Issue 1 - Operating on America

Review Table of Contents

the horace mann

Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - Viewpoints

Operating on America: The Democrats Tackle Healthcare

1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Features: Health Care

Domestic

18 A Successful French Hybrid 04 Meet The Press A comparison of the French and American health care systems.

by Dorin azerad

20 Health Care Reform

Amidst domestic turmoil, the time is now for the U.S. government must step forward in continuing an historic mission of extending health care.

by Daniel Grafstein

22 Three Things YOU Need to Know About Health Care Reform

by Matt Fox

34 Cash for Japanese Cars

How foreign auto manufatueres have taken the lion’s share of the American auto market. by aLEX FAMILANT

Emily Feldstein discusses the impact of the media on legislation.

by Emily Feldstein

07 Creeping Radicalism Invades Obamaland

by Alexander daniel

International

11 The Rising Sun

Science & Technology

36 Danger: High Voltage

Can an all-electric car save a company facing terrible sales and responsible for the worst gas-guzzeler conceived: the Hummer? Andre Manuel explores the costs and benefits of the Chevy Volt.

by Andre Manuel

38 Stem Cells: Miracle Cure or Curse?

After 60 years with the same party in power, Japan has a new majority party, and a new President.

by Rebecca Segall

by Jessica bERNHEIM

14 Pakistan’s Predicament

39 Health Care Reform

Why the U.S. Should Now Assist in the Fight Against the Taliban

by Victor Ladd

16 The Afghani Elections

Amidst domestic turmoil, the time is now for the U.S. government must step forward in continuing an historic mission of extending health care.

by Zoe rubin

Viewpoints Should there be any doubt?

by Jordan federer

40 Obama’s Plan Makes Me Sick

Why the public option plan will be a failure for America, and a failure for the American people by andrew demas

Economics

24 Econo-Friendly

33

The Current Economy and its Future Prospects by deependra mookim

30 The Dangers of Health Care

Obama’s proposed healthcare reform and how the largest expansion of the federal goverment in the past century will destory our health care system and our economy.

by AARON GOLDMAN

2 2

HM Review Vol. XIX

Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XIX , Issue 1 A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Letter from the Editor Issue I: Health-Care

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief

Nicholas Herzeca Jason Sunshine Executive Editor

Dan Temel Nancy DaSilva Henry Hoglund Dan Shapiro Features Editor James Yaro Starlyte Harris Aradhna Agarwal Spencer Penn Will Dubbs Editorial Director Production Manager

Jordan Federer Freddie Adler Antonia Woodford Ben Marks Mario Alvarez Eric Schwartz Business Manager Hill Wyrough Senior Columnists

Alex Falk

Camille Knop Aylin Gucalp Photo Editor

Arts Editor

Board of Trustees Maximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary Freyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani, Venkat Kausik, Zachary Malter Production Assistants Seth Arar, Elisabeth Stam Associate Editors Deependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei, Andrew Demas, Aaron Goldman, Danielle Ellison, Victor Ladd Staff Writers Dorin Azerad, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Jessica Chi, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Alexander Familant, Emily Feldstein, Matt Fox, Adela Kim, Christine Kim, Alex Ma, Andre Manuel, Avital Morris, Jacob MosconaSkolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca Segall Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.

Please contact The Review for information on advertisements at thereview@horacemann.org.

Visit The Review website at: web.horacemann.org/review/ © 2009, The Horace Mann Review

September 2009 HM Review

Dear Reader, I am beyond proud to present to you the first issue of Volume XIX of the Horace Mann Review. This issue, we focus on the health care debate that has been raging in the Senate and the House of Representatives this past summer. From the outrage brought on by Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment to the reactions in the town hall meetings and at various politicians’ speeches, the complexity of the legislation and the profundity of the moral, social and economic questions themselves have brought to us a rich field of opinions and perspectives.

So what are the arguments for and against health care reform? From a personal story comparing the French (and more “socialist”) health care system and the American system to two perspectives on health care debate in our new Viewpoints section, you can examine the opinions and evidence of others and form a viewpoint of your own.

Our other sections reflect on other events that have been going on in recent days. You can read an enlightening article on the

way the media affects the public’s perspective on legislation and muse in the irony of seeing that impact in the health care furor. In our International section, Staff Writer Rebecca Segall sheds some light on the Japanese elections while Victor Ladd looks into the Taliban’s role in Pakistan. Deependra Mookim discusses the current state of our economy in the Economics section, while Andre Manuel shows us the benefits and costs of the Chevy Volt in Science and Technology.

This year, the Review plans to release eight more issues after this one: six on different features topics, one junior issue and one based on Horace Mann School’s particular political leanings. We are thus setting a precedent for the years to come. Expect these issues at the last Wednesday of school each month.

Thanks for picking up a copy of the Review.

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief Volume XIX 3

Domestic

BROMFORD GROUP

Domestic Meet the Press

The Media Influences Public Opinion by emily feldstein

S

4

Instead, FedEx welcomes online users in their own language: “Welcome to BrownBailout.com, the site that asks (and answers the question): Why is mega corporation UPS trying to use its political clout to get a bailout from the U.S. Congress, leaving you to pay the tab?” FedEx’s greeting is one of the many indicators of a change in the way we get information; the somewhat dramatic and slightly sinister question immediately pulls in the reader.

The line is reminiscent of the teasers on the news before commercial breaks, “Up next, could you be at risk for the virus of

As a culture, we are online, always expecting instantaneous results. We want things summarized, synopsized, the short story, not the long.

DAYLIFE PHOTOS

peaking on Meet the Press on September 20, 2009, President Obama noted that “we’ve got … a 24-hour news cycles where what gets you on the news is controversy. What gets you on the news is the extreme statement.”

As a culture, we are online, always expecting instantaneous results. We want things summarized, synopsized, the short story, not the long. Now that we acquire information instantly, we want to see the facts in an easy to read format, no longer than a few sentences. We need to be entertained. We have become so inundated with sensationalist media that we need to see something dramatic to stir us out of apathy.

Every year, a considerable amount of legislation is proposed either by Congress or the administration. For many citizens, the only real exposure to the content of these legislative proposals is from the propaganda, exaggeration and misrepresentation from politicians and pundits (whether in support or opposition).

However, when legislation is hundreds of

pages how can we expect to get accurate information? There are many examples of rallying cries that have become so far removed from the actual content of the legislation because of the media and technology.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, also known as H.R. 915, was passed in the House of Representatives on May 21, 2009. It has yet to pass the Senate. It received 277 ayes, 136 nays, and 20 present/not votings. Seemingly, it is just another bill that is slowly making its way through the legislative

process. But, it actually demonstrates the shift in the way we learn about legislation.

The FAA bill sparked a multimillion dollar online campaign, FedEx’s BrownBailout.com. FedEx claims that the FAA bill is in fact a bailout, defined on their website as “a rescue from financial distress,” for their main competitor, UPS. The bill’s length and wordiness do not lend themselves to snappy slogans.

HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic

the century? Stay tuned to find out.” FedEx actually recognizes the fact that the media’s sensationalism is a complement to their cause; on the website is an entire page dedicated to published news. FedEx knows how to use our constant addiction to fast information. The reader appears to get everything he or she needs to know that UPS is using politics to get a bailout that the taxpayers will have to pay.

But the bill actually does not bailout UPS. Instead, the bill’s main goal is to better aviation safety and to ensure the national aviation system has steady funding. Among other smaller changes made by the bill, it changes the labor act that governs FedEx Express’s employees.

The non-airline-based workers of FedEx’s Express division would fall under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) while previously, these FedEx workers were governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Under the RLA, employees could only unionize nationally. The switch would mean that the FedEx employees could unionize locally. Unionizing locally is much easier than unionizing nationally. It increases FedEx’s chances of needing to negotiate with a union, and UPS employees are already under the NLRA. In other words, the proposal would actually level the playing field between UPS October 2009 HM Review

and FedEx in this regard. Ironically, this is what FedEx considers a UPS bailout.

It is so far from a UPS bailout that George Will, a Washington Post syndicate columnist who supports FedEx in this issue, has even said, “Although UPS is suffering from the recession, so is FedEx. Furthermore, UPS, whose revenue is 36 percent more than FedEx’s began advocating this injury to FedEx long before this recession.” Rather than explaining the circumstances surrounding the bill, though, FedEx and its marketing experts know and use what will produce the necessary shock to create a reaction.

FedEx let its need of spectacle to advance its own agenda obscure the truth.

FedEx is not alone in manipulating bills into slogans or rallying cries.

A bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), aims to “create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” (govtrack.us) Its goal is to cap greenhouse gas emissions at 17 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020. Republicans claim that this bill would cost households as much as $3,100 a year. There was a chain email circulating that said: “President Obama and the Democrats are plan-

FLIGHT GLOBAL

ning to jack up energy prices and pass the cost onto you and your family…Can you and your family afford an additional $3,100 in higher energy taxes a year?”

Again, scare tactics are the chosen methods of conveyance. What was before a stodgy, boring bill is now close enough to home to raise people out of indifference.

The figure of $3,100 dollars misrepresents both the bill and the study from which the figure was taken. The study was performed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). John Reily, associate director for research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Globe Change, was one of the authors of the study. He says that the GOP interpretation and use was “simplistic and misleading”; they ignored vital stipulations that were created solely for the purpose of reducing the burden on consumers. In his opinion, the figure is closer to $800 a year, no small amount of money but about only 26 percent of the Republicans’ estimate.

The instant information from the email seems complete, and it makes continuing to look into the matter unnecessary. Unless people look closely into the issue, though, they will never notice the small but important provision. The significant details that could even change

5

Domestic

JODI SOLOMON

sented.

The most obvious example of dramatized sound bites on a recent legislative or policy proposal is the healthcare bill. In August, Betsy McCaughey, a firm believer in “death panels”, appeared on the Daily Show with John Stewart while Newsweek’s recent cover story was “The Case for Killing Granny.” Clearly, the media is feeding on the notion of death panels, and anything so controversial is fuel for the raging sensational flame. Regardless of whether a public option or universal healthcare is important, there has certainly been misleading information concerning the healthcare bill.

A recent chain email gives 48 highlights about the healthcare bill. Unsurprisingly, not many of them are the whole truth. Unfortunately, the healthcare bill is hundreds of pages long, and an email, on the other hand, just pops up onto a computer screen and succinctly tells someone what he or she “needs to know”.

The email claims that health care will be rationed. In fact, according to the summary from the Congressional Research service, the bill “limits annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.”

Such a statement does not define equal rationed healthcare. As with the rest of

6

the bill, it merits close analysis, not quick and superficial assumptions. People are too conditioned to skimming emails now to realize that the fine print is still important, even if reading the fine print on hundreds of pages certainly isn’t appealing.

Some claims are not completely false, merely misleading. The author of the email wrote that “government mandates linguistic infrastructure for service; translation: illegal aliens.” Right away, the author is assuming that anyone who does not speak English is an illegal alien. That assumption is a broad generalization.

The email also claims that U.S. taxpayers will have to pay for illegal aliens’ free healthcare service, but page 143 explicitly states: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

In truth, though, no leisurely reader is ever going to make it to page 143, especially when the alternative is an email that provides the highlights.

The way regular citizens understand legislative and policy proposals has changed and needs to change again. We have become too dependent on emails, text messages, headlines, and sound bites.

They all, whether by accident or with malicious intent, misrepresent various leg-

islation and policy. If bills could be cut down to a few paragraphs, then why are they hundreds of pages? There is a purpose to the tedious and meticulous wording of the bills. They ensure the bills do exactly what they are supposed to do.

There are different ways to rectify this problem. It is in part the responsibility of the citizens to take all of the various catchphrases with a grain of salt. Without a doubt, we must be more aware and active participants in the legislative process.

Perhaps, it is also time for the way we and Congresspeople discuss and debate legislation to change. Govtrack.us, with summaries from the Library of Congress, is a great resource that should serve as a jumping off point. One can track particular members of Congress and read about the progress of bills and the bills themselves. However, the website still, understandably, heavily relies on the wordy bills. Somehow, websites need to be developed that will easily summarize bills and state their implications.

Average citizens should have access to readily available, relatively instant, easily understandable information about our legislation instead of having to rework their ideas every time a different politician or reporter states his or her version of the facts. But most importantly of all, it is the citizen’s duty to demand a responsible media, both traditional (newspapers, television news channels) and non-traditional (blogs, emails). There is no one else to do it for us; we, the people, must take it upon ourselves to force improvement.

Consider politicians like Sarah Palin who was so quick to declare that then Senator Obama “pals around with terrorists.”

That time, the media and bloggers immediately flocked to the incendiary remark; it probably helped ratings and increased visits to websites. It provided the necessary drama and entertainment, but it was untrue. Thanks to the media, one comment made by one politician could be multiplied until it is plastered on every screen and newspaper.

