Unknown Blog

I chose to write about the controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act. Right now there is a split between support, on one side there is overwhelming support from the American people that need life saving treatments available through Obamacare. On the other side there is the overwhelming support from congress to repeal it and replace it with Trumpcare. The main dispute here is that instituting affordable health care for everyone is ideal to the American people but not for our US debt and deficit. But at what cost is this acceptable? Having a right to health care means that people everywhere can get life saving treatments. This is especially true for people that have pre existing conditions who otherwise would be denied health insurance prior to the Obama administration. Shouldn’t everyone be able to afford to save a life need be. Why should this only be for the wealthy and previously healthy. The United States is the global super power so why is it that other countries have health care for their citizens and our congress just took that right from us. The focus here should be on basic human rights for the American people. In 2007 62% of all US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses. How is it possible that it is 2017 and we are going the wrong direction. People shouldn’t have to ask themselves if its worth it to receive medical treatment or if they should refuse it because they’ll end up broke and on the streets. Although the house has signed a bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, the bill still has to go through senate. There is still time to fix this atrocity that is happening. It is vital that Americans take back what belongs to them, which is the simple right to health and a quality life.

Blog Stage 3

For my article I choose to do a commentary on the piece, “WhiteHouse says Flynn deserved “due process” before curtailing his access – that’snuts.” This piece was written by John Aravosis, who is the executive editor of AMERICAblog. He is reputable in the sense that he worked in the US Senate, Children’s Defense Fund, and United Nation Development Program amongst other credible sources. However reputable he is, this piece is still an opinion as it is blatantly stated in the title. 

Aravosis seems to be targeting the American people, not necessarily any political group. He makes a compelling argument when mentioning the severity of waiting 18 days to make a move. Comparing his breach in security to an assassin in the oval office. Although this seems like an exaggeration it makes sense. How is it that the federal attorney general made two separate warnings saying security had been breached, and it took 18 days for moves to be made. Had it been known that an assassin was plotting to kill the president, 18 days would have been unacceptable. So why is it that the entire country’s security is jeopardized by a foreign adversary and the president doesn’t bat an eye? Aravosis implies that it is possibly due to Trumps arrogance and pride in his choice of Flynn that lead to this reckless behavior. While I think that his opinion is valid I think that it is distracting from the piece as there is no way to prove these assumptions because they are completely subjective. As stated in the handout, good arguments cannot be based on gut feelings but rather need to be based on hard verified evidence. The article could have done without this, but this is an opinionated article 

Finally, the main focus of this piece is about the suggestion Sean Spicer made calling for a due process before cutting him off. The ideal way to handle this would have been to remove his top security clearances, and put him on administrative leave pending investigation. The gray area is in why this took 18 days and they simply fired the man rather than have given him his Constitutional rights of a due process. This raises a lot of flags as it should, and for the most part Aravosis gives a compelling argument that even with his strong opinion he is successful at convincing me.

Blog stage 8

I really appreciated the article my classmate wrote over mineworkers and their health benefits that are in jeopardy. I was not aware that this was happening, and after reading the CNN article I was shocked that this is even an issue. What I am and have been aware of were the countless of promises that Trump made to these mineworkers. This was one of the pivotal points in his campaign were he promised to give power back to mineworkers through more work and benefits. However, he is doing nothing for the rights of these people and much rather standing back and watching this unfold. I believe that my classmate did a good job at summarizing this article and stating her opinion, but it was very pathos heavy. I would have liked to see numbers in the commentary. In the CNN article it mentions that there are over 22,600 retired mineworkers and their families being affected by this. Putting that in numbers shows just how many people are being impacted. Another point that puts things in perspective is that these people signed up for this job with these promises in hand. How is it that through a “bankruptcy loophole” thousands of people will not get the promises that were made to them before they signed a contract that put their life and health on the line. This just seems unethical. These people put their life on the line during WW2 to provide coal and steel to fuel the war that now enables us to live on the land of the free. How enraging must it be to be in the shoes of these people. Much like the already controversial crisis over health care in our country, there are people who’s life depend on the availability and affordability of healthcare. This is just a small piece of a much larger problem. Awareness is the first step to fixing a problem and this was a very enlightening article from my classmate.

Should we defund planned parenthood?

