The Obama Healthcare Reforms

Obama Backs Healthcare Reform

This website is supportive of Obama's healthcare reforms, and suggests that all American people having access to some form of healthcare is a good thing. It helps to put some figures and facts forward, arguing that the healthcare reforms would be beneficial to the American public and lower the average person's cost of healthcare. It also discusses some of the other factors involved, for example, Obama's plan for business emplyers to offer all their staff health cover as standard. It also praises Obama's appointment of Tom Daschle as the leader of the White House Office of Health Reform.


This article from the Washington Post suggests that while healthcare reform in general isn't a bad thing, the way that Obama has planned to do it is not the right way forward. The author of this article argues that the aims of the plan are not realistic, and it will not succeed. He believes that increased taxing on the high-income band of people would significantly change the behaviour of these individuals so that their taxable income would shrink, thus resulting in a decrease of revenue for the Government. This means that the increased cost would then pass to the middle-class.

He also argues that if the proposed plan goes forward, then research into medical science will be discouraged because it would mean a higher cost for the Government, and while everybody may want healthcare to be cheaper, I'm sure everybody also wants healthcare to carry on becoming more and more technologically advanced.

Health Care

Article that explains the benefits of healthcare.

This article comes from the Opinion section of the New York Times online. Reading this only makes me wonder even more why people in the US are so scared of having a socialized form of health care. As the author is saying, having a national health care will not only be beneficial to the people who don't have insurance, but it will also be beneficial to people that have it. The Obama health care plan not only wants to provide people that don't have insurance with health care, but it also wants to prevent the abuses of the big insurance companies, thus offering better security and stability for the people who are covered and pay. Obama aims to stabilize the health cost and try to lower down the amounts that private insurance companies make their customers pay. And by using the money more efficiently, like the bill plans to, money will be saved, something quite positive in these days of recession. Insurance companies will finally be exposed and won't be able to scam people anymore !! Unfortunately, it seems that only a few americans have read the proposal (I'm sure they just like to moan and protest but haven't exactly read what they are fighting against ...).

Reading this article made me happy and angry at the same time. Happy because it proves that some people know what is going about and by writing about the facts (the facts of the bill, after that we never know what will happen, we can only assume) other people can read about that and be informed correctly. This made me angry, because even though some people are sensible enough to understand the immense benefits that this health care reform would bring to America, a lot of people still think that the government is working against them and will make them pay and take away their liberty by imposing which practician you will have to see (which is untrue, but again a lot of people just listen to Glenn Beck and others and take their word as the truth). Well ... now we are off to the second website.

Arguments against the Obama Plan.

This article from the Washington Post interviewing Megan McArdle (Megan is a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly blog, there is a little intro about her and what she writes about and used to write about). Now, Megan McArdle is not against health care per se, but she does not agree with Obama's health care plan and says that it isn't going to change much on the situation. She agrees that the current health care system is flawed, but argues that it is not as flawed as some might believe. She argues that not that many people are uninsured and that anyway, most uninsured are illegal immigrants and that the Obama reform won't take care of them, so that situation won't change.

And when confronted to the question of fairness (is it fair that not everyone has access to health care and is it fair that some people will have to pay so that other people that are not taking proper care of themselves so that they can have medical attention), she just argued that the system is never fair.

She is against Obama's health care plan as she sees it as bad for the economy and using money that could be injected elsewhere in society. But she does admit that health care in America is very expensive and that they do spend more money on it than other countries, but her explanation of that spending is that America is richer than other countries, thus it can spend more money on health care.

This woman seems very intelligent and cultivated, yet sometimes her arguments were a bit ... unsatisfying ? And her argument about the expenses in comparison to other countries is just sad and ridiculous. Because frankly, it doesn't mean anything !! Her arguments definitely did not convince me into thinking that the health care reform was a bad thing, but at least she seemed to be using coherent arguments (most of the time, not for all the questions) to back up her position and her position is not in favor of the current health care (though she's not completely against it), she just doesn't think that what Obama is proposing is the solution America needs. The journalist interviewing her made me smile, as it was definitely someone that had a very poor opinion of the current health care system. I was loosing faith in Americans when it came to questioning the health care system, but now I have faith again. People out there write about it, have a real opinion about it and can deliver actual, real arguments.