When there is so much factual information available these days, reporters should do their job: report the facts. In President Obama’s word about the sensationalizing media, “that’s . . . something that I think has to change.” HMR HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic

Creeping Radicalism Invades Obamaland by alexander daniel

A

s hundreds of thousands congregated in Washington, D.C. on 9/12, a central theme in the popular dissent was radicalism in the Obama administration. The issue troubling protestors, as well as the innumerable Americans that declared their opposition to the impending takeover of our health care system, is not only the irresponsibly progressive policies of this administration, but also the growing presence of radicalism. Obama’s “Shadow Government” formed by unconstitutional ‘czars’, ties to big labor groups, and affiliation with fundamentalists stinks of extremism. President Obama himself does not show overt signs of being a radical, but his deep-seated sympathizes with questionable movements and his history of allegiance to extremists are troublesome. Obama must distance himself from the socialists, revolutionaries, and partisan fanatics that have infested our government.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama was forced to quell the outrage resulting from revelations of his past relations with mentors and friends, namely William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Bill Ayers cofounded the notorious subversive group, Weather Underground, which is rumored to have had a role in conspiring about successful bombing plots of the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol, and State Department Building protestOctober 2009 HM Review

ing American involvement in Vietnam. While most Americans in their right minds would distance themselves from such a radical, Obama forged a close relationship with Mr. Ayers. In addition to collaborating as members of charity boards, Obama launched his political career in the home of Ayers where then-State Senator Palmer announced her support for his state senate campaign.

Even more disturbingly is Obama’s relationship with his controversial pastor of twenty years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In addition to his black liberation theology, Rev. Wright delivered bombastic sermons littered with inflammatory remarks, namely “damning America.”

In all fairness to the President, the extent of Ayers’ involvement was unknown to Obama at the time.

Moreover, Ayers has since condemned and apologized for his actions. Quite probably Obama was not present when Rev. Wright made such inflammatory remarks. The vast majority of Americans concluded that then-Senator Obama should not be judged by the actions and remarks made by his friends in the past—essentially repudiating a “guilt by association” thesis. While Obama has made strides to distance himself with this chapter of his troubling past, his recent actions, namely the appointment of questionable characters to positions of power, his ties to progressive socialist special interests groups, and support for policies pushing the U.S. to the precipice of socialism seem incrimi-

nating The Obama administration has manipulated executive powerusurping our country’s statutory nominating process by appointing advisors, dubbed “czars” by the public. Although Presidents since F.D.R. have delegated minimal responsibilities to special advisors, President Obama has already appointed approximately thirty-four czars for various purposes. The majority of these appointees have not been subjected to Senate confirmation hearings, nor the FBI vetting process.

In essence, President Obama and his progressive allies in Congress have manipulated a flawed system, intended to designate capable individuals to push vital initiatives, to parachute radicals into positions of prominence. Moreover, czars are not accountable to Congress or anyone but the President himself.

Obama’s most troubling appointment was Van Jones to oversee “green job creation.” Van Jones radical ties run deep. While incarcerated in 1993 due to his involvement in the Rodney King riots, Van Jones was inspired by “radical people of color,” to the point that he recalls “By August, I was a communist.” Van Jones then became a founding member of the revolutionary group STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement). In STORM’s self-published historical pamphlet, Reclaiming Revolution, “all of STORM’s members develop a…commitment to revolutionary Marxist policies with a particular 7

http://www.conservativepunk.com/

Domestic

emphasis on the historical experiences of Third World communist movements.” In the past five years, Van Jones has diverted his attention from organizing a coup to crusading for energy reform with racial and social justice undertones. Jones is a closet racist and has charged that “whites are purposely poisoning minority neighborhoods.” Although such insidious remarks and alarming ties should suffice in disqualifying Jones for any governmental appointment, the revelations continue.

In 2004, Van Jones signed a petition suggesting the U.S. government conspired in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Yet Van Jones is only one member of the Obama administration’s radical-rich czar base. Carol Browner, the environment czar and former Director of the Environment Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, joined Socialist International and served as a commissioner. Socialist International is the umbrella group for socialist and communist parties world-wide, 8

and amongst other radical policy stances, supports one world governance. Obama and his lieutenants have delegated responsibilities to leftist environmentalist, John Holdren. The science czar recently confirmed by the Senate has advocated for “compulsory abortions”- essentially mandating that women abort their children once they conceive a certain number of children. In a 1977 book he coauthored, Holdren notes a “program of sterilized women after their second or third child” should be mandated and “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.” Holdren even vouched for the formation of a “Planetary Regime,” intended to enforce such a policy. This dogma is unacceptable, as it would sanction and mandate the murder of babies and infringe upon individuals’ basic sacred right to reproduce. Obama’s recently confirmed regulatory czar,

Cass Sunstein, shares much of Holdren’s ideology. Both Holdren and Sunstein both are in favor of providing legal rights to animals. In his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Sunstein wrote that “animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel.” Although might just be dismissed as frivolous and lunatic, such as sentiment has major implications considering Sunstein’s other views. Sunstein argued in a 2007 at Harvard University for “eliminating current practices such as … meat eating.” Moreover, Sunstein even suggested “we ought to ban hunting…That should be against the law. It’s time now.” It is baffling that any President would appoint any individual so intent on undermining American liberties.

Although not a czar, Mark Lloyd, the chief diversity officer at the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and devout socialist, is resolute on abolishing free speech through re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine. Lloyd notes that if radio stations “don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.”

In essence Lloyd wants to fine talk show radio exorbitantly, and distribute those resources to subsidize local broadcasts. Mark Lloyd is also a supporter of communist Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, and his systematical dismantling institutions promoting free speech. When Mark Lloyd spoke to the National Conference for Media he went on a rhetorical rampage and noted: “In HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredibly revolution, a democratic revolution.” Such a sentiment is particularly alarming given the Obama administration’s overtures to rogue regimes, which subjugate their citizens and domineer the media. Another presidential appointee embracing extremism is Harold Koh. The Secretary of State’s confirmed le-

all Americans have the irrevocable right to free speech, individuals making these sorts of proclamations should not be placed in high-level positions in White House. This burgeoning radicalism should not be taken lightly and the irrefutable evidence implicating these extremists cannot be disregarded. Although it may seem as if these czars are isolat-

http://www.conservativepunk.com/

gal advisor proposes a “transnational legal process,” where international law would take precedence over the Constitution. Koh has even drawn comparisons suggesting “North Korea, Iraq, and own our country, the United States of America… [form] ‘the axis of disobedience’” Obama’s appointment of the aforementioned czars is unacceptable and alarming. While most administrations contain partisans, Obama’s czars are fundamentalists who are intent on undermining our democracy and infusing society with their radicalism. Although October 2009 HM Review

ed cases of radicalism, their collective presence compounds the issue.

There are innumerable fundamentalists capable of influencing policy and their cumulative efforts will undermine our nation.

President Obama’s political team is not intent in pulling the plug in the czars. Herein lies another issue.

Due to his lack of executive experience, Obama has entrusted his top advisors, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod, with decision-making.

The President needs to take over the reins of his freewheeling presidency and immediately fire and disassoci-

ate himself from radical czars, and curb the number of czars altogether.

Many political commentators and pundits had expectations of such an influx of radicals. The Chicago political establishment, the crucible of Obama and his close political advisors, accepts radicalism as the norm, and it would have been ignorant to be auspicious of this administration’s ideological stance. Instead, the media, namely the northeast elitists, have failed the American people on an unprecedented scale.

Nominations and appointments are not the only means by which radicalism has manifested itself. President Obama has yielded power and influence to far-left organized labor, environmentalists, community organizers, and the social jus tice movement. One organization receiving an unprecedented amount of influence is the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance compounds forces from the green movement, labor groups, and the social justice movement to undertake a massive Marxian overhaul of the energy sector. Moreover, the Apollo Alliance advocates for U.N. style One World Governance to fulfill their communist ideals. As the group writes on its website, the Apollo Alliance wrote a draft for a stimulus package, which became the blueprint for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or stimulus package). Even Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid, remarked that “this legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs....

9

Domestic The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.” Why the Democrats and the White House would cooperate and collaborate with this socialist special interest group is incomprehensible.

However, the Apollo Alliance’s radicalism is even more treacherous.

Apollo’s leadership is comprised on many radicals, namely Jeff Jones and Van Jones (no relation).

Jeff Jones cofounded Weather Underground and was actively involved in its heinous plots until the group dismantled.

Obama has discreetly repaid his core constituency for his dramatic election victory. For example, Obama and his core supporters landed AFL-CIO chief, Dennis Hughes leadership as chairman of the New York Federal Reserve. Obama’s team and the progressive authors of the stimulus package allocated $8.5 billion to ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now).

ACORN’s history of massive voter fraud makes the group an unlikely candidate for grant money. Moreover, recently exposes have surfaced implicating ACORN employees of complicity in prostitution rings, advice on tax evading and smuggling illegal minors for prostitution.

The American people did not anticipate such schismatic radicalism. They believed the inexperienced politician with no legislative accomplishments was a centrist who would usher in a new age of bipartisan and responsible government.

Obama repudiated thew notion that ties to radicals should discount him from election. However, Obama’s actions as President have not rein10

forced this rhetoric. Moreover, the White House has refused to address mounting legitimate concerns of the role of czars and their questionable pasts.

While Obama’s radical ties are quite apparent, Obama is not necessarily himself a radical. Certainly Obama sympathizes with radicals, but he does not necessarily share their ideology. In all fairness, many

freedom than any society in human history. Liberals yearn to destroy and discard the very principles and ideals contributing to American democracy, through radical change.

Progressive legislators are crafting efforts to enact stringent restrictions in the energy sector and nationalize the U.S. health care system, both are both radical suggestions.

Democrats’ whimsical argument for creating a “public option” to augment “choice and competition” is nothing more than a pretext for driving insurance companies out of business, in favor of nationalized care. In essence, just what the Apollo Alliance, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd would advise. Under this administration, radicalism http://www.moonbattery.com has been institutionalized. Suffice to say, there soon may not be a of the fundamentalists affiliated “fine line” separating liberalism and with Obama committed their nefar- radicalism—they will amount to the ious acts or made miscreant remarks same thing, due in large part to this years ago. President Obama may be- administration.

The Republic is in danger. In the lieve these radicals are contrite and have sworn off being ideologues. words of President Barack Obama, There is a fine line between liberal- “We are five days away from fundaism and radicalism and Obama has mentally transforming the United yet to cross it. Like any President, States of America.” There is reason Obama desires improving Ameri- to fear. HMR can society. Unlike radicalism liberals do not advocated for revolutions and idiotic ideals intended for drastic reform. However in the current political environment, radical social and economic policies are accepted by main-stream liberals.

In reality there is one fundamental difference separating contemporary liberalism and conservatism- their view of the nature of American society. With few exceptions, when liberals look at the U.S., all they see are oppression, injustice, and imperfection. Conservatives see a nation shaped by principles and institutions that have afforded more HM Review Vol. XIX

International

International Airsoft Canada

Rising Sun After 60 years with the same party in power, Japan has a new majority party, and a new President. by rebecca segall

A

powerful industrial nation, hit hard by the recession, stagnates politically and economically.

An unpopular, incumbent government is ousted from power, giving a fresh-faced, charismatic leader and his party the chance to bring about change.

Sound familiar? Last month’s congressional elections in Japan share many striking resemblances with the United States’ own condition, showing promise for Japan both internally in the international community. The recent victory of the opposing Democratic Party of Japan in Japan’s lower house of Congress, and

the almost certain appointment of party leader Yukio Hatoyama to the position of Prime Minister, mark the first time in 54 years that the powerful Liberal Democratic Party has not been in control of Japanese government. The drastic change comes with equally drastic implications about the future of Japanese politics and the Japanese-U.S. relationship.

This new era of Japanese politics brings about the end of the dominance of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP); a position of power that spanned over half a century. While the LDP may have been on the decline in recent years, leading to its loss in the latest election, it has still played an integral role in helping Japan become the prominent industrial power

that it is today. Its history dates back to a post-World War II Japan; a Japan in a state of political turmoil. In 1954, the newly formed Liberal Democratic Party came to power and took great strides towards strengthening Japan’s political and economic independence in the wake of disenfranchising Allied occupation. The LDP pushed Japan to unprecedentedly high levels of economic growth with a foreign policy centered around exporting goods to the United States. In the last half a century, the LDP has ensured strong ties between Japan and the U.S., with an implicit reliance on the latter to create a market for Japanese goods. Since the LDP ushered in improvements on living conditions and the economy in the 1950’s,

The example set by Japan of economic revival and efficiency implies that in the future, more nations can bring about political change and gain economic independence.

Georgia Liberal

A Symbol of Change The logo of the party which hopes to be the face of Japan for years to come.

