The healthcare debate is getting heated and I rejoice in the name of free speech. I was a little disturbed, however, when I saw a poster that had a quote from Thomas Jefferson about big government. Thomas Jefferson, as most of you know, was a proponent of a small and weak federal government and a hard advocate of states' rights. Reading the poster, I thought about Jefferson's administration and how he dealt with the federal government. Most Federalists were afraid that the government would become too small and weak. Surprisingly, Jefferson exercised federal power audaciously in office. He used it to justify the Louisiana Purchase and he tried to get a national education plan through Congress. I figured that there are different ways of expanding federal government.
I thought it was a little ironic when conservatives were complaining about the expanding federal government that would result from healthcare reform, and a public-option. I understand that they are conservatives, and they believe in a small and weak federal government, leaving most powers to the states (more power to them that they are allowed to believe what they do). However, when George W. Bush ran for president he, like Jefferson, promised to minimize the federal government, and instead he expanded it. The difference between Jefferson and Bush is how they expanded it.
Jefferson wanted to use the power of the government for the public good, and tried to get laws past that would benefit the public at large. Bush on the other hand, expanded the executive branch, created the Department of Homeland Security (not necessarily a bad thing), but invaded some of our basic rights and civil liberties in the name of unity. The USA PATRIOT Act allowed the government to censor phone calls, e-mails, etc., without a warrant and with little judicial oversight (check out the fourth amendment to the Constitution). He took on foreign affairs as a job only for his branch and made the "free press" (sarcasm) and the White House best buddies, when an independent and free press is guaranteed in the Constitution.
Both Jefferson and Bush tried to do what was best for the country, the latter by taking away some of our civil liberties and the former by trying to give the nation a good education plan. I think I will take Jefferson's way over Bush's. I think it is awkward that when Democrats want to do something positive such as ensuring that the poor and uninsured get insured, conservatives protest and worry about expanding government that might result from it, but when our basic liberties are invaded, and the government expands in the name of unity to take those liberties away, it is for the public good.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Concerning North Korea
North Korea has been a problem for the United States for over 50 years. Every so often, we make progress, until that progress somehow sparks North Korea to work harder, tougher, and become more tyrannical than ever before. In a recession while the national debt is piling up, we must avoid military action. Our other option is economic sanction. The idea of economic sanctions makes sense, but will these sanctions lead the world to the end it desires? Although we have had economic sanctions on North Korea since almost the beginning of our toils, what have been the fruits of the sanctions? The communist dictatorship has spit out nuclear missiles, maintained an army of 1.4 million men, the fourth largest in the world, and the nation has continued to defy international law (not that the U.S. has always followed it...i.e. past 8 years). Economic sanctions have not broken their government's drive. So what is the remedy if sanctions do not work? Public opinion.
The master of diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, writes in his greatest work, Diplomacy, that public opinion is the greatest sanction against mounting threats. The opinion of NATO and the U.N. are significant players in forming international opposition. Russia and China are also powerful nations that may sway North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world. Right now, as for the Obama administration, the U.S. must have an aggressive diplomatic policy that stresses the consequences of North Korea's actions, and the ends that their actions will take them. Any signs that show we are being broken only drives them. If North Korea plans to use what is in their arsenal, they are only planning their own destruction. Chances that they will use nuclear missiles are small, and economic and military powerhouses like Russia, China, and Japan will surely stop North Korea in its tracks. If not, North Korea will most likely cease to exist.
The master of diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, writes in his greatest work, Diplomacy, that public opinion is the greatest sanction against mounting threats. The opinion of NATO and the U.N. are significant players in forming international opposition. Russia and China are also powerful nations that may sway North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world. Right now, as for the Obama administration, the U.S. must have an aggressive diplomatic policy that stresses the consequences of North Korea's actions, and the ends that their actions will take them. Any signs that show we are being broken only drives them. If North Korea plans to use what is in their arsenal, they are only planning their own destruction. Chances that they will use nuclear missiles are small, and economic and military powerhouses like Russia, China, and Japan will surely stop North Korea in its tracks. If not, North Korea will most likely cease to exist.
Health Care Reform 2
47 million American citizens. That is the magic number of people who do not have health insurance. Health care might seem like a luxury or a benefit to some of the middle-class but really it is hope for people who are poor, teetering on the edge of poverty, and to these people a government-run plan is like a savior coming from Washington. Because of rising prices, people who do not have large incomes cannot get quality care, and those who are poorer and have some type of care, are afraid to go to the hospital. If they do, they will have a large bill that only gets little coverage which shows us that these people have it just as bad as those who don't have any care.