Week 9 Tutorial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8160058.stm

This is a useful web page for reviewing the general summary of the health care reform package and associated issues.
It contains facts, comment and some relevant blogs on the debate. Worth reading through the details.
On Wednesday, one task for us to consider is the presentations for Week 10 - who does what etc. Give it some thought before we meet.
Good wishes,
John.

Healthcare reforms

http://www.healhealthcarenow.org/
This first website supports the healthcare reforms. It is made by healhealthcarenow.org which supports 450,000 doctors. The message from the video is that the reforms will focus much more on preventative medicine – keeping Americans healthy instead of waiting until they are sick and then trying to make them better. The doctors who speak are clear that this is an important issue, along with ensuring that it is easier to get health insurance for everybody.
http://www.cprights.org/
The second website is Conservatives for Patients Rights. The man behind this is Rick Scott, a former hospital CEO who lost his job following a major scandal involving fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. This website has interviews with English and Canadian patients who don’t like their government run health systems. It is hardly surprising to find this view from an organisation so deeply involved with the current healthcare system. These are the people who have the most to lose from the healthcare reforms.
It is difficult to be impartial in this issue - the NHS isnt perfect! Despite that, the first website with its sensible, logical arguments was more convincing. It is clear that preventative treatment would go a long way to improving the general health of Americans and the reforms may remove some of the stranglehold of the insurance companies.

Anti and Pro Obama Health Care plan

My first article 'Obama's health-care plan: What it means for you' addresses the issues of Obama's new health care plan.
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/health-care/obamas-health-care-plan-what-it-means-for-you/
The article predominantly addresses the financial reasons for opposing Obama's plan and how it will be the 'consumers who end up paying the price' for treatment. The focus is very much from the perspespectives of the doctors and health-care providers and how lower pay towards hospitals as a result of Obama's plan will eventually lead to very few hospitals being able to provide treatment for patients. As a result those patients will have to travel further to find the next available hospital.
Although the article is persuasive in the way it addresses the reader directly hence the use of 'you'; it is rather limited in its perspective and doesn't admit the problems in the health-care system prior to the plans and neither does it suggest a better alternative.

My next article is pro Obama health care plan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html
It emphasizes on why 'Obama's Health plan is better'. It lists 5 ways in which Obama's plan will lead to a 'more efficient medical system'. 1. Learning. For better quality treatment. 2. Rewarding. For doctors based on the help they give to patients. 3. Pooling. 4. Preventing. Freer access to preventive services maintaining health and saving money. 5. Covering. Lowering health care costs making insurance affordable.
Although the article is predominantly democratic in continually attacking John McCain being a 'prior to the election' article. It is convincing in highlighting the potential for health care improvement.

anti obama pro obama - the healthcare issue

http://www.antiobama.net/health_care/

wow the person who is in charge of this website is very anti-Obama. The site sells socialist stickers with Obamas face as the joker. The argument is extremely one sided, obviously, however, it doesnt seem to recognise the failures of their system. Within the article the author states that maybe they should just move to Canada, but o wait that has a universal healthcare program thats a mess. one of the main arguments against the healthcare bill is the increase in taxes on those who earn more than $200,000 per annum. for a country that was created out of the debate over taxes, the increase in taxes would push many over the limit. as it seems to be doing here. however, what the site does not seem to comprehend is the figures of those not treated properly because of the privatisation of health insurance. insurance is for profit.

on the pro obama healthcare side is http://www.healthinsurancerates.com/6-why-barack-obamas-health-care-plan-will-work.html
it seems to be a website that shows more of the facts behind the politics in a way that is easier for the common people to understand.
It explains that private coverage is still allowed, but there is a coverage that allows all to be treated beyond emergency treatment. children especially.

He's Barack Obama

I found a video on youtube and sent it to Alasdair and he told me it would be a good idea to post it on the blog. On Monday, we watched a couple of videos that reflected the way Americans viewed Obama (including Glenn Beck's view of Obama ...). This video is a satire of the way some people see Obama and his role as a president, depicting
him as some kind of superhero who could save the world when, in fact, he is only a man and a president with restricted power.