October 2009 HM Review

it has been leading Japan’s coalition government in the lower house of Congress consistently for the past 54 years, and has appointed 19 Prime Ministers since its 1954 creation. However, while the LDP is undeniably credited with turning a war-

11

International lators can distribute political or financial favors to the constituents that supported and funded their campaigns. Another aspect of the newest LDP governmental cabinet that lost popular support in recent years is its significant number of inherited positions in Congress. Many LDP congressional seats are handed down to sons and sons-in-law of congressmen. All of this adds to the increasingly common perception in Japan that the LDP has lost the populist political ideals it started off

While all parts of the world have felt the sharp bite of the current economic downturn, Japan is among the nations that have suffered the most. ally influential. Tremendously unpopular Prime Minister Taro Aso, with an approval rating that has dipped below 20 percent, campaigned last year on the promise of reinvigorating the economy.

Instead, Japan has experienced only decline in the past year of Aso’s ministry.

Also, the Prime Minister has done nothing to elevate Japan’s international image.

“When we think of Mr. Aso,” said political analyst Takao Nazis last year, “we think of his gaffes.” This is a reference to Aso’s many political blunders throughout his career, which have destroyed much of his political credibility in Japan. Many Japanese feel that the LDP has lost its way in the recent years, becoming corrupt and politically ineffective. There is a widespread feeling among Japanese voters that the bureaucrats in congress have been looking out for the interests of large corporations rather than the people. In truth, a large number of LDP representatives, including Prime Minister Aso himself, have used koenkai with private businesses“pipelines” through which legisSeptember 12

with in 1954. Japanese popular support for the conservative government has reached its lowest point in over a decade, owning to the tense economic anxiety.

This creates an opportune window for an up-and-coming political party to step in with promises of political stimulation and change.

Formed in the last decade, the Democratic Party- the opposition to the LDPswooped into the forefront Japan’s stagnant political scene last year and gained widespread popularity. Now that the par-

ty holds 308 of the 480 seats in Congress, enough to make important legislative decisions on its own, it is sure to name party president Yukio Hatoyama as Prime Minister in the coming months. The refreshing policies Hatoyama brings to the table are what made the Democratic Party victorious over the LDP in Augusts’ elections, based firmly in the notions of economic stimulus and growth. The new stimulus legislation Hatoyama suggests require almost $178 billion. Though the Democratic Party has shared its plans to cut wasteful government spending, polls show that many Japanese are skeptical of what the new government is capable of.

However, if Japanese voters are not confidant with the left-leaning new party in power, they certainly took a leap of faith when the elected the Democratic party with a resounding majority last month.

Hatoyama’s main campaign promises include increasing minimum pension, lowering business taxes, and keeping Japan’s staggering national debt from growing any higher.

One of the most effective incentives for electing Hatoyama’s party, however, is the help the new government offers in raising a child. Because it is hard for expectant or new mothers to find or keep a job, economic anxiety has made many

Change The Democratic Party Leader Hatoyama promises change that will allow Japan to compete globally

The GLobe & Mail

torn Japan into the powerful nation that it is today, it is not without reason that the long reign of this political party has come to a close with last month’s elections.

While all parts of the world have felt the sharp bite of the current economic downturn, Japan is among the nations that have suffered the most. It has experienced no economic growth in the past several years, while its Asian competitors, such as China, become more glob-

HM Review Vol. XIX

International

The Market Oracle

A Failed Economy Since the early 1990’s, Japan’s economy has been in decline. With the current economic meltdown, this trend has only worsened. women reluctant to have children. Japan has the oldest population in the world, with the smallest percentage of children and greatest percentage of the elderly.

While the LDP has ignored this troubling statistic, the Democratic Party promises to take some of the financial worry out of childcare by offering up to $276 a month to parents up until the child reaches junior high-school age. This and other new policies offer hope for a more successful, more rapidly growing Japanese economy.

nity, which includes industrialized nations such as China and South Korea. The Democratic Party also plans on revisiting laws involving the presence of American military forces in Japan, which currently reaches about 50,000 Americans. Having opposed America’s military involvement with the Middle East from the start, the Japanese government promises to reconsider Japan’s role in refueling American warships in the Indian Ocean. Hatoyama calls for “equal partnership” between the

Some U.S. lawmakers are worried about losing a stable relationship with Japan, or even about being surpassed by a high-exporting, industrial, foreign nation. However, the U.S. should expect to continue its consistent trade with Japan, even if it no longer holds its implicit position of dominance over the latter. Additionally, the hopeful blossoming of the Japanese economy has only positive implications for living conditions and daily life in Japan. If anything, this example set by Ja-

U.S. lawmakers are worried about losing a stable relationship with Japan, or even about being surpassed by a high-exporting, industrial, foreign nation. However, the U.S. should expect to continue its consistent trade with Japan, even if it no longer holds its implicit position of dominance over the latter.

A key change the Democratic Party is making to the status quo of the past 54 years is Japanese dependence on the United States. While strong trade relations with the U.S. were the cornerstone of Japanese foreign policy under the reign of the LDP, Hatoyama has said he would like to give foreign policy a more “Asian tilt”. This entails sharpening Japan’s focus on the burgeoning Asian trade commuOctober 2009 HM Review

U.S. and Japan. While he has said that the relationship between the two will remain “as important as ever”, this seems to contradict his push for Japanese economic independence and growth. Hatoyama and his party have stressed the need for the end of American-dominated globalization.

This liberated Japanese attitude may seem threatening to the United States.

pan of economic revival and efficiency implies that in the future, more nations can bring about political change and gain economic independence. A leading economic nation taking proactive steps to free itself of the crushing economic downturn has hopeful connotations for the whole world. HMR

13

International

Pakistan’s Predicament Why the U.S. Should Now Assist in the Fight Against the Taliban

T

by victor ladd

he situation in Pakistan is dire. After four years of constant fighting some progress has started to be made against the Tehriki-Taliban. During the war, over 5,300 civilians and more than 10,000 soldiers were killed. The most powerful number remains the astounding 3.44 billion civilians displaced due to the war in Pakistan. However, throughout the conflict multiple stalemates and changes political and military tactics have caused the

14

outcome of this war to be in doubt. The morale and effectiveness of the Pakistani army are ever-changing, despite pressure by the United States on Pakistan to continue fighting. Nonetheless, despite the high cost in lives and resources, as well as a widespread unwillingness to fight in the Pakistani Army, the war on the Taliban must be fought to bring stability to the region, and it is a war that the U.S. intelligence and political power can end.

President Obama has taken a stand against the Taliban. Obama will

supply Pakistan with financial assistance of 1.5 billion dollars each year for the next five years. In addition Obama will provide another 2.8 billion dollars directly to the Pakistani military. However there is much speculation regarding Pakistan’s willingness to fight against the Taliban, despite the United States’ demands that Pakistan be a stronger partner in destroying Taliban safe havens.

A series of events caused these concerns. On August 5, 2009 a CIA-operated drone killed the leader of the Tal-

HM Review Vol. XIX

International iban, Baitullah Mehsud. However the Pakistani military failed to act and attack the Taliban while they were weak. U.S. counterterrorism officials worried that a failure to capitalize on the post-Baitullah confusion within the Taliban would allow its new leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, to consolidate his position and reorganize the group. The preparation for such an attack would have taken almost two months, but Pakistan never even began these preperations. Instead, some politicians decided that peace deals should be made with Taliban regions, renegotiating deals which previously ended in failure.

Soon rumors began to circulate that Pakistani officials were in fact embracing the Taliban presence. US officials believed that the Pakistani military lacked the will to eliminate the Taliban entirely. Some experts decided that the military simply wanted “to get the Tehrik-i-Taliban back to where it was two years ago - a malleable force that doesn’t attack the Pakistani state, and particularly not the army,” said Bruce Riedel, who conducted the Obama Administration review of Pakistani policy.

The Taliban is a Sunni Islamist group which ruled Afghanistan from 1996 and 2001 until it was dislodged by the American-led invasion. The group’s origins were a student movement with the goal of purifying Afghanistan. The Taliban’s rise to power was greeted with relief by many Afghans. Weary of the corruption and brutality of the warlords who had fought for control in the years after the end of Soviet occupation, Afghans were supportive of the Taliban. Since 2004, the Taliban have proved to be effective insurgents against Western forces and the Afghan government. Its influence has spread as well in the often lawless territories of northwestern Pakistan. The extent of the Taliban’s influence was so great that it replaced the Pakistani government’s hold over cities as well as the countryside.

In the spring of 2009, Taliban insurgents began trying to make inroads in Punjab, October 2009 HM Review

the province that is home to half of Pakistan’s population as well as its capital. In the meantime, the return of the opium trade helped fill the group’s pockets. As the fighting continued, the ranks of the Taliban were increased by foreign recruits from Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, and various Arab countries.

The Taliban spread quickly and soon the region of Swat which is not far from the capital became the scene of constant fighting. The irony of the situation was that for many years, the Pakistan military offered money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Incredibly, the Pakistani military showed reluctance to take on the Taliban, even as

the organization began to threaten Pakistan itself.

In February 2009, Pakistan gave the Swat valley to the Taliban and allowed the insurgents to impose Islamic law, called Shariah, on the province. However, Taliban militants, most of them under the leadership of Mullah Fazlullah, continued to attack the government. Only in March 2009 did the Pakistani political leaders decide to embark on a military campaign against the Taliban.

Through drone strikes alone, the U.S presense in Pakistan has been felt.

Over 32 strikes were carried out in 2009 and over the past two years those drone strikes have killed nine out of the 14 highest level Taliban leaders. With increased forces and resources provided by the United States, Pakistan has the ability to stabilize its country. Nonetheless talk that Pakistan is unwilling to attack the Taliban

has not abated. However, these conspiracy theories started to die off when Palestinian forces and volunteer militias began to actually attack the Taliban. Of course, most of these attacks were backed by US air support.

Nonetheless, the most outstanding response to the Taliban has been from the Pakistani people. Signifying the motivation to rid Pakistan of the Taliban, many men, young and old have formed militias to combat the Taliban. These militias are unpaid, and the only aid they receive is ammunition from the Pakistani army.

The militias have increased the ranks of those fighting the Taliban and given hope to the country. Farmers and businessmen alike have left homes and family to fight.

The ability for common people to rise against the Taliban has stunned the country and changed the outlook of the war.

However the strength of these militias is limited, and the fate of the war rests on the decisions of leaders in Pakistan and in the United States. If the Pakistani government allows the United States to increase unmanned bombing raids against the Taliban, increased progress will be possible. On the other hand, the Pakistani government has proposed a more radical idea to combat the Taliban. Since early 2007, Pakistan has shown interest in obtaining the technology to develop unmanned aircraft for itself. This would allow the US to lessen the amount of aid given to Pakistan, increase the ability for Pakistan to single handedly fight the Taliban and most importantly, allow the US to devote these resources to other areas of fighting in the Middle East. Whether this trade in technology has happened is yet unknown. But, after many years of turmoil with the Taliban, Pakistan may find its way out of this war. Unfortunately, it seems as though success may depend on the help of the United States. HMR

15

International

The Afghani Elections Corruption at its best.

by zoe rubin

In the perilous Kunduz province of Northern Afghanistan, a district policeman turns on his supposed comrades, fatally poisoning eight of his fellow officers. The man pauses briefly to gun down his superior commander, before he calls in his true allies, the Taliban. Another seven men are murdered early that Saturday morning as the local Taliban joined their agent to kill the remaining police and to destroy what had been the district’s command post. Such an attack is only a mere addition to the skyrocketing statistic of roadside bombings, ambushes, and gunned attacks that sweep across the nation’s rugged landscape each day. With each shot or bomb dozens of men, women, and children; civilians or police, will instantly die or suffer, their bodies covered in hideous burns and wounds, as the Taliban continues to gain the upper hand throughout the nation.

In the midst of this civil unrest, election results for Afghanistan’s August 20th election are still trickling in. With the preliminary polls in, President Hamid

16

Karzai, the highly unpopular incumbent, is the favorite to win. It seems that he will not have to face a runoff against his closest political enemy, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. But once the results are recounted for fraud, Mr. Karzai may find himself under attack from his numerous critics and enemies. Although in recent vote tallies, Mr. Karzai leads by fifty-four percent, in earlier polling it was found that president’s margin of victory over Abdullah was only twenty percent. This is because of the wide range of opposition candidates to Mr. Karzai. This wide range of ministers, parliament leaders, columnists, governors, and the nation’s first female candidate ever, are united in their opposition to the weak and corrupt government of President Karzai.

Mr. Karzai was in fact chosen by Abdullah to lead the nation during the Bonn Conference in Germany in December of 2001- which met to plan the nation’s future interim government. After ethnic Tajiks gained many of the Afghanistan’s most prominent positions, the role fell to an ethnic Pashtun to lead nation.

The Pashtun are tribal people who make up most of Afghanistan’s population.

