Week of 10/22/07

Alright... so I read on our announcement that we will be re-vising all of the work we've done thus far when the marking period closes, therefore I decided that I will incorporate all of your comments/criticisms about my blog into the final draft. I know last week, there were some pretty heated comments left, so I can not wait to address them in my final draft. This week I think my topic is way less controversial, you guys all might actually agree with me for once. It is most certainly something that pertains to all of our lives. I'm going to experiment with different formats for my posts (ex. movie/television reviews, essays, speeches, bulleted points {my two blogs thus far}). This one is an essay obviously, tell me what you think. I am pretty sure my next blog will be a movie/television/newspaper article/book review on something political of nature.

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll indicated that 88 percent of the adults surveyed believe that the State of New Jersey has a serious or somewhat serious problem with corruption. A recent Monmouth University Poll found that 49 % of the respondents would rather live somewhere else. New Jersey’s political scandals abound from a disgraced Governors resignation to numerous indictments and convictions of political leaders at all levels. Yet I have always had a certain affinity for my adopted home state, the Garden State, New Jersey. Contrary to popular belief portions of the State are gorgeous lush farm lands with rolling hills and large populations of wild animals. Other areas are cosmopolitan with wonderful cultural venues, shopping and restaurants. As a student interested in politics, New Jersey problematic government has always provided me with wonderful debate or essay topics. Generally, few issues have effected me personally until this year. As of September 2007, the state has issued a mandatory School Nutrition Policy. In theory, this was an effort by the New Jersey state legislature to combat childhood obesity. In practice, the plan is much too broad for the areas it covers and its guidelines are too regimented. The plan prohibits the selling and serving of soda, candy, food with a certain percentage of trans- fats, and any food or drink item that lists sugar as the first ingredient. This plan implemented in elementary school and middle school cafeterias is an excellent idea, and forces children to make healthy decisions. Clearly, the plan goes too far as the exact same guidelines apply to all New Jersey high schools. As a seventeen year old, the state of New Jersey trusts me to drive a 2,000 pound car on the road, but does not trust me enough to make healthy eating decisions during school hours. The emphasis is taken off the promoting a healthy life style and instead instills a certain frustration with students who feel like they are being treated like children. My peers are annoyed that the vending machines are turned off until the end of the school day, soda can not be sold, and you can no longer buy homemade cookies in the cafeteria. Our entire school store had to replace its inventory, consisting of candies and gum, with muffins and nutra-grain bars. In my choir class we were unable to serve cupcakes for a surprise party for our teacher who was getting married. I baked cupcakes, unaware that frosting was a “prohibited” item. Obviously, the nutrition plan is very difficult in its implementation as it forces schools to be “food police” instead of education administrators. Most students are free to make their own unregulated selections at home. Next year at college a variety of food choices will be made available to me and my peers. Instead of being educated in our high school as to nutrition guidelines, healthy choices, and the types of food we should be eating, the only thing we have been hearing is “NO” to certain foods. High school should promote an atmosphere of learning and independence, yet the New Jersey State Nutrition Plan hinders the learning of proper nutrition and takes away the students’ right to choose from a variety of food options.

It may seem that this issue is trivial in light of New Jersey’s real problems, yet to me it is a prime example of what might be causing such high levels of dissatisfaction. New Jersey’s micro management legislation is invasive and broad reaching. The constant implementations of new programs designed to fix societal ills is generally misplaced. With a recent budget shortfall announced of three billion dollars, it would seem imperative to reduce the number of programs instead of creating new ones. While the plan to hinder the consumption of “foods of minimal nutritional value” is a valid idea, students will just bring snacks from home, thus taking away revenue that the schools would otherwise generate from the sale of these products. The State of New Jersey obviously has good intentions but a failed execution with their mandatory Nutrition Plan. As the adage states, “Instead of the law serving the people, it’s the people that serve the law.”
For more information on the New Jersey State Nutrition Plan:

http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/fn/childadult/school_model.html

Week of 10/5/07

Hey guys...posting again. This was a blog entry I worked on alot a while ago, so I made a few tweaks and wanted to see what you guys thought. I also will respond to a few of the issues you guys addressed in comments...which was awesome, I love getting feedback. Next week I think my blog will actually be a college essay I'm working on, regarding the new NJ Nutrition Policy, which is very aggravating to me.

Here's My Response to what you guys had to say:

AD- That is what is frustrating to me, no one really seems to be adequately addressing the issue of heath care in the 2008 Presidential Debates, it seems like the Iraq war is the major hot button issue. It is definitely something Republicans need to start talking about, because one of Hillary Clinton's main platforms, that is not all that advertised, is a universal health care policy. The Republicans need to start addressing their solutions to the problem.