Glenn Beck on Healthcare

Glenn Beck is of the opinion that the new healthcare reforms are a very bad idea, and that the best thing for America is to continue with the private healthcare system it's had in the past.



In this video clip he talks about the healthcare system in Norway, and how he believes it doesn't work. He puts the blame on this healthcare system for the high prices of petrol, alcohol and new cars in Norway, and asks his listeners whether they would rather pay for each one-off trip to the doctors, or pay $20,000 more for a new car.


However, in this next video we get an insight into the mind of Glenn Beck when he is pressured on his views from a listener.



After listening to this, I find it hard to understand how he has become one of the country's leading political pundits on todays important topics, and how so many people like him.

For more of Glenn Beck's views on todays important political topics, and links to some of his interviews etc, his website is The Glenn Beck Program

Glenn Beck and extremism

Glenn Beck, has, unfortunately, a youtube channel (meaning more people can have access to his ideas). This is however useful when seeking to find his point of view on certain matters. I was browsing through his channel and found a short video called "When is an extremist not an extremist ?" and I watched it and decided to do my post on this. I know that the subject of the blog post was supposed to be about a current political affair, but tea-baggers (they need a new name !) and extremism was still interesting, I hope I don't go too far away from the political scene.

Tea-baggers, as they call themselves, are very much against Obama and feel that he is robbing them from their freedom. Their name is quite evocative of their ideas, in my opinion. Even though they are not a political issue per se, they are still on the political scene for the moment. And the video is not so much about them but about who is called extremist in the Country. Indeed, Glenn Beck jumps at Obama's throat accusing him to call simple protestors extremists whilst not labeling Hasan, murderer of 13 people, with such a term.

Glenn Beck, I am sure of it, would jump on any occasion to criticize Obama and this was just another excuse ! He also manages to mention the gun situation in his 4 minutes of talk. Now, it may be my way of seeing things, but in his mention of guns, I could clearly hear him just pointing out the fact that Obama wants more gun control and that it is a bad thing for which we must be against him.

Link to the video

Jon Stewart on healthcare

Stewart is the host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central. He interviewed Bill Kristol, a conservative pundit on the subject of healthcare. Kristol was quite clearly against government involvement in healthcare but went on to say that the military healthcare system, which is government-run, was a great system but too good for the American public. Stewart quite easily backs Kristol into a corner and it was funny watching Kristol try to turn things back around – unfortunately by this point it is too late and he comes across as confused and unsure of what he really thinks.
Stewart uses comedy to bring important issues to the American public in an accessible way, poking fun of politicians and the media. Whilst his show is for entertainment, Stewart and the Daily Show have been nominated for news and journalism awards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

CNN's Immigration problem - Is Dobbs the exception or the rule?

I chose this article as it identifies older american white male view on immigration.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2867
Lou Dobbs is a radio host and former television presenter for American news programme CNN.
This article raises the issue of Dobbs' ignorance of immigrant rights, as he takes a stance against the mass flow of immigration. The article comments on Dobbs' reference to Mexican immigrants as 'illegal alien smugglers'; identifing the slant in Dobbs' views.
Yet it not only identifies Dobbs as an 'attacker of immigrant rights'; Jack Cafferty (a CNN commentator) is also identified as dismissing immigrant rights; it quotes Jack Cafferty as evidence of his racist viewpoint. From this article I identified the contrasting views of generations; both Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty are white Americans in their 60's, this stems the outcome of their negative views on the consistent flow of immigration, both legal and illegal. It also follows the view that America is consistently changing. There is also a satirical view from Jon Stewart. http://tunnelingin.blogspot.com/2006/04/jon-stewart-on-immigration.html

obama derangement syndrome according to rachel maddow

Rachel Maddow is a 'liberal' host of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. She is not an Obama supporter, which is blatantly obvious when listening to her talk about him.