They mostly live in the rural tribal areas where the Taliban is strongest. As the son of a politically powerful Kandahar family, Mr. Karzai was fit for the job of president.

When Mr. Karzai was first elected president in 2004, after serving as the Chairman of Afghanistan’s interim administration since 2001, he won with more than fifty percent of the vote. It was a remarkable feat, considering the election was the first ever in Afghanistan’s modern history, with a voter turnout of over seventy percent. Ashraf Ghani, the nation’s finance minister from 2002 to 2004 and now one of the leading opposition candidates, remarked, “In 2005, Karzai could have taken the country in any direction he wished.”

Initially, Mr. Karzai vowed to rid his administration of the warlords who have consistently ruled the nation for decades.

Unfortunately, he seems to have been unwilling to, or unable to quell their power. In 2005 the global watchdog group, Transparency International ranked AfHM Review Vol. XIX

International ghanistan 117th on “Corruption Percentage Index” out of 176th - the fifth most corrupt state in the world. In revenue calculations made by Ghani, “due to corruption, 80 billion is being lost [per year].”

How could the leader who ran on a platform of reform so painfully disappoint expectations? Mr. Karzai’s greatest failure has its roots in the very same background that made him president.

Mr. Karzai became the leader of his local Pashtun tribe after his death of his father a decade ago. By attempting to be a man of the people, like his idol Gandhi and other great reformers, Mr. Karzai eschewed membership to any political party in favor of becoming Afghanistan’s tribal leader. Yet even his idols had started from somewhere. They had led grassroots movements supported by many. Mr. Karzai’s idealism left him alone. And so, the Afghani president was powerless against the warlords who took his taxes for themselves and the international groups that swooped in on him after September 11th.

With no other support, Mr. Karzai turned to the supporters of warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar— a former Afghani prime minister and a wanted insurgent who openly supports Al Qaeda. Mr. Karzai served as deputy foreign minister of Afghanistan when Hektmatyar was prime minister. Now the warlords whose power he hoped to check are his vital allies in the campaign.

Now as he runs for re-election, Mr. Karzai heads what is nicknamed by many to be “the war-lord ticket.” His first vice-president, Mohammed Qasim Fahim, has been accused of numerous hutem does not remove a private option for those financially sound citizens who wish to pay for it. Thereby, France allows citizens to have a governmental “safety net” while maintaining the opportunity for private health insurance companies to remain in business. My grandfather had the privilege of not paying for any of the treatment he received after his surgery, because the government and a private health insurance company covered all expenses.

After a few months of treatment with no charge, my grandfather experienced little improvement and so returned to the doctor for a routine check-up. The docOctober 2009 HM Review

tor then admitted to having made a judgment mistake in his route of treatment. If this were a scenario in the United States, the doctor would have been sued for malpractice. However, in France, the few conditions under which a doctor is sued involve gross negligence for the patient.

Because there was record of my grandfather being cared for by the doctor, there was little motive to pursue a malpractice lawsuit.

Back to square one, my grandfather went to the leading surgeon in Paris who came highly recommended by friends and family. Because of his supplemental insurance, my grandfather did not pay for his visit with the doctor. The doctor urged for a hip replacement once he had fully reviewed the case. After a successful surgery, my grandfather was transferred to the hospital rehabilitation facility before moving to a private rehabilitation center. Under French law, all private and public health facilities must follow strict guidelines imposed by the Health Ministry, providing more surveillance for the treatment and care given to patients.

To this day, my grandfather’s good fortune has led him to continue progressing in treatment. Despite all the current success, many more months of rehabilitation will be needed before my grandfather can be remotely close to the same condition he was in before his accident.

While some Americans might view this scenario as the quintessential example of what is wrong with French health care, I choose to view the matter in a different light. There is no denying that my grandfather was disregarded when treated by the first doctor. However, in the United States, patients are also sometimes not treated properly because of overall negligence. However, as I stated previously, there was no incentive to sue this doctor for malpractice as there was no gross carelessness as it came to treatment.

Malpractice may seem like the most productive course of action; however, malpractice insurance for doctors attributes to 200 to 500 billion dollars of wasteful spending annually. In this economic crisis, or any economy for that matter, is 200 to 500 billion dollars worth wasting?

Additionally, some may call to question that doctors in France do not make

as much as their American counterparts and therefore are of lesser quality as it comes to treatment. In France, the prestige of medicine does not come from the paycheck you make but by the honor you have as you save the lives of others. Arguably, the motive for getting into medicine in France is led by a great desire to help the patient, maybe more so than in America.

The major draw to the French system is the nominal amount being paid by patients to doctors. Throughout this year and a half long journey, my grandfather has only paid for one round of post-operative physical therapy. By contrast, in the United States, the average cost of a hip replacement is between 32 thousand dollars to 45 thousand dollars.

My grandfather was lucky enough to not have to pay any of that cost because of the government run health care and supplementary insurance companies. Not only was his health care treatment successful in the end, but he also was not belabored by excessive bills and paying “top dollars for top doctors.”

Doubts may still arise about French health care. However, from vast research it will become clear that the French government is not trying to put health insurance companies out of business but instead to work together with public and private sectors of the system. This way of thinking is a firm middle ground to many of the problems we face today over Obama’s health care plan. In these types of heated debates, everyone can agree that compromise is needed.

Overall, the French health care system has not failed any of my relatives; including my grandfather. Withstanding all the troubles he has faced in his life, my grandfather has been able to view his country as a source of pride and trust when it came to anything from arts to health care. This patriotism was rewarded with treatment he did receive nowhere else. HMR

17

Features

Features A Successful French Hybrid

Despite what many believe, the French combination of public and private options insures security for it’s grateful citizens, a succesful model for the United Stated to emulate.

http://fostoriaredcross.org/images/american-flag-2a.jpg

http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/mld/images/french%20flag.jpg

D

by dorin azerad

http://identityrevealed.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/worldhealthcare.jpg

espite widespread criticism tion and, for the most part, disregarded French health care provides univerof the French health care his past medical history. In the end, the sal coverage to all of its citizens. From system, my personal con- doctor decided to save the bone instead this, the government under the Sécurité nection with the system of performing a hip replacement, an ap- Sociale, or social security system covhas revealed the compe- proach that would have been more ben- ers 75% of medical expenses. 20% of the tence and beneficially of a mixed public eficial in the long run. However, after his working class’ gross salary is deducted to and private approach. I have experienced discharge, he received the benefit of be- support this social security system. The the care of French doctors firsthand, and ing sent to a private rehabilitation center remainder of costs can either be paid out have relatives, for whom I care deeply, where all costs were covered, including of pocket by the patient or through supwho have lived under this system for ambulance travel between the rehabilita- plementary financing of private health decades upon decades. Within the past tion center and the hospital for further care insurance companies. In contrast year, my beloved grandfather, a native visits and x-rays. to many Americans’ beliefs, the French Frenchman, broke his leg on the streets of Paris. He was immediately rushed to the nearest public hospital, a course of action also practiced in the United States.

However, in contrast to what would have occurred in the United States of America, here the story takes a turn for the worse. While in the French hospital, his doctor ordered a scant number ofHealth Care is Contagious: Across the globe, countless nations are implementing new systems, in model of the French, that will university cover their populations. tests for his condi-

18

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

http://www.itoxination.netfiles/amenablemortality.jpg

tem does not remove a private op- veillance for the treatment and care given tige of medicine does not come from the tion for those financially sound citizens to patients. paycheck you make but by the honor you who wish to pay for it. Thereby, France To this day, my grandfather’s good have as you save the lives of others. Arallows citizens to have a governmental fortune has led him to continue progressguably, the motive for getting into medi“safety net” while maintaining the op- ing in treatment. Despite all the current cine in France is led by a great desire to portunity for private health insurance success, many more months of rehabilihelp the patient, maybe more so than in companies to remain in business. My tation will be needed before my grandAmerica. grandfather had the privilege of not father can be remotely close to the same The major draw to the French syspaying for any of the treatment he re- condition he was in before his accident. tem is the nominal amount being paid ceived after his surgery, because the govWhile some Americans might view by patients to doctors. Throughout this ernment and a private health insurance this scenario as the quintessential examyear and a half long journey, my grandfacompany covered all expenses. ple of what is wrong with French health ther has only paid for one round of postAfter a few months of treatment care, I choose to view the matter in a difoperative physical therapy. By contrast, with no charge, my grandfather expe- ferent light. There is no denying that my in the United States, the average cost of a rienced little improvement and so re- grandfather was disregarded when treathip replacement is between 32 thousand turned to the dollars to 45 thousand doctor for a dollars. My grandfather routine checkwas lucky enough to not up. The doctor have to pay any of that then admitted cost because of the govto having made ernment run health care a judgment and supplementary inmistake in his surance companies. Not route of treatonly was his health care ment. If this treatment successful in were a scenario the end, but he also was in the United not belabored by excesStates, the doctor sive bills and paying “top would have been dollars for top doctors.” sued for malpracDoubts may still tice. However, in arise about French France, the few health care. However, conditions under from vast research it will which a doctor is France in the Lead: In 2002-03, France has over a 4.5 million lead over the become clear that the sued involve grossUnited States in deaths related to health care.

French government is negligence for the not trying to put health patient. Because insurance companies out there was record of my grandfather be- ed by the first doctor. However, in the of business but instead to work together ing cared for by the doctor, there was United States, patients are also sometimes with public and private sectors of the syslittle motive to pursue a malpractice not treated properly because of overall tem. This way of thinking is a firm middle lawsuit. negligence. However, as I stated previground to many of the problems we face Back to square one, my grandfather ously, there was no incentive to sue this today over Obama’s health care plan. In went to the leading surgeon in Paris who doctor for malpractice as there was no these types of heated debates, everyone came highly recommended by friends gross carelessness as it came to treatment. can agree that compromise is needed. and family. Because of his supplemental Malpractice may seem like the most proOverall, the French health care sysinsurance, my grandfather did not pay ductive course of action; however, maltem has not failed any of my relatives; for his visit with the doctor. The doc- practice insurance for doctors attributes including my grandfather. Withstanding tor urged for a hip replacement once to 200 to 500 billion dollars of wasteful all the troubles he has faced in his life, he had fully reviewed the case. After a spending annually. In this economic crimy grandfather has been able to view successful surgery, my grandfather was sis, or any economy for that matter, is 200 his country as a source of pride and trust transferred to the hospital rehabilitation to 500 billion dollars worth wasting? when it came to anything from arts to facility before moving to a private rehaAdditionally, some may call to queshealth care. This patriotism was rewardbilitation center. Under French law, all tion that doctors in France do not make ed with treatment he did receive nowhere private and public health facilities must as much as their American counterparts else. HMR follow strict guidelines imposed by the and therefore are of lesser quality as it Health Ministry, providing more sur- comes to treatment. In France, the presOctober 2009 HM Review September

19

Features

Health Care Reform: The Change We Need

Amidst domestic turmoil, the time is now for the U.S. government must step forward in continuing an historic mission of extending health care. by daniel grafstein

W

hat is controversial about changing our health care system?

Should we not strive to help others? Millions of Americans find it perfectly acceptable the one in every six of their fellow citizens can’t afford to get sick. Giving Americans a public health care option would not only create a safer environment, but also provide benefits for our nation’s economy. The time is now, America. We must follow our president’s lead and make the leap of faith for a universal health care system before it is too late.

Health care encompasses all the goods and services designed to promote good health. Currently, the broad umbrella of what is “health care,” prevents, treats, and cures illnesses. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Lyndon_B._Johnson Barack Obama campaign nearly 90 million Americans, about one Following in LBJ ‘s Footsteps: Lydon B. Johnson was the first to provide third of the population spent a portion of anyone in America with affordable run government-run health coverage either 2007 or 2008 without health care with Medicare and Medicade. Now, Obama wishes to logically expand the coverage, often denied desperately needscope of this health care to all U.S. citizens. ed care. There were 22 thousand preventable deaths between the ages of 25 and insurance premiums for small firms have forms were targeted at the elderly and 64 among this group alone. Why is there escalated at an average of 12% annually. the disabled. The names of LBJ’s reforms, such a high number of uninsured Ameri- The current state of our health care sys- which became cornerstones of this great cans? The answer is that health care is tem is simply unacceptable. And now society, are Medicare and Medicaid. The that the President fairly obvious reasoning behind the resimply inMedicare and Medicaid drastically imhas begun to for- forms was that no one in need of mediaccessible proved the lives and economic standmulate a plan to cal services should be denied such a basic and too ing of many Americans. And the lives combat these in- right. The economy benefited as people expensive for many of many more people would be im- justices we must no longer had to be as frugal regarding saving up for health insurance after reAmericans. proved if a public option was extend- seek a solution.

