Universal Health Care – Ups, Downs, and Options

The issue of universal health care for Americans will quickly divide any room.  The main claim favoring the topic is that it will provide health care that has bankrupted those who need help the most, while the main claim against it is that it will bankrupt the US.  Somewhere in the middle is where the truth probably lies – nobody can honestly say whether or not either claim would occur.

With Obama the president-elect it is highly likely he will pursue the topic with a sense of urgency.  Under Obama’s plan, the place you work for will have to 1) provide health insurance for employees, or 2) fall under a higher tax bracket.  This concept directly combats the idea that the US will be bankrupted since the government won’t have to provide the majority of health insurance.  Now, if a person doesn’t work then the government will provide their insurance.  On paper this seems great.  In reality the issue isn’t so simple.
If I were the head of a company I would choose to provide health insurance to my employees vice getting taxed at a higher rate.  I would elect the most bare bones policy possible that would put majority of the costs with my employees seeking care.  Then I would offer a lower salary to employees with the arrangement that I’m paying for their insurance.  The companies would make out in this situation and the average person would still be stuck footing large medical bills.  It seems, by simply saying, “100% of Americans have medical insurance” brings about a sense of security.  How secure people are is up in the air…  Close your eyes while walking across a rickety bridge and you’ll think you’re on solid ground.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against getting medical insurance to people and for lowering medical bills.  My view is to push it out of the pocket of the federal government and into the responsibilities of states.  Think of this for a minute:
State A chooses not to offer free medical insurance, because their population is large and it simply wouldn’t scale out well.  But State B has a lower population and does offer free medical.  People from State A might move to State B for the medical, and also bringing larger experience levels.  This would be like Montana offering free medical and people from New York making their way out to Montana to live.  Over time Montana could experience a population/industry boom and become a role model for other states.  The purpose is to put the decision with the people.  If you don’t want to pay the higher taxes for medical then move to a state without free medical.  The population shift could be beneficial to the nation as a whole.  Lastly, if a state makes a wrong move and becomes bankrupted with their decision then it is only one state, not an entire nation that is bankrupt.
Start pushing the idea that free medical should be an individual state responsibility.

Unruely conduct south of the Border…and east.

Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, might as well be from a different planet. The actions seen from him over the years have caused confusion among those following the news from South America, but the world has grown accustomed to this demeanor. So when he popped into the news again it was of little surprise – at first.
The CSMonitor is reporting today that Chavez, along with the leaders of Bolivia and Ecuador, have forced the US to take a step back in the War on Drugs. The war has become a shadowy one when set against other US engagements across the world. Yet this war is vitally important. Without the support from three of the countries known to be at the heart of the world of drugs, the US is running near blind in South America. Allies like Colombia and Peru still exist, but the fight will be hard coming. (Llana, 2008)
Then tonight another article was posted by Douglas Farah (of Counter Terrorism Blog) regarding Venezuela. Turns out they are being struck hard by the cut-back in oil consumption across the world and are teetering on “financial meltdown.” Whether the two events go hand-in-hand is not evident, but appears to be a tit-for-tat with Venezuela being the one offended.
The oil-terror nexus has been known in the Middle East, but is becoming more and more evident in other areas of the world that the media chooses to cover little on. Little media attention, combined with regimes that refuse to rid their country of internationally illegal activity results in safe havens for terror to flourish. If Venezuela is in fact that close to a financial crisis they could be making way to become the next large support base for terror groups indigenous to South America, or they might even become larger hosts of foreign terror groups that will use Venezuela to grow/traffic drugs.
What’s your take?
Articles Referenced:
Farah, Douglas. “A useful counterterrorism weapon”. November 10, 2008. http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11/a_useful_counterterrorism_weap.php

Llana, Sara. “In Latin America, leftist leaders evict US drug warriors”. November 10, 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1110/p01s01-woam.html

Obama has won US presidential election

Barack Obama, president elect, is now set to be the 44th US President.  As evident from the celebrations last night, this is a momentous occasion for US History.  Let’s not get too carried away with celebrating though.  The campaigning is over and the work will soon begin.  Barack Obama will now be held to his word and promise in his four year term.  By 2013 will Obama bring us cheap Health Care, will 95% of Americans have lower taxes, and will the economy be better off?  At this point in time it cannot be answered, but that is a lot to tackle under good times, let alone a time where three wars are being fought (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan).

I hope our nation, the US, will be better off at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, but I fear he may not accomplish much of what he has promised and the average person will be left in worse shape.  While I value my money earned greatly, I fear the repercusions from the war on terror.  Iraq cannot be left quickly, quick to the point, and Afghanistan must be dealt with.  In Iraq the enemy is largely eliminated, but a US presence must stay for a couple years on to ensure the enemy doesn’t come back.  Thought of another way, if you don’t finish your antibiotics then the illness could return – bigger and better than before.  In Afghanistan history tells the future.  The US presence in Afghanistan will be shown for many years into the future and not fulfilling our obligation to engage the enemy wherever they are located will leave US forces in a quagmire.  This was one of the reasons why the Soviets failed in Afghanistan – Pakistan was used as a safehaven for treatment of wounded, food, weapons, and recooperation.

I hold optimism for the future and have faith that the US will be strong in our international relations.  At this point in our nation we need a leader, not simply a person who speaks strong and can promise the sky.  As much as Barack Obama will need to fill this role.  Finally, Equal Rights have been achieved to the fullest extent and I hope race quotas / affirmative action will be extinguished.  After all, the purpose of those isn’t an issue any longer.