When Obama won the Nobel prize in October, it was world news. In Maddows show there are clips of what some in the Political world of reporting think of the Obama Nobel Prize. Not only that but she goes on to state that the Nobel Prize is not always awarded to those who succeed. Many of those who received the prize did not, such as President Wilson who came up with the idea for the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles. Both of which did not do the job that was intended of them, especially considering the fact that the United States refused to be a member of the League of Nations. Maddow then goes on to rename the Obama supporting act as Obama Derangement Syndrome, after the Bush Derangement Syndrome that was his predecessor.

The Nobel Peace prize became a political issue when it was given to a President who had not been in office that long at all before he was voted to win. There is huge controversy over the issue, non of which can really be resolved. But now much of the World stares down on Obama to a greater degree, because it doesn't seem that he deserves the prize. Those who believe that Obama deserved the Nobel prize have been labeled as having Obama Derangement Syndrome. They cant possibly be right in the head. Or so it has been put across by Rachel Maddow.

Week 7... more thoughts on guns.......

http://current.com/1k79m4c

A map which confirms the complexity of gun control and gun use in the US - check the website which explains the definitions of the map's key. In virtually every state there is a different  legal context for the use of "arms". A problem for the individual, each State and the Fed. Government.
For still another view on the American scene check this website and look through some of the cartoons -
http://redstatepatriot.com/gun_control/ - pretty extreme.
Yet another over-dramatised and emotional defence of one of the "great freedoms" of America! I find this one of the most difficult and unwelcome aspects of America - the stats. provided by Alasadair in his Monday lecture (on the LEN) illustrate the consequences of the "right to bear arms" - perhaps the wording of a document from the 18th. century needs bringing up to date?
Just a thought! Have a good week and thanks again for your prompt and varied posts and discussion.
John.

Gun Control - The Pro's and Con's

American's have had the right to bear arms for hundreds of years now - since the Bill of Rights was introduced, however in recent years the people who own guns have come under criticism from many. This website lists some of the main arguments for and against gun ownership in America, drawing on the gun control laws we have here in the UK.

Armed Females of America are a group which believe very strongly that the citizens of America should continue to be allowed to own guns, believing that not only is it their "God given right", but it is the only way that they can stay free. This website encourages people to get involved in the fight to keep their weapons and tells people how they can make a difference.

The author of this website wrote ten years ago that it was time to "get rid of the guns" in America. It is a good example of the view that guns cause more problems than they solve.

guns in america

Its written in the Bill of Rights that all Americans have the right to bear arms. So with this right, many families have made the decision to bring their children up in an environment where it is acceptable to have guns and go for a family outing to the shooting range.
I have found one website that is very pro-gun that includes all aspects of the gun culture.
http://gunowners.org is a website that was founded by Senator Richardson.
The website posts all stories about Guns in America as well as having an the opinions of those members in the separate houses when it comes to Guns. Their acceptance of guns is rated from A+ to either and F or not rated.
To those who believe in the cause for guns there is an online shop where Guns of America t-shirts are available for purchase, aswell as a contribution page to help the cause.
All news on the anti gun lobby is reported on the website, including the recent win against Obamacare.
The site is very obviously for those dedicated to enforcing their right to bear arms.
On the other end of the spectrum is the anti-gun lobby. For this I found a website that was very clearly in favour of preventing Gun Violence, as that was indeed their slogan. www.bradycampaign.org . The website shows the facts about gun violence in America in comparison to other countries, underneath the figures there is a large caption stating 'GOD BLESS AMERICA' with a picture of a hand gun painted like the American flag. There is a page showing the reports and studies on guns. The worst page for me to look at was the victims page. The main picture is that of a candle with faint lights behind it. underneath you can make an online tribute written to your lost loved ones. The page was heartbreaking, although i didnt see the victims names, the idea was put across.
The two websites show vastly different ideas. On the one hand, there is the pro-gun website that wants to make America safer by always having the ability to protect the family. Its their right to protect their families, especially when the police probably wont arrive until after the attacker would have left the premises. On the other hand, there is the anti - gun website that is for those who have loved and lost to guns. Those caught in the cross fire of protection. Guns against guns mean death.
Both view points make sense to me, and in the case of the massacres in schools a gun would come in very handy. However, guns wouldnt be needed if no one had them.