Health care tirement, and younger families no lonEven if em- ed to everyone. reform is not comger had to assume the burden of caring ployees are pletely unheard for their elderly relatives. Now, Obama fortunate of in this country. wishes to logically expand the scope of enough to be offered health coverage, they can’t always afford the exorbitant Lyndon B. Johnson was the first to pro- this health care to all U.S. Citizens. Medipayments. The average annual increase vide anyone in America with affordable care and Medicaid drastically improved in inflation has been 2.5%, while health government-run health coverage based the lives and economic standing of many solely on need, not on income. His re- Americans. And the lives of many more

20

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features people would be improved if a pub- would be extreme to say that all public reform will result in absolutely no tax lic option was extended to everyone. health care’s opponents are hypocrites increase among 96 percent of small busiDespite spending a higher portion and liars, but many believe their ideas nesses. The government even helps these of its gross domestic product on health would seem to indicate so. Obama has precise businesses by providing them care than any other country, America made it clear that his bill would not add with tax credits to make coverage affordranks 37 out of 191 countries in World one single penny to the deficit. In fact, able. Opponents to health care reform Health Oraccording to projec- are not opposed to the idea itself or the ganization It is urgent that we get on board tions, it would return well-being of the everyday American, rankings. and adopt a system like Canada’s, a modest surplus. It is rather they are trying to protect private The five which would promote the principles particularly interest- insurers and large corporations who can indicators ing that most of the afford to pay for private health care for of life and liberty upon which this tested for in leaders generating their employees. country is founded. the survey these arguments beOf all the grave dangers facing our are: responlong to the same party country at this moment, our current siveness, fairness of financial contribu- that fervently supports a costly war in health care system, or the lack thereof, tion, overall level of health, distribution Iraq. This war was the actual reason for is quite possibly the greatest one. It is abof health in the populations, and distri- the transformation from a surplus under solutely essential that the citizens of our bution of financing. The US could drasti- Clinton to a debt under Bush. Health in- nation be given the shocking statistics cally improve on all of these points with surance reform would not cut Medicare and taught about the injustices and hya universal health care system. Canada, benefits. Though the legislation put forth pocrisies. For this reason, even Horace ranked at 30, provides us with a model. by Obama does identify the 500 billion Mann’s own 10th grade health teacher Canada’s health care system is a govern- dollars that he plans to eliminate, the chooses to spend a portion of her classes ment plan, which guarantees all citizens money cut from Medicare mostly rids solely on health care. And for this reacare for catastrophic injury. Canada’s of it overpayments and inefficiencies. son, I write this piece. system is not only more widespread but For instance, the 177 billion dollars paid also more cost effective. Health care ac- to insurance companies in subsidies for counts for approximately nine percent something called the Medicare Advanof Canada’s budget, whereas it accounts tage, which has few benefits and doesn’t for seventeen percent of America’s. The result in better health care for seniors, quality of Canada’s system does not suf- will be eliminated. Finally, health care fer for funding quantity. “It is a common misconception that Canada’s health care system is a strictly regulated system. Patients get to choose doctors, hospitals, and fees they pay to health specialists,” according to Senator Jerry Grafstein. Canada’s health care system is far superior to ours. It is urgent that we get on board and adopt a system like Canada’s, which would promote the principles of life and liberty upon which this country was founded.

Some common arguments against reforming the health care system state that it would pile on to our nation’s debt, cut Medicare and Medicaid services, and raise taxes on businesses creating individual jobs. It http://www.reversemortgageguides.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/medicare-comic-smaller.gif October 2009 HM Review

21

Features

3 Things YOU Should Know Abo

Matt Fox finds three fatal flaws w Over the last two months, our legislators have turned their attention away from an imminent financial crisis, a war over seas, and any form of homeland security to address… healthcare? While no one can say healthcare is not an important issue for our country, most would agree that the aforementioned topics should take precedent. Additionally, it is safe to say that the only reason why healthcare, the one issue that has bored the American people for the last 60 years, has been such a big issue to the people recently is because of our legislators attempt to destroy our slightly flawed system, and replace it with a system that is doomed to fail. While the 1000 page healthcare bill proposed by the left has numerous flaws, there are a handful of major issues that must be addressed.

Rationing When you hear the president speak of his plan, you hear how he promises to expand coverage to 47 million more Americans, lower healthcare costs by an average of 2,500 a person, and increase the quality of care. Dick Morris explains in perfectly in his book, Catastrophe, when he says, “He (the president) won’t tell you this, but the silent centerpiece of Obama’s program is his plan to ration health care, giving it to some and denying it to others. The bad news is, rationing health care is the only thing that makes his program possible.”

The president simply plans to pump money into the healthcare industry, but he’s ignoring the serious lack of primary care physicians in our country. In our country, we barely have enough primary care physicians for those who do have healthcare, and it is impossible that we could add 47 million people to a government run plan using only the doctors we have now. The president knows this, and the way he plans to get around this is rationing. Not everyone will be able to have care, but rather than letting the decision of who gets healthcare being left to private devices, it will now be a bureaucrat’s decision. And bureaucrats are going to give care to the young rather than to the old for one reason, it is cheaper. If you are a 30 year old and you need a new heart, you are going to get it instead of the 70 year old who needs it because, assuming you survive the operation, you will have about 50 more years of your life in which to pay taxes to the government, in essence, “paying back” the government for your operation. In this way, the president and the left plan to simply transfer those who don’t have healthcare from those who don’t have it now to the elderly.

If you thing that this is solely speculation, and that there is no evidence to back this up, then have a look at Canada and…Massachusetts? In Massachusetts, (which has the highest ratio of primary care physicians to patients of any state in the country) a bill was passed in 2006 giving universal healthcare. Massachusetts now has the longest waiting time to see a physician and to get operations in any state. You can spend as much money as you want on healthcare, but you can’t buy an instantaneous increase in the number of doctors we have. Additionally, under the president’s plan, doctors would not be paid as much, so there would be less incentive for individuals to go into that field.

22

catcot.n

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

bout Obama’s Health Care Plan

ws with the Obama’s health care reform The Public Option The Public Option. When explained by the president, it seems like a brilliant solution to a complicated issue. A government run healthcare plan that will keep the private insurers honest. A way of providing insurance to those who cannot afford it under the current system, and allowing those who are content with their care (a whopping 86% of those with coverage), can keep their current plan. There is only one problem with that, IT WON’T WORK; and here’s why.

Roughly 80% of Americans get their healthcare from their employer. This means that they do not choose what plan they sign onto, or choose how much they pay for their care, but their employer does. Keeping this in mind, which plan do you think the employer will choose for his employee; the private option, which is more expensive but will have better care, or the public option, the cheaper plan with worse coverage? Exactly.

With a large percentage of the 80% of Americans who get their coverage from their employers switching to the public option, private insurers will not be able to compete. This public option will not force insurers to lower their costs, but will force them out of business, leaving the public option as the only option for the American people.

Senior Citizens Senior Citizens are the biggest users of healthcare in our country. Nearly 60% of all healthcare costs for an individual come from over the age of 60. Currently, about 10-15% of legal residents are lacking healthcare. Under the legislation proposed by the left, that number would not be reduced to zero, but simply shifted. This plan is set up to simply decrease healthcare given to the elderly, and give it to those who do not currently have it.

When the president gave a speech on healthcare two weeks ago in order to try to save his clearly failing plan, he pledged to “not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. Period.” When he made this promise, other than disregarding what the Congressional Budgeting Office (CBO) had concluded (that it would add around 500 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years), he was referring to the cuts he was going to make to various programs. He did not mention however, that in order to maintain this “promise,” 500 billion dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid had been implemented into the House Bill

catcot.ning.com

October 2009 HM Review

23

Economics

Econo-friendly The Current Economy and its Future Prospects by deependra mookim

W

hen I look back at the calamitous events of this financial crisis, my feelings by and large are not of anger or frustration. Instead, I am amazed that so much went wrong as the former titans of institutional finance were brought down to their knees. The excesses of the past had come back to haunt these institutions and the thousands of over-leveraged Americans in a way that would prove critically damaging to the functioning of credit markets and the economy as a whole.

But after 22 months of grueling recession, professionals and non-professionals

24

alike are seeing potential green shoots to an economic recovery. While there are certainly many indicators pointing to an economic bottom, a full-fledged recovery still faces many potential challenges and will most likely be tepid at best. Through the length of this article, we will analyze the current state and future prospects of different economic facets such as housing, credit, and employment.

Although there is no perfect leading economic indicator, housing data can be analyzed to glean information about where the economy might go in the future. When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to subdue an overheated economy, housing is negatively affected, since homebuyers and homebuilders

don’t want to borrow at high mortgage and construction interest rates, respectively. However, the inverse of this is also true. The Fed has cut interest rates during the downturn, and homebuyers and builders have started to jump back into the market. The Census Bureau reports that 598,000 new privately-owned housing units were started in August. While this reported figure is 22.5% higher than the housing starts of January 2009, housing starts are still down 29.6% from August 2008 to August 2009. Even if our economy is recovering right now, it still has a very long way to go. Existing home sales, as reported by the National Association of Realtors, have risen each month over the last five months (March through HM Review Vol. XIX

June due to the one-month lag in reporting data) and are up 5% from last July.

Also of note, pending home sales were up a healthy 12% from July 2008 to July 2009.

(Pending home sales have signed contractual agreements but have not been closed.

This number can be a more current figure than existing home sales.) These increases in home sales and a general increase in activity in the housing markets have also caused two consecutive monthly increases of the S&P Case-Shiller Housing Price Index; these increases come after three years of decline. Joe Robson, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, believes that “Builders are seeing some improvement in buyer demand as a result of the first-time home buyer tax October 2009 HM Review

credit, and low mortgage rates and strong housing affordability have also helped to revive some optimism.” However, the tax credit that Robson refers to is set to expire on November 30 of this year, and many doubt if the markets can function without this $8000 tax credit as an incentive for purchasing a home. Many believe that housing and credit markets will wrestle with a wave of option adjustable rate mortgages set to adjust in 2010 and 2011.

Also, it is very likely that the commercial real estate market will struggle even with the turnaround in residential real estate markets. Prospects for the commercial real estate are bleak from almost every perspective; decreases in property values, rent, and occupancy rates, as well as dif-

ficulties in refinancing could push commercial real estate even further down.

Excessive building by homebuilders was one of the causes of the real estate bubble, and an inventory glut of houses still exists. In its release of new home sales, the Census Bureau also includes a figure called “month’s supply.”

The month’s supply of homes indicates the number of months it would take to sell the current supply of new homes at the current sales pace. This number climbed before and during the crisis as more and more new homes with fewer actual buyers. While this inventory figure is still relatively high compared to historical standards, it is down 25.7% from July 2008 to July 2009. Excessive inventory

25

myndir

Economics

Economics

can weigh down prices and the real estate market as a whole, and this yearly reduction in the month’s supply is a very positive leading indicator for the housing market.

The necessity of properly-functioning credit markets cannot be understated. The financial industry is still reeling from losses during the heart of the crisis and continues to hold back on offering credit. Although credit markets have mended some of the wounds inflicted during the crisis, credit is not flowing adequately enough to sustain a strong recovery. Banks continue to face high delinquency rates- 6.5% for all loans and leases in the second quarter- and large credit losses, especially on credit card defaults. Even though the housing market is showing signs of a turnaround, it remains weak and foreclosures remain near their highs of the crisis. Additionally, the securitization that had previously allowed lenders to reduce risk exposure has slowed down significantly but has recently shown signs of activity. Loans and leases contracted at an annualized rate of 8% over the past six months, a record decline. Banks remain skittish and conservative as shown by their allocations of assets. According to BusinessWeek, “Since February, bank holdings of Treasury and government agency securities have soared by $200 billion, while loans have shrunk by $295 billion.� In other words, instead of increasing lending, banks are holding on to more safe investments.

An unwillingness to lend is only half of the problem, since consumers and businesses are also not borrowing enough. Loan demand on the whole continues to fall. The yearly decline of consumer credit from July 2008 to July 2009 is the sharpest yearly decline on record. While economists predicted a monthly decline in consumer credit from June to July of $4 billion, the actual decline reported

26

Support of the Economic upturn: Over the past several months, shown by S&P as well as other indexes, indicate recovery in the creases.

HM Review Vol. XIX

projectlivecounseling

Economics

months, the S&P 500 has made significant and consistent upward progress since its low in March. The recent upturns, as y in the economy. Furthermore the S&P Case-Shiller Housing Price Index cite two consecutive months of housing price in-

October 2009 HM Review

27

Economics

projectlivecounseling

The Tepid Return to Normality: As the economy continues to improve, consumer confidence will grow, credit will begin the flow, and small businesses will again be able to recieve the capital necessary to the functioning of their businesses. by the Federal Reserve was $21.6 billion. Reductions in revolving credit (mainly credit cards) primarily caused this drastic decline. While this decline in consumer credit was partially due to higher credit standards, consumers cutting back on debt also caused the decline.

