Mandatory Healthcare - Supreme Court Deliberates

    Personally speaking, I have not given much attention to the debate over mandatory healthcare, only because I have healthcare provided through my employer. When I came across this particular article, I was curious to inquire about the fuss over President Obama's Healthcare Plan. In reading this article I was clarified on grey areas I did not fully understand, again, I have not given much thought to this particular issue because I felt it did not pertain to me. I was wrong.

    The author, Jeffery Young, presents the current hard pressed task the Supreme Court faces in deliberation on the future of this reform. The decision will affect hundreds of millions of Americans. The author points that a hot button is the mandatory coverage of all Americans, even if they feel they do not need it or face a fine.

    Some argue that making health insurance mandatory is unconstitutional. It is simply another attempt to infringe on our right to choose and refuse.

    He writes "A ruling against the law would be a major blow to Obama, who achieved a goal that eluded presidents from Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton". For the President to attempt to go against a few to take care of millions shows affirmation to make a better future. Yet, where is the President allowed to make changes on our behalf if we do not want it, even if it may be our best interest. Unfortunately, the public is mainly concerned with one main part, a fine. These citizens with this thought unfortunately exclude those who would breathe a sigh of relief from the simple fact of acceptance of coverage to alleviate the financial burden.

    The writer in my opinion, is unbiased on the issue, only presenting the layout about the situation, which is hard to find in today’s media. This particular article was intended to inform all instead of a few without a one sided view on the subject. I can appreciate this with all the one sided journalism in today’s world, aimed at pushing their own agenda instead of the greater good.  He added clickable links to men, women and children, young and old, which are examples of those this change would help significantly. Those who are rejected coverage but desperately need it. He adds "Cutting out the mandate alone will reduce the number of newly covered Americans and make health insurance more expensive". This is true, if the health care insurers are not required to offer coverage to all, they will continue to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, age and gender. Prime example, the few mentioned above. In addition he adds “The Obama administration insists it is within its rights to regulate how Americans pay for health care services they inevitably will consume during their lives", true in theory, but how to convince those who feel they will never need health care or those who feel they will not need enough care that requires coverage? that is the issue that needs resolving to make this accepted.  The writer does a wonderful job of conveying the necessary information to those like myself who were wary due to the display that this reform was another way for the government to continue to control out pocketbooks.  

Link to article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1630596.html

Mitt Romney: "Mysterious Non-Answers"

    In looking at the recent articles regarding President Obama and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, I came across articles critiquing Mr. Romney’s inability to relay a clear response to the President’s recent halt of deporting young illegal residents. Immigration is a topic due to recent attempts of a few states to block certain groups from voting in the upcoming election.

     I chose this article written by Eugene Robinson, a bi-weekly columnist blogger, because I was intrigued by the title “Mitt Romney’s mysterious views on immigration”. The writer does not have an argument per say, but a citizens’ look at the recent interview Mr. Romney gave following the announcement. I felt that Mr. Robinson was able to point to the temporary conclusion that Mr. Romney did not give an answer for fear of losing potential backing and voters. At this time I found this article, Mr. Romney did not make any official statements on the subject.

     This article focuses on the interview with Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation”. Mr. Romney was unable to give a clear cut answer, or any real opinion if any when asked the same question multiple times. Mr. Romney began to answer the questions but changed directions to avoid any direct answer. The writer offers a slight possible explanation to the reasoning behind this. He states “It’s also possible, however, that Romney was trying to conceal how close his real views on immigration are to Obama’s”. This led me to believe that the possibility of siding with the President would be a political bomb on his part, considering he is the opposition. I agree with the writers’ idea that Mr. Romney is only avoiding the question at this point to not sway potential voters away. In reading this article multiple times, I do believe Mr. Robinson’s thoughts are intended to catch the attention of minority and Democratic voters. I draw this conclusion due to the current subject at hand. In addition,  this brings attention to the possibility that Mr. Romney may impose deportation on millions of illegal residents. The writer also points that Mr. Romney is unable to state, if elected, if he will keep the current changes in place or make changes of his own. Clearly, a possible presidential candidate, needs to be clear and concise to gather and continue a following clear to the white house.     

     Eugene Robinson brought to a dim light that the inability to answer a simple question, honestly, and not based on possible ratings is important. Important not only because we as the voters would like to know your thoughts, but also because there are millions of illegal citizens of all nationalities who need to be informed. 

Here is the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-mitt-romneys-mysterious-views-on-immigration/2012/06/18/gJQA2ukLmV_story.html

Florida only wants US Citizens next Election Day

If you are not a legal citizen of the United States and live in Florida, you may not be allowed to vote for the next Presidential Election.

    In the multitude of issues plaguing Florida that have been thrust into the lime light for the world to see, there is now a lawsuit against the state on claiming discrimination of voters. The Justice Department has filed suit against the state on the grounds of illegally purging voters from voting lists, the state wide list you must be on to cast your vote. Scrubbing the Department of Transportation records and deleting names of those who may have voted during the last election and making them ineligible this election year. I find this funny because during the last presidential election, this was not an issue, everyone was encouraged to vote, and showed up in record masses. As we have seen in the past that Florida can be a key, and controversial state during election time. What is the true reasoning behind this and why many other states are attempting to implement the same blockades, only with different titles and amendments. Is this based on the coming election?

    Florida Governor Rick Scott states this is solely to uphold the regulation that only American citizens can vote for the next presidential picking, some would say this is an attempt to oust President Obama from office by blocking a majority of the minority vote, a vote that clearly placed him in the white house.  

    Either way you look at it, politics will always swing in the favor of those given the power to make the big decisions. When the time comes to pick a new leader of the free world, if they do not like who is in charge, they will make sure they find every loop hole to get him out. Legally of course.

    I chose this article for one because I have the right to vote and do not see a problem with anyone who steps foot in this country voicing their opinion, they live here too after all? Secondly, allow those same voters who elected him to decide to re-elect or not, do not try to block potential voters who may vote differently this time around because you fear the current president will have another 4 years.  Elections are the one of the few times we as citizens play a major role in political decisions and the government it allowing this freedom, but with fine print.

Democrat or Republican? Republican or Democrat?

At some point in our ongoing adult lives we make a choice of which direction we will follow or support. But how so we come to this decision. Do we follow our parents example? Or those around us. Or do we simply venture out and research a party we agree with personally.

In my own defense, I followed who my parents agreed with. When they loved a certain President, I liked that President. When whey planted support signs in the front yard, I leaned towards that representative. When my turn came to cast my first vote ever during a political year, I was eager to realize whom I would vote for. That age old question crept up again. Democrat or Republican.

This lead me to realize that I do not have a personal "favorite", per say, when it comes to congress. I really do not care for either party. In the sense that i do not know enough about either to make a solid conclusion on which party I may support. This comes to a surprise to those around me. I do not gravitate to the "Popular" candidate, or the candidate who makes all the promises in the world to fix everything or make one set of citizens happy while making grief for another. By no means am I speaking on any one member in particular, this thought is geared towards all members of leadership, from the local Mayor to the Commander in Chief.

In taking this class I truly hope to gain a better understanding of the political world past and present. Where did we begin? How did we get where we are today? Is there anything that could have changed in the past to create a better future?  I have views on politics, some may not agree, but then again, who always will?