In a comment to classmate Toni's blog post concerning Ghost voting, http://bigtexpolitic.blogspot.com/, I wrote:
The idea of ghost voting is just haunting......yeah that one was pretty bad, sorry. But honestly, the fact that this is a way that our bills and laws get passed is extremely unsettling. As Tonisha has pointed out, it is unclear to us as to why these people think it's ok to do this. Ok, maaaaaybe you could say that the people are just acting out of the interest of the people who are not present and are in fact voting in a way that honors the absentees. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I have a really hard time believing that. Regardless, I think this is something that just shouldn't happen. It leaves to much opportunity for people to be misrepresented. More importantly, these votes that could be possibly being misrepresented by selfish politicians are ultimately affecting us, the people. This comes down on us. Are we really ok with people cheating and voting in a way that suits their needs and not the people they should be representing?
This is where Tonisha brings up an excellent point, make the legislation a full time gig. This seems like it will end the whole possibility of ghost voting. As it is the legislators have such a short session time, they are rushing to complete everything they have on their agenda. Some legislators have meetings and are not always able to be present when the voting is taking place. This is the kind of situation that lends to ghost voting. A full time legislature will give the legislators more time to address all the issues. This will allow for all the legislators to be present during voting and we will have honest voting with proper representation. Even on a personal note, the legislators will probably also be less stressed. This is important because a less stressed legislator is one who can calmly address the issues in a reasonable and logical manner instead of a rushed and apathetic one. There are many things that need to change about Texas politics and this is one of the more important ones, especially if Texans want to be properly represented when it comes to making laws.
Friday, May 9, 2014
In January 2014 a revolutionary new milestone in healthcare was put into effect. It was the Affordable Care Act or more commonly known as Obamacare. Among many other things Obamacare will expand medicaid to the poorest in order to cover uninsured people and their families. This expansion will also increase eligibility levels to 138% of the poverty line, have uniform eligibility requirements, pay 100% of expansion costs for the first 3 years, and provide health insurance for almost half of our nations uninsured. But while this sounds like a pretty good deal there are those who not only don't like it but in fact oppose it openly. A lobbying group called the NFIB took the Affordable Care Act to the supreme court in an attempt to repeal it. Because of this the Medicaid expansion requirement was overturned allowing states to opt-out of the expansion, ultimately leaving millions without access to health insurance.
Arguments against the Affordable Care Act include limited access to health care, low-end quality healthcare and coverage and low doctor payouts. Currently, 24 states have chosen to not expand Medicaid. Texas is one of those states. It is estimated that 25% of Texas' population is uninsured. Statistics show that all the states that are not expanding medicaid are resulting in an accumulated 5.7 million uninsured Americans.
I have done some research on this topic, but am willing to admit that I may not know everything on the subject. But from what I have read it sure seems like the Affordable Care Act is a pretty good deal. For example if, under the Medicaid Expansion, we are covering more uninsured people they will stop costing hospitals billions in unpaid hospital bills, which ultimately fall to the tax payers. Another sweet deal is that legal residents who earn less than $15,302 for individuals and $31,155 for a families of four can receive Medicaid under Medicaid Expansion.
There are many more benefits and statistics, but one thing that I wanted to point out that bothers me on the subject of states denying the expansion is how many innocent people are hurting because of it. It seems to me that the whole point of this expansion is to help the poor, the people who really could use a helping hand. From a humanitarian point of view this seems like a great thing and definitely a step in the right direction. I mean isn't the point of being in a position where you represent people to take care of said people. Giving people healthcare sure seems like it would be part of taking care of your people. When did money become a bigger priority than the welfare of people? I understand that there are probably more business, political, and money issues surrounding this subject, but since the very nature of this topic is about helping people medically, shouldn't our first concern be the people and everything second.
Arguments against the Affordable Care Act include limited access to health care, low-end quality healthcare and coverage and low doctor payouts. Currently, 24 states have chosen to not expand Medicaid. Texas is one of those states. It is estimated that 25% of Texas' population is uninsured. Statistics show that all the states that are not expanding medicaid are resulting in an accumulated 5.7 million uninsured Americans.