Most people go with the theory of survival of the fittest when really its survival of the richest. Friends have told me that these people are lazy and if they would stop spending money on DVD's then they would have money for good health-insurance. First of all that is a narrow minded view that sounds like it is coming from Nazi Germany or a 17th century monarch (although they didn't have DVD's back then but you get the point). I have a moral obligation to help the poor and those in need. I understand the idea that now may not be the time for a government-run plan but those who complain about a program running up the national debt fail to see that most of that debt came from the past 8 years. And with more people being insured, then we can make cuts in other federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Surely, the government has the means to do it, but how to do it is the biggest challenge ahead. We want the healthcare industry to survive and keep creating jobs and making profits, but how can we do that by creating a government plan that could possibly destroy the industry if it is not done correctly. Great care must be taken when creating a plan in such a delicate economy.
Another thing I would like to address is the complaints about creeping socialism with the creation of a government-run healthcare plan. I don't get how helping the poor and ensuring that the poor don't get poorer is socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and while it may seem that the government is taking over the healthcare industry, it is not. It is playing a role in it to create competition, which otherwise would be dead without the guiding hand of an activist federal government. The people have spoken and those who complain about Obama not following his campaign promises have somehow stepped in the way of him completing his promises.
Most people go with the theory of survival of the fittest when really its survival of the richest. Friends have told me that these people are lazy and if they would stop spending money on DVD's then they would have money for good health-insurance. First of all that is a narrow minded view that sounds like it is coming from Nazi Germany or a 17th century monarch (although they didn't have DVD's back then but you get the point). I have a moral obligation to help the poor and those in need. I understand the idea that now may not be the time for a government-run plan but those who complain about a program running up the national debt fail to see that most of that debt came from the past 8 years. And with more people being insured, then we can make cuts in other federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Surely, the government has the means to do it, but how to do it is the biggest challenge ahead. We want the healthcare industry to survive and keep creating jobs and making profits, but how can we do that by creating a government plan that could possibly destroy the industry if it is not done correctly. Great care must be taken when creating a plan in such a delicate economy.
Another thing I would like to address is the complaints about creeping socialism with the creation of a government-run healthcare plan. I don't get how helping the poor and ensuring that the poor don't get poorer is socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and while it may seem that the government is taking over the healthcare industry, it is not. It is playing a role in it to create competition, which otherwise would be dead without the guiding hand of an activist federal government. The people have spoken and those who complain about Obama not following his campaign promises have somehow stepped in the way of him completing his promises.
Health Care Reform
Health care reform has been an issue since Franklin Roosevelt's administration and has been an enormous issue in the public debate. Many liberal democrats have played with the idea of a government-run health care option. I support this option for many reasons. Many of you may be thinking why should our government be giving out handouts. There is no doubt that government is for the people and that the State exists for us; we do not exist for the state. This reasoning allows us to believe that the government may complete tasks that improve the human condition, help the poor, and help those whose voices aren't heard too often.
One of the federal government's roles in the economy is creating competition. This role creates a plethora of other roles and powers. The Health Care system needs competition to lower premiums and if creating a government-run system to compete in the health-care industry then that is what needs to be done. The good quality of healthcare provided and the price given by the government will force healthcare industries to pull their prices down, or in fact do the opposite, which is what I am fearful of. The American people will be provided with quality healthcare and while the deficit goes up, a healthcare package will certainly serve as a stimulus for the American people.
Even if this is not achieved, healthcare reform will surely come. Those who do not want reform simply ignore the voice of the American people. The election has shown what the people want; a government that is positive, progressive, and participatory and that is what the Democrats are offering. The Republicans surely need to make some party changes, but what kind of changes relies on their rival, Barack Obama.
One of the federal government's roles in the economy is creating competition. This role creates a plethora of other roles and powers. The Health Care system needs competition to lower premiums and if creating a government-run system to compete in the health-care industry then that is what needs to be done. The good quality of healthcare provided and the price given by the government will force healthcare industries to pull their prices down, or in fact do the opposite, which is what I am fearful of. The American people will be provided with quality healthcare and while the deficit goes up, a healthcare package will certainly serve as a stimulus for the American people.
Even if this is not achieved, healthcare reform will surely come. Those who do not want reform simply ignore the voice of the American people. The election has shown what the people want; a government that is positive, progressive, and participatory and that is what the Democrats are offering. The Republicans surely need to make some party changes, but what kind of changes relies on their rival, Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)