As consumers continue to save instead of spend, it is quite possible that this is only the beginning of more de-leveraging to come. Consumer debt levels would have to fall even more to return to the more standard levels of the late 1990’s. However, these declines don’t invalidate the argument that our economy is recovering since consumer debt usually decreases even after the cyclical bottoming of the economy.

Most banks admit that credit standards for household and commercial debt will remain higher than average into the foreseeable future. However, one of the bright spots in the credit markets is the dramatic increase in corporate bond issuance, which has been higher year-todate been higher than last year. The corporate spread is the difference between

28

corporate bond yields and Treasury yields. A large corporate spread indicates that people are less willing to lend to companies and would rather play it safe.

This figure peaked at more than 8% in March but is now down to a more reasonable 3.82%. This trend will likely continue as corporate profits exceed expectations; 73% of the S&P 500 companies beat second-quarter earnings expectations.

Nevertheless, 52% of these same companies reported revenue growth below consensus estimates. Although cost-cutting may have driven the earnings growth, increased demand for goods and services also affected corporate profits. The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing survey quantifies the activity of corporate purchasing managers (people that buy materials in order to manufacture a good). Historically, this survey is a very reliable coincident indicator of economic activity, since it shows what manufacturers expect from consumers. A number above 50 indicates that manufacturing is expanding, and a number below 50 indicates reduction in manufacturing

activity. After hitting a 12-month low of 32.9 in December 2008, the number has risen every month after this low. However, since the number remained below 50 during this span of time, manufacturing wasn’t growing, it was actually shrinking at a slower pace. But in August 2009, the Manufacturing Index rose to 52.9, indicating a rise in manufacturing for the first time in 18 months. This increase in manufacturing, as well as increases in leading economic indicators such as durable goods orders, suggests that companies are building up inventories in anticipation of increasing demand and economic growth.

In light of the current weaknesses in the housing and credit markets, one would expect consumer confidence to remain near their lows of the crisis.

Consumer confidence as reported by The Conference Board, however, has actually doubled since February. The index increased to 54.1 in August from a revised 47.4 in July, compared to estimates of 47.0. (The absolute number does not matter; the number is meant to be comHM Review Vol. XIX

Economics

busybod

pared relatively.) Another positive sign is that consumer expectations for economic activity in the next six months surged from 63.4 in July to 73.5 in August. August retail sales beat economists’ projections with an increase of 2.7 percent from the previous month. Auto sales contributed to this increase with an 10.6 percent monthly rise courtesy of Cash for Clunkers. When consumer confidence rises, Americans are more likely to spend. This consumer spending is likely to result in economic growth, since about 70% of our GDP is based on consumer spending. As consumers spend more, companies will start to produce and invest more, which also contributes to economic growth.

Since the official onset of this recession in December 2007, 6.9 million jobs have been lost. The unemployment rate stands at a staggering 9.7%, but economists except it to climb to 10.2% before declining in early 2010. The Employment Situation, as reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics, quite frankly is dismal. Average weekly hours worked and wages are more or less stagnant near their lows.

Slightly more than half of the unemployed are reported as “not on temporary layoff.” Increases in the number of hours October 2009 HM Review

worked overtime can act as a good leading indicator of future employment. Unfortunately, the number of hours worked overtime remains very low and has not budged a lot from those low levels. Additionally, the U.S. Labor Department reported that the economy lost 216,000 jobs in August, which marks 20 consecutive monthly declines. The Manpower’s Employment Outlook Survey signals that employers’ hiring plans for the fourth quarter of 2009 (October-December) dropped to the lowest level ever recorded since the inception of the survey in 1962.

Nevertheless, rising unemployment does not contradict an economic recovery, since unemployment tends to stay at high levels even after the economy bottoms.

In fact, the unemployment rate rose or stayed the same the quarter at the end of a recession for eight of the last ten recessions. Simply stated, the unemployment rate accurately portrays the current jobs market but is not a very good leading indicator of the economy as a whole.

To summarize, credit markets and employment remain especially weak.

On the other hand, the housing market, manufacturing, consumer confidence, and consumer spending have turned

around and are on the path to recovery.

While we have looked at many aspects of the current economy, many more factors that could significantly effect the economy exist. For example, the fate of the dollar and whether the U.S. is inflicted by rampant inflation or insidious deflation could set back the recovery. Government programs have helped stimulate growth, but the growth is inorganic and temporary. (However, there is still an estimated year’s worth of fiscal stimulus left to support the economy into next year.) On the whole, I agree with Warren Buffett in his view of the economy, stated succinctly in a New York Times Op-ed, that “the United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery.” Housing markets will continue to stabilize and corporate profits will further rebound, but credit markets and employment may take longer to recover. Even though the current economic situation seems only marginally improved, leading indicators and the like suggest that the worst is behind us and a recovery, albeit a sluggish one, is underway. HMR

29

Economics

Obama’s proposed healthcare reform and how the largest expansion of the federal goverment in the past century will destory our health care system and our economy. by aaron goldman

O

n September 9th 2009 President Barack Obama delivered a televised address to a joint session of congress. In the address Obama attempted to mediate the contentious debate over our country’s health care system. Fortunately for the future of our country, Obama blatantly failed to persuade the public to accept his health care plan. In fact the President’s address essentially resulted in just two words.

Two words that would ring from one ear to another ear throughout the United States. Two words whose shrill reverberations elevated debate over Obama’s health care plan to an unprecedented level. Those two words, uttered by South Carolina’s Republican Representative John Wilson during Obama’s address were of course “You Lie.” Though completely uncalled for and it bad taste to say the least, Senator Joe Wilson’s outburst on September 9th epitomized the controversy caused by a topic that has polarized

30

American people for decades. Healthcare is, as the late Ted Kennedy referred to it, “that great unfinished business of our society.”

The question is if well over 70 percent of our country, both liberals and conservatives alike, believe that there needs to be reform within the health care system, why has nothing been done? A recent study found that 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. According to another published article, about 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. If such immediate action needs to be taken, why is there so much opposition to Obama’s plan (HR 3200)? To fully understand this question, we must first briefly outline what Obama’s plan entails.

Simply put, Obama’s proposed health care plan is one of both a private and a public sector. This means that those who currently have health insurance will be allowed to keep their current coverage, while a “public option” will be provided for those currently uninsured. This

entire program will be implemented by either a government run-body or a nonfor-profit co-operative; either way buying health insurance will become mandatory.

Now in order for Obama’s plan to work, he obviously needs to raise a substantial amount of money, as he is planning to insure all of the 46 million Americans who are currently uninsured. To fund his program Obama proclaims he will do 3 things: lower cost efficiencies, use President George W. Bush’s tax write off, and create insurance exchanges to boost competition and bring down costs.

The problem is where the funding for this health care will come from. In the past few weeks President Obama has repeatedly stated that his plan will not cost our country “A Dime” neither now, nor in the future. If there is one thing that I would like readers to take away from reading this article, it is that that previous statement could not be further from the truth.

As explained above, one of the three ways that Obama plans to fund his health care plan is through cost efficienHM Review Vol. XIX

twenty-twenty

The Dangers of Health Care

nahhs

cies. This means that Obama believes that by making health care a government run service, he can save enough money to fund the initial cost of the health care system. He plans to save this money through technological development, specifically attempting to create an online data base for medical files, and slashing administrative cost. Now part of this claim is legitimate as the 10 to 20 percent of every dollar that is being taken out by insurance companies for administrative costs can definitely be cut by the government, as it will be a non for profit organization.

Obama, however, in order to adequately fund his health care plan, needs to cut administrative costs down to 3% from the current 20%. If Obama can manage to cut the administrative costs 17% combined with effectively using President Bush’s tax write offs, he will be universally renowned as a genius, and his plan will indeed not cost “a dime.” The problem, however, is that risk of what would happen if he were wrong; such a miscalculation would significantly outweigh the successes of his being right.

If Obama is wrong, and he cannot cut administrative costs by 17%he subtly has acknowledged that he will have to cut spending somewhere else in order to fund the health care plan that has already been backed by our nation. Since health care composes nearly 20% of America’s GDP, in order to fund his health care plan, he will have to either significantly raise taxes or crater another area of the economy, whether it be subsidies to farmers, education, the environment, or perhaps the military; regardless another industry will suffer. What is truly terrifying is that not

twenty-twenty

f

Economics

z.about

Speech Delivered: On September 9th 2009, President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress on his proposed health care “reform.” During his speech, he employed the typical Obama rhetoric, consisting of demonization of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and of course Wallstreet bankers. His shortsighted view of healthcare reform fails to see the long-term detrimental secondary effects of the health care overhaul. He failed to address the decrease in medical research and development, the decrease in employment, and the increase of the Federal budget deficit that would surely follow.

nahhs

October 2009 HM Review

31

Economics total government spending. The cost for the postal service, another federally run public service, was also underestimated by the CBO, and now is also is indebted around 7 billion dollars, regardless of what FedEx and UPS are doing.

The CBO has estimated the Obama’s proposed health care plan will add another trillion dollars to our 9 trillion dollar national deficit. Now, howev-

States.

Obama is also relying on President Bush’s Tax write off, which will come in 2010 and 2011 to fund his health care program. This also creates an enormous risk as if our country has financial troubles in the future for any reason whatsoever, the government will not be able to lower taxes to stimulate the economy because Obama used the money we were

img

only is tit highly improbable that Obama will be able to cut administrative costs by 17%, as health care administrative costs are quite necessary, but the fact that the same mistake has already been made before.

In 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Social Security Act creating the medicare and medicaid, which Johnson believed would not cost

Misestimation of Saving: Obama claims to be able to reduce the cost of health insurance a public option that does not pay executive bonuses and by ‘finding the most effective medications and procedures.” Obama fails to recognize that medicine is all about the individual. Even if the white pill is most effective for 70% of people, a doctor might choose to prescribe the blue pill, the red pill, or the green pill to a patient for whom the white pill causes drowsiness.

The point is that streamlining medicine is tantamount to intentionally reducing the options available to patients and making medicine in the US on the whole less effective. Obama fails to realize the immense (and virtually limitless) costs that the government possibly will have to incure with ration-less government health insurance. Everytime a person gets a light-cough, there will be no draw-back to checking into an E.R. a tremendous amount of money due to his cutting of administrative costs. When the bill was enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that by 1990 Medicare will have costed 12 billion dollars. When 1990 came around, however, Medicare costed over 110 billion dollars, and currently constitutes around four percent of our GDP and one third of the United States Governments Budget, while other public programs, such as education, only amount to around 1/100 of

32

er, health care spending composes nearly 20 percent of the United States’ GDP. So not only can we not afford this, but if the CBO underestimates the cost of Obama’s plan to nearly the same degree that they did for Medicare, 20 percent of America’s GDP would be wiped out. If this happened Obama would have to cut spending from another federally financed area, increase taxes, or our national deficit would could double and would like likely bring about a depression in the United

saving in case of such a situation on his health care reform.

Obama is also saying he will create of an exchange of insurances to compete against one another in order to stimulate competition and reduce costs. The problem with this, however, is that rather than having these insurance companies compete against each other, they will be competing against a non-for-profit government organization. So although competition would be increased and costs HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics Barack Obama is essentially playing russian roulette with our future.

This is America’s Degree all in moment.

All of our chips are in the pot, Barack Obama is looking at his cards, and he is down early. Only time will tell if Obama’ plan will fall through or if America will go into a state of economic stagnation.

Worse still is that if we fall into a depression, we will have the option of stimulat-

effects of these write offs will probably not be seen until 2014-2015. This is the exact time when we high school students will either be graduating college, or about to graduate. We, the high schoolers of today, will be the ones most greatly effected if Obama cannot lower cost efficiencies, as we will be the ones looking for the jobs during the economic crisis created by his health care plan. Is a health care pro-

medical progress will slow, and medical professions will become less desirable, especially in regard to the clause of HR 3200 that states that the government insurance will pay. doctors only 80% of the actual bill President Obama has stated that his plan is deficit neutral, and technically it is. But if he cant cut costs through his online medical database, through cutting administrative costs to 3%, and through his insurance exchange market, or if the CBO manages to underestimate the cost of health care yet again, The United States of America might face one of the greatest economic crises our country has ever seen. Obama will have to both cut subsidies from various government funded industries and raise taxes to fund the 20% of our GDP that he needs to fund his health insurance plan. There will be a tax increase and a massive spending decline simultaneously.

ing our economy by lowering taxes because Obama will have already used the Bush write off on the health care plan, that will have devastated our country.

Almost all Americans, and in fact many politicians, don’t fully understand the 1000+ pages that make up HR3200. So why take the risk for a possibly successful health care plan, on something that not many citizens of our country understand, and that has possibly the greatest downside of any health care act ever proposed.

We need to act now, and make sure that such a bill is not passed.