Gun control

The first website I have chosen is http://www.largo.org/welcome.html - Lawful And Responsible Gun Owners. Their aim is to show that it is often ordinary, law-abiding citizens who own guns to protect themselves, their motto ‘Good people, doing good things’. There is an interesting section on Child Safety which advocates the Eddie Eagle training programme by the NRA. This aims to educate children on what to do if they find a gun – Stop, Don’t Touch, Leave the area, Tell an adult.
The second website is http://ncgv.org/ - North Carolinians against gun violence. This organisation works to make communities safer by reducing gun violence, enforcing current gun laws and trying to gain support for even stronger controls. The site has some figures regarding gun crime which are quite shocking, such as 1000 people killed by guns in a year in the State.
Whilst I found the LARGO site slightly more convincing as guns seems to be unavoidable in the United States maybe it is better to educate people on how to handle them, the NCGV site makes a strong case for tighter controls.

Anti-gun control and Pro-gun control

My first website: 'Death by Gun Control' focuses on the consequences of not owning a gun.
http://www.romanticlovesecrets.com/Death-By-Gun-Control.html
This highly anti-gun control website lists the different stories of shooting incidents and how those who posessed a gun, managed to restrict the number of deaths in various incidents of armed robbery and attempted murder. It also mentions about the incident in Luby's cafeteria where 22 people were mass murdered, due to not one of them owning a gun. Although the articles' various stories are convincing in the assumption that guns will prevent mass homocides. It doesn't denote the possibility that gun's should not be sold in the first place.
My next chose website 'A Case for Gun Control' addressess the issues of owning guns.
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ZJ5J-GTTL/guns.htm
This Pro-gun control website questions the motives of the 2nd amendment: 'the right of people to keep and bear arms'. It addresses the limitations of this statement both morally in 'the rights to owning a gun....interfering with public safety' and legally in contricting the 'rights' as just the same as owning heavy arms such as 'nuclear missiles'. This website also debates the issue of using a gun in 'self-defence', how it is possible to 'kill a member of the household...than an intruder'. Overall I feel that this 2nd website is more convincing as it offers a balanced argument that doesn't just inform you of a list of examples but gives weighty evidence to back up its point. The article even offers a proposal for rational gun control.

Week 6.

Well done - again! The posts and the discussions were very relevant; perhaps reminders (!) of Alasdair's lecture on Monday - worthwhile just checking through his lecture on the LEN!! There was plenty of important backgound on the notions of an inclusive or exclusive American society.
The reality of a modern, multi-cultural America - a challenge to the earlier dominance of WASP ideology from the 18th. and 19th. centuries - questions whether America is becoming fragmented by minority issues. What unites a nation when there are so many counter cultures and pressure groups? - from witches to Quakers....etc.
The cartoon that I posted "Where the blame lies" was published in 1891; can you recognise the characters, their ethnicity and the political debate of that time? What is the message of the cartoon? Why was it important then? And, does it have any relevance to the present?
Good luck with the essays
John.

Week 6.

Week 6 - what does this say about "minorities? What is the date? Who are the characters?

The Quakers in North America

For this weeks blog task I have chosen to study the history and views of the Religious Society of Friends in North America, or as they are more commonly known, the Quakers.

This website gives us a history of Quakerism, and how they first came to settle in North America. After being persecuted throughout Europe, the first record of them coming to America is the arrival of Mary Fisher and Ann Austin at Boston in 1656. Unfortunately, they were still unwelcome, even here. It was not really until 1681 when William Penn (a Quaker himself) founded the state of Pennsylvania. It soon became a haven not just for Quakers, but for many other religious minorities too.

What is interesting about the Quakers is that even today, as when they first arrived in America, they are still shunned by many. This website tells us more about the Quakers today. For example, it tells us how they differ from many other religions in that they have "No single statement of religious doctrine [which] is accepted by all the overlapping regional bodies of Friends." In the past, Quakers have always been on the cutting edge of change, being the first Christian group in America to completely denounce slavery and for all it's members to free all their slaves. And today, while Quakerism may not be at the forefront of change in the world, it is interesting to me that they are still very liberal in regards to things like homosexuality, having some of the first Christian groups in the world to accept it.