I wanted to elaborate on the topic of Planned Parenthood that one of one of my classmates chose. While I found their argument to be valid, I think it neglected some key parts. For example, even though Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, that does not mean it is the only service they provide. Planned parenthood provides affordable services that range from, safe sex education to cervical cancer screening that people count on. There are thousands if not millions of people who benefit and rely on these services that are both male and female. This establishment makes it possible for people to get preventative services, and be proactive about their health before it becomes problematic. It seems like the primary focus of their argument was purely based on their stand on abortion, and there was not much factual data. While I think they are entitled to their opinion, I think that the option should be there for anyone that wants it and whoever doesn’t can opt from the services. Why take away everyone’s rights to healthcare because they disagree with a service they provide there? It is apparent to me that their tax money will be going to this establishment and that is worrisome to them, but it will never be used to pay for abortions. Also, defunding Planned Parenthood because they offer abortions seems counterintuitive. The point of Planned Parenthood is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If abortion becomes illegal and birth control is defunded the amount of unwanted pregnancies will skyrocket. One of the arguments that my classmate made was that “young people will never learn to take responsibility.” Truth is that not only young people use these services; there are plenty of older people with established families and multiple children that either don’t want any more kids, or cannot afford to have any more children and they rely on these services. If pregnancy rates rise in people who cant afford to provide for their children, who will be paying for food stamps and welfare? The taxpayers will be. Now we have two problems, stressed families and higher taxes for everyone. Defunding Planned Parenthood has a farther-reaching impact than what we see on the surface. While I think my classmate’s opinion is valid I believe there are many gaps in their argument.

The Cannabinoid Debate

The upward trend of marijuana use and approval is evident as more and more states opt to have medical and recreational use of marijuana. This doesn’t come as a surprise, as marijuana has only recently become outlawed. In the 1970’s under Nixon’s Administration, the war on drugs put a permanent ban on the plant. The Controlled Substance Act (https://www.drugs.com/csa-schedule.html) placed marijuana as a schedule 1 drug classifying it as highly addictive, and with no medicinal value.  This also meant that researchers would be unable to conduct any studies on the possible uses of medicinal marijuana. Prior to the CSA, marijuana was taxed under the Marihuana Tax act of 1937. This tax made marijuana widely available with only a small price influx to deal with. Backtrack to 1937 and years before and marijuana was seen as a plant much like tobacco and oregano.

Marijuana only recently became illegal and unlike other legal substances like alcohol and tobacco there are no reported deaths over this substance. There is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that CBD the non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is know to have medicinal qualities. For example, cannabidiol helps a range of problem from PTSD to epilepsy and everything in between. There is a vast amount of support from groups of people and their families who want to have access to this life changing medicine. Due to location some people are unable to use this as a medicine and have to resort to big pharma medicine, which more often than not has adverse side effects.

Legalizing marijuana would also mean that we could cut out the middleman and would have the control to allocate the profits ourselves. This would also have a trickle down effect as there would be less people behind bars paying time for an outdated offence. There are large sums being dished out in taxpayer money to keep these “criminals” behind bars. Getting caught with marijuana also means that people everywhere have tainted records that mean limited job opportunities and a less promising future.

I believe that the solution is to have a tax on the plant much like the way that Colorado and Oregon have. With Colorado bringing in a hefty sum of 198.5 million dollars in 2016 solely in in marijuana taxes, it is no surprise why it is so beneficial to the economy. With all of the tax money Colorado has been able to fund many sources with the largest chunk of 40 million going to the BEST fund, which is Building Excellent Schools Today. There is also money being distributed to the Department of Public Health and Environment, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education amongst many other sources.  This battle may take a while but slowly states everywhere are reconsidering this outdated prohibition and I hope by reading this you too can see the pros of this movement.

Is the CIA on our side?

I found a piece off the blog Red State written by Jose Kimbrell. The authors intended audience is aimed at conservatives. Kimbrell has formal education as he studied economics at North Greenville University in South Carolina, which makes him more credible. He currently hosts his own radio program in South Carolina as called, “Common Cents.” He seems to have validity amongst the political community at least for conservatives. As for his argument, it is blatantly stated in the title, “Conservatives Should not Consider the CIA the Enemy of the American People.” He argues that due to the presidential election and people like Sean Hannity a Fox News reporter, people are now starting to hold controversial figures like Julian Asssange as heroes. He argues that back when September 11 happened the NSA, CIA, and FBI all came together to defend us from Islamic terrorism and we should respect them.  That we shouldn’t be giving the respect to these made up heroe’s who are just bringing about a cyber war. He goes on to talk about the recent release on Wikileaks over the CIA and their ability to tap into our devices. He fully supports this decision. He also makes a point that by Wikileaks releasing this information that they have tipped off the terrorist and given them vital information. I agree that the CIA was one of the best lines of defense after 911, and it was also a new perspective to think about Wikileaks possibly overexposing to terrorist but I still don’t think that he makes a solid case. His article has no references and was purely opinionated. In order to make a solid case he should have brought in statistics of election fluctuations or something that could help us visualize these allegations he is making. I don’t agree with what he is saying because of this. Also because I believe that we should have the access to this information especially if we are getting spied on. Overall this was a good one-sided blog commentary that allowed me to see another perspective but did very little at swaying my opinion.