Now I know this may sound a little overdramatized, especially for high school students who are not yet able to vote and don’t think they can make a difference. But in reality, high school students should be the ones closest paying attention to the health care scenario. As I said before, Bush’s tax write off is set to occur over 2010-2011, meaning that the

gram really worth the risk of crushing the youth of America?

Now it is easy to see why those like senator Joe Wilson have become angered enough to scream out in a session in congress. Wilson was directly responding to yet another facet of this absurd, and potentially devastating plan: giving insurance to illegal aliens, who are not even paying taxes to begin with. Doing so would make the tax write off deficit even lower than it already is. By no means am i advocating the senators actions because I thought they were out of place and deserving of an apology, but it just shows how opposed people are to this plan, and why: because it is just continuing to add more and more of a burden to our already desolate looking future.

mirrorukrb1

will be reduced initially, eventually as the companies in this insurance exchange begin to go under or begin to merge together, they will be competing with the “public option” instead of each other. Unfortunately, this could lead to the phasing out of the private sector and the denoting of capitalism. Once the government intervenes in the medical industry, research and development of medication will slow,

October 2009 HM Review

33

Economics

Cash for Clu...Japanese Cars

How foreign auto manufatueres have taken the lion’s share of the American auto market.

by alexander familant

O

n July 1, 2008, the U.S. government allocated $1 billion to the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), also known as “Cash for Clunkers.” The money given to the program was used to pay $3,500$4,500 to anyone who traded in his or her car that was less than 25 years old and had a fuel economy of less than 18 miles per gallon. The purpose of the program was to give people an incentive to purchase new, fuel-efficient cars and boost sales of American auto manufacturers. Although the program initially was scheduled to end by November 1, 2009, the stimulus money was exhausted soon after the program was developed. Car dealership owners also became frustrated with the

34

programs convoluted money distribution system. Out of the top 10 selling cars purchased in the program, only two were produced by American makes. Although the program did marginally help improve U.S. car sales, the main beneficiaries of it were surprisingly not even Americans.

CARS is yet another failure in the U.S.’s attempt to give American auto companies the ability to compete on the global car market. For decades, foreign car companies, especially those from Japan such as Toyota and Honda, have been gradually eating away at American car sales. American companies like Ford and General Motors have been known for producing large, gas-guzzling trucks for most of their existence. On the other hand, the Japanese are developing more fuel-efficient cars by the day. The concept of being green and paying less for

gas each time you’re at the pump have been major incentives for people to buy fuel-efficient foreign cars since around the 1950’s. However, last year’s spike in oil prices to record highs showed people the burden that fuel costs can have on the wallet. As a result of recent high oil prices, people are now driving cars that boast the best fuel economy, which are largely produced by Toyota, Honda, Subaru and other Japanese and Korean car companies.

Cash for Clunkers is just one of the few programs recently implemented by the U.S. government with the purpose of sustaining the American auto industry.

Over the summer, another $8 billion was allocated to the American car manufacturers Tesla and Ford as part of the stimulus package. The companies receiving the money are expected to produce more HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics

Backfire from CARS: In July of 2008, the Congress passed the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), colloqially known as “Cash for Clunkers,” a car trade in program where a car purchaser can receive up to $4500 with the purchase of a new car. The program was created to both try and release pent up auto demand and boost the sales of US automanufacturers. The program was proclaimed prematurely a success, considering the $1 billion allocation was exhausted within the month; however, out of the top 10 car models purchased through the program, only two were from US makers. The program received a $2 billion “refill;” as with the original sum, these funds will likely make their way to foreign automakers.

threadedthoughts

fuel-efficient cars than they have in the past. However, US automakers are working tirelessly to salvage their companies and gain some sort of market share in the hybrid cars. Ford is expected to produce several new models of hybrid cars in the upcoming years and right now including the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Mercury Mariner, the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and the Ford Edge among several others.

As a result of the lack of fuel economy in US made cars, United States produces a disproportionally large amount of greenhouse gas from its autos. Even with the lack of car quality and car fuel economy, US manufacturers are still unable to compete in the global market. It would seem like the right thing for the U.S. government to subsidize car companies until they are able to compete on a global scale. However, when evaluating October 2009 HM Review

what the United States should do to solve its car situation, it must be noted that the problems with U.S. auto companies existed way before the financial crisis even began as a consequence of poor management. Rather than giving money to the consumer to choose a new fuel-efficient car, it would probably more effective if the U.S. government focused solely on the American car manufacturers and ensured that they meet their fuel economy standards.

The heart of the American auto crisis stems from two main causes: a reliance on their share of the SUV market and the United Auto Workers union (UAW).

As foreign cars were introduced with the US market, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were slowly pushed out of the market because of higher production costs. As a result, American automakers shifted their focus

onto the, at the time, more lucrative SUV market. However, with the recent spike in oil prices and the market for SUV’s dwindling, US automakers are hemorrhaging money more than ever.

The inability of the US automakers stems from the financial pressure put on them by the UAW. Workers unionized under the UAW force companies to pay them 50% more than American workers generally receive from foreign automakers with production facilities in the US. The influence of the UAW allows them to hold auto companies hostage for high salaries that ultimately prevent US automakers from competing the global market. If there are two things that US automakers should to in order to salvage their companies, they are severing ties the UAW as well as paying workers reasonable wages and begin (with a lower per-unit cost) produce more desirable small fuel-efficient cars.

HMR

35

Science and Technology

Science and Technology Danger: High Voltage!

Can an all-electric car save a company facing terrible sales and responsible for the worst gas-guzzeler conceived: the Hummer?

Andre Manuel explores the costs and benefits of the Chevy Volt.

T

by andre manuel

36

goes 80 miles, this number drops to 100, and again to 63 if it goes 300 miles. An earlier, less publicized EPA report put the Volt’s fuel efficiency at 85 miles per gallon. This is still a very good MPG estimate, but not nearly as high as GM’s 230. The car is certainly one of a kind and more environmentally friendly than most current models, but will this be enough to fix GM’s tarnished image?

Despite revolutionary technology, the Volt may not be able to pull GM away from the brink of disaster. GM has lost billions of dollars in recent years, recently went through a restructuring bankruptcy, and is now partially owned by the United States Government after the auto industry bailout. GM’s image is at an all time low, due to the sentiment (probably well-deserved) that its products are bad for the environment, and

The Denver Post

he long-awaited Chevrolet Volt, now slated for release

by GM in late 2010, is set to be one of the most controversial cars of the next few years. The Volt will be the first plug in hybrid available in the United States.

Its supporters say it will revolutionize the auto industry, while its critics attack virtually every aspect of it, from fuel economy to pricing.

GM is branding the Volt as an “Extended-Range Electric Vehicle,” and rightfully so. Rather than traditional hybrids, which rely on a combination of a gasoline motor and an electric engine to move, the Volt only uses an electric motor. A 16kW-hr lithium ion battery pack powers the motor. The car can go forty miles on a full charge, usually done overnight. Americans in urban and suburban areas typically drive less than forty miles per day. If the only power used is from the electrical grid is used, the Volt will emit about 4.4 metric tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per year fewer than an average American car. And unlike gasoline, which will always be ‘dirty’ fuel and harmful to the environment, the electrical grid continues to improve with energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro-electric, and nuclear power gaining momentum.

The Volt does not operate on power from the electrical grid alone. There is a small gas engine that kicks in once the battery is drained below 30 percent. The EPA backs up GM’s claim that the Volt

will be able to go 680 miles on a fully charged battery and one tank of gas. But the EPA has never rated a car like the Volt before and faced some difficulties, so skeptics claim this number is not accurate.

Since the EPA has never rated a car of this type before, it created a different system to measure the Volt’s fuel efficiency. In this system, the car rates 230 miles per gallon, faring worse on the highway as electric engine typically do. The number “230” features in GM’s most recent ad campaign. But there are many skeptics who say the new system does not accurately represent the average American’s driving habits. For example, if someone drives a Chevy Volt fifty miles in a day, only the last ten miles will require gasoline, and the car will achieve approximately 250 MPG. But if the car

HM Review Vol. XIX

Science and Technology

October 2009 HM Review

tric vehicle GM manufactured in 1996, in response to California legislation mandating that automakers sell at least one zero emission vehicle. The EV1 was extremely popular, but it was an expensive car to make, and GM leased it at a relatively low price. Though the EV1 was wildly successful with its owners, GM viewed is as a failure, as it failed to attract a large customer base. Unfortunately, GM ended up losing money from the vehicle, partly due to the enormous cost to produce the battery. All of this can be observed in detail in the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car? Because of the EV1’s http://regmedia.co.uk/

several apparent cases of shoddy design and workmanship in its cars. Focus group tests have even shown that people prefer GM cars when the logos are removed.

These criticisms are harsh, but not undeserved. The iconic Hummer is one of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the road right now, and has come to epitomize GM’s gross lack of concern for environmental concerns.

The President of Audi, Johan de Nysschen, recently expressed the doubts of many critics when he bluntly said that “there are not enough idiots who will buy it,” referring to the fact that the Volt costs $15,000 more than the Toyota Corolla, a member of the Volt’s competition. While this has angered many environmentalists supportive of the Volt, Mr. Nysschen’s comments are not completely off the mark. One of the big issues with the Chevrolet Volt is its economic viability.

New estimates have placed the sticker price of the Volt at $40,000, with the possibility for a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles. GM is hoping the price will go down with the cost in the manufacturing of the battery. The battery is a huge expense in the manufacturing of electric vehicles. According to GM, electricity to charge the Volt will cost between 75 cents and $2.50 cents (depending on utility costs) a night. This is significantly lower than the price of gasoline, but at the moment, the average American family will be better off financially with a regular car unless the price of oil skyrockets.

Assuming someone drives forty miles everyday with a Volt and never uses gasoline, then he or she will save somewhere between $60 and $1000 a year at current oil prices. This means, that at best, it will take seven years before owning a Volt becomes cheaper, and this may be impaired by repair costs or replacement of an aging battery. Economic viability will go up if oil prices rise, but go down if the car owners drive more and use gasoline. This means that the car will be a reasonable option for the elite and those who want to make a statement—not for those who want to save money on gasoline. And while this may generate good press, the company is looking for a bigger piece of the market.

This predicament is vaguely reminiscent of the GM EV1, a fully elec-

“GM’s image is at an all time low, due to the sentiment (probably well-deserved) that its products are bad for the environment, and several apparent cases of shoddy design and workmanship in its cars.” negative profits, GM ended the program, took back cars from leasers, and even destroyed many of them. This resulted not only in a loss of money for GM, but also in a great deal of bad publicity. While GM is certainly not going to make the same mistake with the Volt, there are fears that history could repeat itself. Because GM chose Chevrolet to brand the Volt, and chose to market it as a car for families, the price has been kept relatively low. Unless battery prices fall or gas prices rise, it is possible that no matter how popular the Volt becomes, it will lose money.

Another problem plaguing the Volt has been production delays. It has been delayed at almost every step, from research to testing and manufacturing, and there is speculation as to whether GM can really achieve a 2010 release.

Further delays in the release of the Volt might kill the media buzz and the hype when the car actually does come out.

Economists have been some of

the biggest critics of the Volt, but even some environmentalists have spoken against the Volt. Some say it does not do enough to address the oil crisis and that GM should manufacture another electric car. Others claim that electric cars are not the answer at all. The CEO of Audi believes that diesel is a more economically viable way to quickly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Many also claim that hydrogen cars, while expensive, are a better long term solution, as they produce no emissions and the world will never run out of hydrogen.

You can’t say the same thing about the Volt. First of all, mining for lithium is quite devastating to local environments.

More important is the fact that our lithium supplies are limited. There is only enough lithium to build a little fewer than three billion batteries. This may seem like a huge amount, but populations around the world are soaring, and certain third world countries such as China and India are starting to buy more cars. Electric cars go through batteries relatively quickly. So even though it seems as if three billion batteries is more than we would ever need, lithium batteries can’t become the staple of cars as gasoline was over the past century.

If you are receiving mixed signals about the Volt, then you understand the problem. No one, not even GM, can predict how the Volt will fare. Will GM dominate this new hybrid market, or will Toyota once again prevail? No one knows if it will triumph or fail. No one knows if it will bring profit or a repeat of the EV1 incident. We do know one this: the Chevy Volt will bring something. It won’t be just another car. GM has poured money and effort into the car, often bypassing the typical bureaucracy involved with developing a GM car. The Volt is a car of many possibilities, even as the technical aspects are reaching the final phases of development. The Chevrolet Volt will be at worst GM’s desperate last attempt to return to its former glory, and at best, the audacious savior of General Motors and the American automobile industry. HMR

37

Science and Technology

Stem Cells: Miracle Cure Or Curse?