I have done some research on this topic, but am willing to admit that I may not know everything on the subject. But from what I have read it sure seems like the Affordable Care Act is a pretty good deal. For example if, under the Medicaid Expansion, we are covering more uninsured people they will stop costing hospitals billions in unpaid hospital bills, which ultimately fall to the tax payers. Another sweet deal is that legal residents who earn less than $15,302 for individuals and $31,155 for a families of four can receive Medicaid under Medicaid Expansion.
There are many more benefits and statistics, but one thing that I wanted to point out that bothers me on the subject of states denying the expansion is how many innocent people are hurting because of it. It seems to me that the whole point of this expansion is to help the poor, the people who really could use a helping hand. From a humanitarian point of view this seems like a great thing and definitely a step in the right direction. I mean isn't the point of being in a position where you represent people to take care of said people. Giving people healthcare sure seems like it would be part of taking care of your people. When did money become a bigger priority than the welfare of people? I understand that there are probably more business, political, and money issues surrounding this subject, but since the very nature of this topic is about helping people medically, shouldn't our first concern be the people and everything second.
In a comment to classmate PCorpus' blog post concerning Abortions,http://texanregime.blogspot.com , I wrote:
I personally believe that women should have the option to get an abortion if they want one. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the government thinks they can put restrictions on what women can and cannot do with their bodies. It's absolutely absurd. Some of the people making the laws to put restrictions on abortions are men, men who don't know what it's like to be a woman, who don't know the thought process as to why some women would want an abortion. Just the thought of men making laws that tell a woman what she can and cannot do just seems terribly wrong. These law makers make these laws to suit their own beliefs and values without any regard to the beliefs and values of the people they're affecting. It seems like they don't care because people who want abortions are just wrong and they know better.
People who say that they're pro life say that they value life and that's why they are against abortions. But how far does their support of the unborn babies go? They want them to be born so they fight for their existence, but then where are they after the baby is born? Do they even care that these babies are being born to people who don't want them and what kind of family environment that sets up for the child? They think the fight is won when the baby comes out, they care nothing about what happens to the child after that. It's not just about bringing children into the world, it's about creating a safe and happy environment for the children. Where are these pro lifers and government officials when it comes to that part?
Now I'm not saying that women should just get abortions whenever they want. Party girl shouldn't just go out, get pregnant and think it's ok she'll just get an abortion. People need to be held accountable for their actions, but there has to be a better way than denying women their freedom. There a preventative measure that need to be more accessible, parents need to talk to their daughters about safe sex, and people need to realize the possible consequences of sex. Because the idea of a woman who's been raped and got pregnant not being able to make her own decision on the matter because of some people that she doesn't even know says she can't just seems wrong.
I personally believe that women should have the option to get an abortion if they want one. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the government thinks they can put restrictions on what women can and cannot do with their bodies. It's absolutely absurd. Some of the people making the laws to put restrictions on abortions are men, men who don't know what it's like to be a woman, who don't know the thought process as to why some women would want an abortion. Just the thought of men making laws that tell a woman what she can and cannot do just seems terribly wrong. These law makers make these laws to suit their own beliefs and values without any regard to the beliefs and values of the people they're affecting. It seems like they don't care because people who want abortions are just wrong and they know better.
People who say that they're pro life say that they value life and that's why they are against abortions. But how far does their support of the unborn babies go? They want them to be born so they fight for their existence, but then where are they after the baby is born? Do they even care that these babies are being born to people who don't want them and what kind of family environment that sets up for the child? They think the fight is won when the baby comes out, they care nothing about what happens to the child after that. It's not just about bringing children into the world, it's about creating a safe and happy environment for the children. Where are these pro lifers and government officials when it comes to that part?
Now I'm not saying that women should just get abortions whenever they want. Party girl shouldn't just go out, get pregnant and think it's ok she'll just get an abortion. People need to be held accountable for their actions, but there has to be a better way than denying women their freedom. There a preventative measure that need to be more accessible, parents need to talk to their daughters about safe sex, and people need to realize the possible consequences of sex. Because the idea of a woman who's been raped and got pregnant not being able to make her own decision on the matter because of some people that she doesn't even know says she can't just seems wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)