sides spinning each and every word from a topic into a fabric that bends the truth of the statements into a means of helping either sides cause. For example, let’s look at what Rush Limbaugh attempted to do as explained by Jon Stewart. "What is even going through Rush Limbaugh's fevered mind to get from 'young woman trying to get private institution to cover contraception' to 'prostitution, slut, having constant sexy-sex on my dime?" declared The Daily Show host, attempting to deconstruct the conservative radio host's reasoning. In my opinion nothing scares me more than close minded people. Now also “in my opinion” Jon Stewart is an open minded, smart individual who clearly see’s the absurdity in Limbaugh’s actions. Stewart continued: "He seems to believe that anyone using contraception is automatically having ... a TON OF SEX! And that contraception is something a woman has to pay for every time she has sex! And that the woman is nevertheless benefitting financially from all that dirty, contraceptive-fueled, dirty sex!" Now to keep from going insane listening to comments like this from Limbaugh I have to deduce that he (and most conservatives) do not really think this way and this is purely him doing everything possible to get a conservative elected. To believe anything else would be the realization that I live in a society that despite progressing in age and years has experienced zero growth or progression in people’s rights, discrimination, etc. and I do not want to believe that. 

So with this going on I decided to read a blog on the right side of things. I came across Michelle Malkin’s blog touching on this very topic. Now if I were a conservative stance woman I would be extremely upset with Limbaugh’s comments. He simply attacked women and their rights (in an extremely cave man & ignorant vain) and tried to put a political spin on it. Malkin chose to try and spin her take on this issue targeting our President after he decided to call Fluke regarding this issue. That’s when she then wrote this blog entry calling out Obama for making the call to Fluke for political gain. Really??? You are going to take on this topic and try to spin it against Obama? If anything I would hope to see you take a stance for women in general, shunning Limbaugh’s comments and taking your own stance on this topic in your blog. Instead, this is what we get: “But it’s ok. Conservative women don’t need coddling phone calls from Obama. We just need him to get out of the White House and out of our lives.” Ok, then how about a call from Rush Limbaugh to conservative women next time you need a voice on an issue. Better be careful what you wish for. I am ok with Obama’s decision to call Fluke in what is a very high interest topic that resulted in a verbal attack on her personally. If political gain was achieved then great, the left did not start the mudslinging. Contraception does not equal promiscuity it equals safety and responsibility. Malkin in my opinion failed in this post. Politics out of the equation how can you respect attacking the President’s action as self-serving when your conservative voice (Limbaugh) is clearly in the wrong in so many ways on this one. 

What is Happening to our Middle Class?

In the New York Times opinion peace, “Is This the End of Market Democracy?” author Thomas B. Edsall presents an incredibly interesting point about our current and future state of economy based on the market, technology, globalization, and the dwindling of our middle class.  Quite refreshing in this piece is the fact that it is not hiding a left or right wing agenda but presenting the case to both parties and to all of us as a whole. Both Democratic and Republican positions are stated (Democratic: Investing in things like education that gives everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. Republican: Denouncing the expansion of a Democratic “entitlement society” and what they see as a trend toward European social democracy. They are calling for sharply reduced taxes, regulation and government spending to free market forces and revive private sector economic growth.)

The major point Edsall is focused on is that our classes are continuing to divide and how this affects our economy.  As Edsall also points out, there is not a resolution in place and we are at a crossroads and I firmly believe he is correct. Emerging economies are producing goods at lower a cost which positively affects the cost of our consumer goods but negatively affects the US working middle class that used to have these manufacturing jobs. Technological innovation and globalization leads to a polarization of labor demand in rich countries increasing the need for upper level jobs and eliminating middle skill jobs. This globalization at first opened the doors to trade and growth for our economy and workforce but now is negatively impacting us because the global market and automation has resulted in lower cost labor and goods outside of our country.

As each end of the spectrum grows the rich become richer and their political influence continues to expand. With this happening can our Democratic Free Market Capitalism provide what is needed for the broad spectrum of classes in our country? Edsall presents the argument that with the affluent class growing and expanding its political reach and power their political influence is too strong and inequality is then out of balance. Most interesting is the statement that employment problems in America do not result from market failure but just the opposite. Our problems arise from the exceptionally efficient global marketplace that has evolved and those holding mid-skill jobs are paying the price.

Edsall does present some possible solutions in his piece that we can moderate the trend of inequality. With increased job training, more employee leverage in wage bargaining, infrastructure spending, progressive taxation, and expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor which could potentially produce a vibrant Market Economy with a strong role for government generated shared prosperity. I neither agree nor disagree that this will provide a solution. That is for the economic experts to figure out. What I do agree with is the fact that this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I have not heard our Presidential candidates address this thus far and it is of mention that Edsall believes that this has been avoided because as important as it is, the political costs of engagement are likely to far outweigh any potential gains. Despite this observation this will have to be addressed so be ready for it because it is going to be fun to see how our Politicians try to handle this one. 

Wall of separation between church and state

We have all heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” This phrase is not included in our Constitution, however the First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In our American history Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, the original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." This has been used in Supreme Court cases dating back to 1878.

Why is this relevant in our current events? Because today there is a new battle between Church and State in the form of Obamacare vs. The Catholic Church. It is a requirement of Obamacare that every Catholic Institution larger than a single church MUST pay for “preventative health services” which means: contraceptives, sterilization, and morning after abortifacients for its employees. The issue at hand is that all of these are in direct contradiction to the Catholic faith. To quell the uproar at the time of this information being released there was a question on interpretation of the wording of the law. The term “preventative health services” was open for interpretation. As I outlined in the requirements above we now know exactly what it meant and of course so now does the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was still holding out hope on the final definition of the law when the President told them that when the final version of the law was release, all fears would be allayed. To their dismay, all that was changed was the deadline for their conformity being delayed until August 2013.

As Obama’s approval rating has been climbing, job creation steadily increasing and the economy improving this will be an interesting issue to watch as the election nears. Of course without mentioning it at the summary of my last paragraph, I’m sure you all chuckled at the new delay date issued. Not any political implications being address here right? In my opinion Obama has done several positive things while in office: Dodd-Frank; Affordable Care Act; Repeal of Don’t ask Don’t tell;  Osama bin Laden and countless other terrorist figureheads-dead; 85% or TARP paid back; Tax cuts extended; Withdrawal from Iraq; stock market recovery.  The timing of this conflict with the Catholic Church is quite interesting and not the best for Obama. The President must and will have to address this thoroughly as he vies for re-election.