1

http://node2.bbcimg.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00kmltm_640_360.jpg

by jessica bernheim

4,593 per year, 1,216 per month, 280 per week, 39 per day, 1 per hour. That is the amount of people who die from Parkinson’s disease.

Stem cells have the potential to treat and cure Parkinson’s disease. 14,593 people, in caskets, because stem cells were not employed.

Stem cells divide and multiply to repair tissue and regenerate organs as well as replace dying cells. Stem cells have the ability to remain as stem cells or become specific cells in the body. They are derived from two sources: embryonic and adult. In order to obtain embryonic stem cells, the embryo must be killed. Cells derived from embryos can become any type of cell and are therefore more useful than adult stem cells, which can only develop into a more limited variety of cells.

Adult stem cells can come from a variety of sources including bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. Once the stem cells are isolated they can be grown ad infinitum in a laboratory.

Stem cells are believed to have the ability to combat stroke, brain injury, learning defects, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injury, Crohn’s disease, deafness, blindness, muscular dystrophy and many more diseases. However, much more research must be done in order to know if

38

stem cells can treat these diseases. President George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds for the creation of new embryonic stem-cell lines while allowing scientists to study 21 lines that had already been created. President Obama recently overturned Bush’s ban to allow scientists to create new stem cell lines.

Bush was trying to be bipartisan, but his decision made it impossible for new breakthroughs to take place.

Stem cell research is a controversial topic that delves into ethics and sparks much dissent and debate. Those pro-life believe that an embryo is a living being and should not be subject to destruction for scientific research. This belief dives into an even more complicated question: When is an embryo a human being? An embryo cannot survive on its own until the 24th-28th week after fertilizwwation.

But before this time, an embryo is not a living being; it simply has the potential to be a living being, and that is very different.

There are over 400,000 embryos that have existed since the 1970’s that have not been used during in vitro fertilization and that are simply being “shelved” for future pregnancy attempts. Only 2.8 percent of those embryos are being used for research. While yes, in-vitro fertilization is a costly treatment and freezing

more embryos might seem economically efficient in case a couple wants more children, the majority of these embryos have been discarded because of genetic diseases. No one is going to want a child from these embryos so those with genetic mutations should automatically be given over scientists to use for research.

Embryos that have been sitting in laboratories for over 20 years are not going to be used because the mother is now past a child rearing age. I think that those embryos of 20+years should be automatically given to scientists for research.

“It would be unethical to implant them, knowing you are going to create a child with a devastating disease,” states Michael West of Bio Time. The “them” he is referring to are embryos. Embryos, that would make very sick children, unable to lead normal lives but embryos that can instead lead to miraculous discoveries in Stem cell research. Embryos that are not being used after in vitro fertilization are either thrown away or frozen for future use. But if those embryos were used for research, thousands of people could potentially be saved. HMR

HM Review Vol. XIX

Viewpoints

Viewpoints Health Reform Should there be any doubt?

ust about every day, you read about the instability of the economy and the insurmountable job losses. Many Americans are worried about retaining their jobs, homes and lifestyles. There is grave concern surrounding health care insurance and fear of not being able to pay for it. Most Americans welcome some solution or reform to correct the current system.

As the cost of health care skyrockets and the quality of care declines, President Obama is proposing change. He wants to be sure that the elderly are taken care of, the sick do not lose their coverage and every person gets the care they require. The current scheme is costly, wasteful and filled with corruption. A large segment of the American population is slowly being squeezed out of coverage.

Obama promises to reduce healthcare costs for businesses, individuals and the government. It is easy to recognize the need for savings but can it be accomplished successfully? The administration has not given the public any hard facts or proposed details as to how costs will be contained. It has been kept out of the newspapers. What people fear most is the potential increase in national debt. Under the current scheme, some families face the possibility that their insurance will be cancelled as a result of their inability to pay or willingness to assume additional debt. Obama, however, strives for continuation of coverage and improvement in services. He wants this new system to improve elder care and to improve overall care regardless of age, condition or preOctober 2009 HM Review

existing sickness. Even in the event of job loss, individuals are still secured in their coverage.

Reform guarantees choice and is an overall investment in a belief in the healthcare system. It is an investment in an “American wellness program.” Obama’s

Mommy-life.net

J

by jordan federer

ance. Overall, the plan would expand Medicaid. The total proposed cost is 770 billion dollars. While this all translates into an improvement for some, most of us will not feel the difference in our lives.

The President’s goal promises coverage for every American. He also claims it will not add to the current deficit. A private-public partnership is surely a solution if the details can be worked out. Many onlookers wonder if this is all too good to be true. There has been no talk about the watchdogs

Looking to the future: As the cost of health care skyrockets, and the quality of care declines, President Obama proposes a perfect plan for change. plan focuses on the quality of care. He has developed a preventive maintenance program. It provides for those that do not have, and even gives credits back to participating businesses.

Not long ago, Obama’s plan was unveiled. While it does not include a government insurance proposal, which would compete with private insurers, it does offer subsidies to assist low and middle income people. The plan also imposes a tax on insurance companies who continue to sell high end products. It also includes a mandate for companies to offer insur-

of this program and its true impact on businesses or even the structure of the program. Reform would take into consideration the population, medical professionals, insurance companies, businesses and the government. There is no doubt that our current system needs reform yet there should be a carefully planned structure defining long term true cost. The execution of the reform will also mean an entirely new governmental agency processing and policing this industry-wide change. At best, we are still years away. HMR

39

Viewpoint

Obama’s Plan Makes Me Sick Why the public option plan will be a failure for America, and a failure for the American people. by andrew demas

D

drastic, impetuous, exorbitant, and misleading plan.

On September 12, 2009 tens of thousands of protesters, fed up with exuberant government spending, stormed Washington, D.C. in a rally as part of “The Tea Party Goes to Capitol Hill”. Illustrating their disdain for the president’s health care plan with slogans such as “Obama care makes me sick,” Americans from all states flooded Pennsylvania Avenue.

The expected turnout of 25,000 supporters was clearly surpassed by the tremendous outcome of 75,000. In addition,

care proposal would make economic circumstances even more difficult. In a time of such economic strife, Obama’s health care plan will put even more pressure on our struggling country.

As illustrated by the massive turnout at the rally, Obama’s plan is believed to have socialistic aspects as seen in its enumeration of the government’s regulation of individual decisions. The takeover of the health care industry would fervently deny Americans the freedom to choose their own insurance plans, doctors, and health care procedures. Protest signs dis-

FreeRepublic.com

o you want the government decide what doctor you use? Should the government have access to your medical records? Would you like your taxes to fund care for illegal immigrants? Throughout the country, these questions have fueled a tremendous uproar concerning President Obama’s health care plan. Many people believe Obama’s plan would eliminate American freedoms, and despite Democratic rebuttal, these are justly rooted concerns. A majority of Americans are vehemently

Protest at Washington: Thousands came out to protest against the Health Care Plans of President Obama at the “Tea Party goes to Capitol Hill. against the government dictating their personal affairs. For the 85% of Americans who currently have health insurance, Obama’s health plan is detrimental, because it causes higher taxes, a lesser quality of health care, and no protection concerning lost insurance. It is pivotal that the government never pass Obama’s

40

during August, “tea party” conservatives stormed hundreds of congressional town halls, protesting the government’s encroachment on American freedoms.

Despite accusations that these protesters have made recent town hall meetings into “shouting matches,” it is only because they are fearful that President Obama’s health

played at rallies reflected this idea often in a disrespectful way. For example, one such sigh depicted President Obama as the villainous Joker from “Batman,” with the words socialist written beneath the images. The growing intensity of the debate alone is an example of how a vast majority of Americans are outraged by HM Review Vol. XIX

Viewpoints ties. This doubt extends even into the senate. “Senator Charles Grassley once looked like President Obama’s best hope for winning GOP votes for health-care reform. But that was before Grassley got an earful in Iowa,” reported Karen Tumulity of Time Magazine. During a town meeting, the Senator was confronted by a

represents. The public hearings have had an impact on his decisions and the voice of the people is being heard. “Democracy is at work,” Grassley said. This health care plan was the straw that broke the camel’s back. After ineffective and unlimited government spending on an economic stimulus plan, American’s are not willing

Politicalpuppet.com

the president’s plans. According to the Washington Times, “the large turnout of angry citizens is credited with changing the minds of a number of Democratic lawmakers, who now say they will vote against the House health care bill.”

Throughout his entire campaign, Obama promised to allow a continuation

Spending Issues: Obama has been constantly critisized for his spending policies, spending almost 900 billion on the federal bailout while the cost of health care is projected to be an additional 240 billion dollars. of health insurance plans for citizens that like their existing setups. The president, however, has never explained at what cost the American people must pay in order to follow his plan. “I think that’s the fear,” said Diana Own, associate professor of political science and director of American studies at Georgetown University, “Even though they are going to keep the plan, the plan is going to be at a much greater cost. And [Obama has] not been able to really allay that fear.” Vietnam War veteran and protester Richard Brigle, 57, said, “My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It’s going to cost too much money that we as a nation don’t have.”

Inevitably some people are beginning to doubt President Obama’s abiliSeptember 2009 HM Review

large number of skeptics. He later commented, “I was expecting a lot of anger, but what really surprised me about the town meetings was the fear.” Grassley explained that health care is 16% of the gross national product. Obama’s plan put forth universal health care as essential to curbing costs, but in actuality, the Congressional Budget Office countered that reform with “balloon federal spending by $240 billion.” On top of the economic flaws of his plan, Grassley articulated that the legislation might allow the government to “pull the plug on Grandma.” The government should not have that liberty.

If Obama’s plan were to pass, Americans would be stripped of many freedoms.

This lack of freedom is not what America

to plunge into a plan that could end up another disaster.

This sense of fear amongst the populous is creating distrust towards Obama’s capabilities as a president. This, in turn fueled the double-digit plunge in Obama’s approval ratings over the summer. A senior Republican strategist, emphasized that Obama’s poor health care plan could be the downfall of his presidency, allowing the reemergence of the Republican Party. On September 9th, President Obama made a “determined appeal to Congress and the nation to revive his suddenly troubled, young presidency and rescue the faltering crusade to give health care to all Americans.” His attempt to revive interest in his program derives from

41

Viewpoint

CNN.com

Obama’s Struggle: Obama has lost support for his proposed health care plan in the Senate, and most notably with the Amercian public.

his personal desire to succeed in order to be president for many years to come. On Sunday September 10th, in a 60 Minutes interview, Obama boldly said, “You know, I intend to be President for a while, and once this bill passes, I own it.” The result of his intention is largely based upon the success or the failure of his health care plan. Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist and economics professor at Princeton, commented, “If health care passes and the economy recovers, then Obama is the new FDR. If not, he’s Jimmy Carter, It’s that simple.”

Obama’s inspiring speeches can be persuasive, yet the flaws and details of his plans are disguised by rhetoric. During the 60 Minutes interview, reporter Steve Kroft questioned Obama’s truthfulness stating, “You ran for this job saying that you were not a big-spending liberal, and that you were definitely, under no circumstances, a socialist. And I know that you inherited a unique set of circumstances. But in nine months, you’ve in effect nationalized two automobile com-

42

panies, sections of the banking industry, and the country’s largest insurance agency.” Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes of the New York Times commented that the president “put a $900 billion, 10-year cost limit on a package that officials formerly described as likely to exceed $1 trillion in order to avoid the sticker shock of the trillion-dollar threshold.” Through circumlocutory language, Obama is able to mask the socialistic aspects of his plans, yet many Americans have understood his tactics and have shown their outrage in town hall meetings and rallies.

On September 10th, the republican opinion of Obama’s words was made evident as Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “You lie!” to Mr. Obama, rebuking the president’s comment that Democrats were not proposing to provide health care to illegal immigrants. Republican lawmakers also heckled the president when he “dismissed the notion that so-called death panels would deny care the elderly.” The president’s constant “lies” have created a wary Con-

gress and nation. Obama’s health-care plan also outlines that families in higher income brackets contribute payment toward families with no health-care plan.

This idea of “distribution of wealth” is contrary to the fundamentals of a capitalistic system.

The banking and car industries bailout, stimulus packages, and now the plans for health care spending have overwhelmed Americans with a sense of fear and anxiety. The installation of a public option in Obama’s health care plan brings even more concern that the government would have too much influence in personal decisions. Doctors will also suffer from the repercussions of his plan, because their pay will inevitably decline.

With this decrease in salary, the quality of care will dwindle and fewer people will be inclined to pursue the profession, which is now so lucrative. In the short term we cannot afford the consequence of Obama care, and as a country we are not ready to face such drastic and disadvantageous change. HMR HM Review Vol. XIX

Table of Contents

Prep differently.

CNN.com

tm

the newton group tutoring and test preparation

SAT • AP • SSAT • ISEE • GMAT • GRE • LSAT newtongroupinfo@gmail.com

October 2009 HM Review

43

The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY 10471

Table of Contents