Emily- Thanks, I actually have yet to see the Michael Moore movie, this actually has just always been an issue that concerns me. Although I do not agree with Mr. Moore I am defiantly interested in viewing the movie. It may seem shocking but I actually do like both sides of an issue :). I am thinking about once in a while watching a political movie, show, or presidential debates and giving a commentary to the media, and that movie would definitely be a candidate.

ARubs- It is always a debate my family has as well. You made a valid point, my blog does not really specify a solution so that every American has health care. I don't really have the answerer, but I definitely know that Socialized Medicine is not it. The best suggestion I could give American politicians know would be to privatize Medicare and Medicaid, so they are no longer government run, but run by actual insurance companies.

Now this blog I realize is extremely controversial and a touchy subject. I am definitely open to contrary opinions and I realize there will be some and I respect that. I just do not feel the need to disregard "touchy" subjects in my blog. Here are my feelings on Euthanasia...

Screw playing house, people want to play God. From all different sides of a political spectrum, we can agree that intentionally killing someone else is wrong. That is why I always am baffled that there is another side to case regarding Euthanasia.
Euthanasia: Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -'ευ "good", θανατος "death") is the practice of ending the life of an individual or an animal who is suffering from a terminal disease or a chronically painful condition in a painless or minimally painful way either by lethal injection, drug overdose, or by the withdrawal of medical support. *Provided by Wikipedia.com*
Euthanasia is very wrong for these reasons:
1. Euthanasia would become so it’s not just for the terminally ill. While the infamous Euthanasia doctor, Jack Kevorkian spoke he defined terminally ill as “anything that curtails life even for a day.”- In the “Suicide and Life-Threatening” Journal they defined the terms of assisted suicide to be “hopelessly ill.” Which included; terminal illness, severe physical or physiological pain, physical or mental debilitation or any condition of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. Does that mean that any person with suicidal impulses should have a physician help them perform it?- A group called “Not Dead Yet” explains how people with non-terminally ill disabilities feel about Euthanasia in their mission statement:“Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.”So you read the above, and think now that’s just stupid we would not start killing the disabled. How I wish that were the case, in the article “It Could Happen Here” (http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/itcan.html) American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it. Their research was funded by the Federal Government. Twenty-four babies with spina bifida lost their lives. The experiment was declared a success. Yes, it can happen here. Where do we draw the line? Does having a disability make your life unbearable? Should a teen suffering through a rough mental stage of life be allowed to commit legal suicide?
2. Euthanasia becomes a means of health care cost containment."...drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don't want the "choice" of assisted suicide..." ... Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.As addressed in my previous article, millions of American’s lack health insurance. With no one around to pick-up the tab, should these people seeking treatment be killed?In Oregon (the only state where Euthanasia is legal), they adopted a “Death with Dignity” legislation. Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. A short while after this they announced they significantly cut back on the policies general health care coverage. Leaving Euthanasia as one of the only options.
3. Euthanasia will become so it’s no longer voluntary.Think of the emotional and physiological pressures of the ill. It could be overpowering for the depressed or dependant. If Euthanasia is considered just as good as receiving care, those who wish to stay alive would feel guilt ridden for the care they are making their families pay for.Read these cases, do you think this is voluntary or non-voluntary?:Case One: There is a 80 year old man in a nursing home. He can barely understand the breakfast menu. The staff gives him a form to consent to kill himself. Is this voluntary or in-voluntary Euthanasia?Case Two: A woman in her twenties is suffering from depression. She goes to a practice, where a doctor “helps” people by killing anyone who asks for it. He does thousands of procedures a year for two hundred dollars each. Should this be legal?You can see how Euthanasia becomes one of those “slippery slopes”.This will turn into the movement that abortion has had. Thirty years ago “pro-choice” advocates stated abortion was for “the health or life of the mother.” Now we have “on-demand” abortion where babies are being killed half born. If we legalize Euthanasia today, where is it going in thirty years from now?
4. Legalizing Euthanasia is a direct violation of the importance of life.Societies religious and non-religious have made Euthanasia a crime. Not only because it’s playing God, but more importantly it’s de-valuing human life.Assisted murder undermines our legal system and an strand of basic morality we have in our society today.In closing I would like to present you a recent case that actually happened:http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/86798.aspYoung 3-year-old Katherine McCarron was murdered, by her mother. It was a “mercy” killing because her daughter was autistic. Many sympathize with the immense burdens of raising an autistic child, and feel that Mrs. McCarron should not be charged with murder.Ask yourself, was Katie’s condition unbearable? Was it unbearable for her mother?Under the definitions for “hopeless condition”, (as stated above) mental illness is provided. Autism is a form of mental illness.Do you want to live in a society where such horrific practices are sympathised with?
Check out these links:http://www.notdeadyet.org/
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/orrpt7.htm
http://www.terrisfight.org/
Non-religious arguments: http://www.starcourse.org/euthanasia.htm
Sources:http://www.notdeadyet.org/http://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html

Once Upon A Time...