African Americans

Africans were first "imported" in America to work in the plantations of the colonies. In 1619, 19 slaves were brought from Africa to Virginia. In 1790 there were 700,000 slaves in the USA. Everyone knows about slavery in America, or at least everyone knows that there used to be slaves. Slavery led to the Civil War between pro-slavery States and against slavery States.

I found this very interesting website about slavery in Connecticut. Slavery was especially known in the Southern States, not that much on the Northern States, so it is interesting to have a point of view of the story more up north. Here is the link to the website. The website offers a great deal of stories about slavery and videos about different topics surrounding slavery. And it is affiliated to Yale University (one of the Ivy League universities) so it is an academic website.

The second website I found was about the African American representatives in Congress and the importance of race in the eyes of African Americans. This was quite interesting and has a nice bibliography at the end, if anyone wants to know more about the subject. It's interesting to see that Black people do prefer to be represented in Congress by someone Black, even though it is not their only criteria of vote. Let's say that if the representative has good ideas and is black, it's a nice bonus for them.

wiccans in America

Religion in America has always been majoritarilly Christian. When the decennial census in 2000 was published, the main religions were Christian, Islam and Judaism. Under the 'other' category sat a religion that has been gaining supporters fast. Now there is thought to be over 500,000 Wiccans in America alone.
There are many websites on the internet that promote Wicca, however, half of them contain fallacies and are directed at the audience that believes Wicca to be a form of Satanism. The website www.wicca.com holds a historical account as to how Wicca came to be in America in the 1950s and the different sections and beliefs within the religion. Within one of the sublinks is a brief history of where the concept of Wicca came from. There is even an entry within the website that was written by a Christian on what they thought of Wicca and its followers. The website clearly tries to fight against the image of Satanism. It also has links to many Wiccan writers and their works.
A more contemporary website would be www.wiccantogether.com
Its a website where Wiccans can talk together about matters close to their hearts to other witches from other covens. Political matters can be discussed without true fear of intimidation and rejection that some still get. The website has an online shop by link, but the purpose of the site is the connection of witches from around America and the globe.

Women's Rights

Despite making up 51% of the US population, women are still under represented in areas such as government and senior management in business. Although women gained the right to vote in 1920, this was still 50 years after African American men were given that right. The first website refers to the convention in Seneca Falls in 1948 where the Declaration of Sentiments as discussed. This document was brought about by women who were unhappy that they could not voice their opinion at an anti-slavery conference. http://www.americanhistory.about.com/od/womenssuffrage/a/senecafalls.htm
The 2nd website is the YWCA website whose ideal is to empower women. They provide a long list of information about what women need to achieve equality, comparing male and female salaries, employment status and healthcare and pension benefits. http://www.ywca.org/site/pp.asp?c=djISI6PIKpG&b=295714
It is interesting to see that initially women just wanted the chance to play a part in important decisions but whilst things have changed considerably women are still not fully equal to men in lots of areas

Asian Americans as 'other'

My chosen topic for this weeks webblog task are Asian Americans.
http://history-world.org/asian_americans.htm
My first website depicts a history of Asian American's migration to the US as a 'success story'.
What is interesting is the depiction of these Asian Americans having to overcome being grouped together as if they were 'homogeneous', when in fact people's of Japan, China, Korea etc, very much differ from each other just as Europeans such as the English, Spanish, French etc differ from each other. Early European Americans failed to recognise this.
The author then goes on to describe the historical impact these Asian American's had on America; the Chinese effort in building the 'transcontinental railroad' (1869) in California. The author also highlights the tensions with these Asian Americans in the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) ending the immigration of Chinese labourers up until 1943 when it was recognised as a national embarassment.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/asian-american/notables.htm
This follows on to my second chosen website which highlights the achievements of certain individual Asian Americans and the impact and influence they have had on America. This can also be categorized as the American idea of hope, for all minority groups coming to start their careers in America.