Once upon a time…in a perfect world each American receives equal health care. Yes, and we would all have no taxes, free food, a world free of disease. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world, and a universal health care plan would not help us get any closer to it.
Basics on Universal Health Care:A universal health care is a health care system in which all residents of a geographical or political entity have their health care paid for by the government, regardless of medical condition. (provided by Wikipedia.com)
Funding- The system the United States would adopt would be a “single payer” described as a type of system in which a single entity, typically a government-run organizations, acts as the administrator or “payer” to collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. Advocates of UHC say that a “single payer” system saves money that could be directly used for health care by eliminating waste.
Countries that have it employed-Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Isreal, Netherlands, New Zeland, Norway, Portugal, Seychelles, South Africa, Spain, Sweeden, Taiwan, United Kingdom. (By 2007 Massachusetts, will have universal heath care system for it’s citizens)
Now Universal Health Care in theory seems like a “great” idea. Yes, so does communism. Both are in the same token, taking away civil liberties in order to provide mediocre service for everyone.These are a list of my reasons why Universal Health care is a bad idea-
1. Health care is a much to important issue for our government to corrupt or run improperly.Look at the DMV full of frustration, incompetence, and in-efficiency. Should we really but something like our health care in the hands of the government?
2. Lack of medical innovation.For every 100 drugs that the United States develops, Canada develops 1. A capitalist economy encourages drug innovations and progress.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always lead to greater control and cost effectiveness.By leaving the only health care provider being the government, it creates a type a monopoly and puts a blockade on original ideas.
4. “Free” health care doesn’t actually mean “free”.Free, but meaning your taxes will increase or budgets for other government programs like defense, education, ect. Will be cut.
5. Medical decisions are made based on money not need.Since money will be scarcely spread, doctors begin making medical decisions on economy rather than need. If you are picking up the tab, doctor’s typically have no hesitations to recommend a pre-cautionary test or measure.
6. It’s your choice.With a universal health care program the government appoints a doctor to you. If you have Cancer, you can’t use your hard-earned money to appoint the best doctor money can buy. The government tells you what underpaid, and possibly unqualified doctor must treat your life threating aliment.
7. If costs are “free” patients are likely not to curb their costs.As it currently is, patients who have limited health care typically curb drug costs and doctor visits. However, if health care is “free” total costs would be several times what they are now, exceeding predicted budgets by Universal Health Care association.
8. Government mandated procedures will reduce doctor-flexibly and lead to poor patient care.Universal Health Care eliminates doctor-patient relationships. You become a number in the eyes of assigned medical providers and pharmaceutical companies. Personal phone calls and concern about your well-being are completely eliminated.
9. Gaps in coverage.Some plans don’t cover all aspects of health care. Physical Therapy isn’t covered in most plans; so if you break a bone, and require physical therapy you are forced to pay out of pocket. Not because you can not afford insurance, because the government won’t allow you to purchase any.
10. Healthy people would be forced to pay for the burden of those who smoke or who are obese.Think about it, do you want to exercise everyday and stay healthy, and be forced to pay for the smoker and frequent doughnut eater next door?
11. A long painful hand over will have to take place.There will be a huge loss of jobs from the insurance companies. Then how long would it take the government to create new medical records for every single person, and how would our government possibly manage these records? (This could be a trick question).
12. No one would want to be a doctor.Doctors become over-worked because they are unable to moderate the in-take of patients. Government begins regulating their pay, with most doctor’s taking huge pay cuts. Then on top of that the patient relationships that doctor’s join the profession for; the process for seeing results, cures and patient results are eliminated.
13. The “43 million without health care” are able to receive it.Firstly, the typical response to why we need Universal Health Care is because “there are 43 million un-insured at one point.” At one point, that means it’s statistics all added together. Typically there are about 9-13 million of people uninsured at once. And these people are able to receive health care. Nonprofit and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and emergency care can never be denied to the un-insured.
Although I know this is extremely difficult issue, hopefully now you can see why a universal health care plan is not an ideal or good solution. It strips everyone of the liberties, especially the liberty to choose. This is your’s and your family’s health care, do you really want someone telling you what to do with it? Without your health where are you?