This is the first post in the Environment section of my blog. Thank you again to all those political people who have followed and read my previous posts.
When considering the environment is, one must ask a question. What is the environment? I know this may seem juvenile and obvious, it is a good statement, because no single person understands all known aspects of it. To put it simply, the environment is the world we live in. Whether it be a wild jungle, a flowing plain, a frozen summit, or even a row of apartment buildings, it is environment. Even those around you are environment. Everything we do, whether it be eat, sleep, drink, walk, or talk, it is connected with the environment. Like the topic or not, it is very important to you and your well being.
Why then, would we start to alter our environment, and make it harder for us to live? I believe that the answer can be found in ancient pre-history, when man first came to be. With our advanced brains and our grasping hands and swiveling thumbs, we are environment-altering machines. Our brains allow us to force an adaption using other parts of the environment without waiting for genetics to do the job. That is why humans are weak, slow land-walkers, because we don't need much strength to stab with a spear or shoot an arrow. This was a great thing back then. However, there is a bad side.
You see, nothing has ever been created like us before, so we are a whole new deal to nature, whose best response to us has really only been disease. Once we got out of small tribes, and started over-running the earth, nature couldn't keep up, because we alter the nature too quickly. That is not a problem in one or two small patches on the earth, but when the whole earth is consumed by us, there is no hope. We basically control nature now, although she does lose her temper now and again and smacks us with a hurricane or earthquake. We are just too far-spread and smart for our own or natures goods.
What does this mean then? MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY. We have to make sure to alter in the right ways for long-term survival, and replenish as much as we can.
Happily, many have realized this and gone on to campaign for great changes and actions. Unfortunately, there are those who realize this, and use it for their own gain. They create phony evidence, tell convincing lies, and pretend to be on the good side to further themselves. This blog will try to weed out some of the things they do. Also, many people who want good change are oppressed. Corporations have had a major influence in the environmental branch of government affairs. They bribe to have more rights to gain money, yet destroy or pollute many things. They lobby to gain support of major politicians. Yet again, I mention that we the people can change these things for the good
I hope that I will be able to accomplish what I want to in the next little while. Please enjoy and comment so that I can hear your opinions and better mine.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
So What Can We Do?
For a few months have I posted my political opinions and facts. At times it felt like I was beating a dead horse, but thank you to all of you who have read and responded to many of my posts. As such, I am going to bring the politic-specific section of my blog to a close, for this blog is to help me get all of my ideas out there, not just about politics. I hope that you were enlightened by my work.
Now, you have heard my rants. My anger against corporations, my two cents on political parties, my disgust against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have also mentioned how all of my posts make up such a small portion of the mistakes and evils of the political world, that it is maybe only 1%. You may be feeling a little down on your country, for all of us have grown up with our own biased opinions of the U.S., and now that some of the truth has been revealed, you start to question your very being. This last post is to raise your hearts, and turn you towards a greater destiny and future.
America is truly a good country, full of opportunity and justice. We are the people, for which the government was originally created. Our constitution was created by the people, and for the people. United we stand, separate we fall. That is why we are the United States. There is great hope for the future if only we look towards it together. If all of the citizens realized the truth, and they act, we cannot fail. We have to build our future with our hands, and no matter how battered, bruised, or bloody they get, we have to press on.
You now have the knowledge. Increase it. Share it. Fight as hard as you can so that one day, we can have the bright future I have promised. There is a chair in Independence Hall. It has the engraving of half of a sun in the top of it. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, Benjamin Franklin saw the chair. He said that it could either be rising or setting. He decided that it was a rising sun. Now, is it a rising, or a setting sun? And if it is setting, can we endure the night until the break of dawn, and the beams of a better world. A single man can create rights for millions. So, how much good could millions of people do?
Thank you for all of your support. I am pleased to announce the subject of my next few weeks of posts. Environment.
Now, you have heard my rants. My anger against corporations, my two cents on political parties, my disgust against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have also mentioned how all of my posts make up such a small portion of the mistakes and evils of the political world, that it is maybe only 1%. You may be feeling a little down on your country, for all of us have grown up with our own biased opinions of the U.S., and now that some of the truth has been revealed, you start to question your very being. This last post is to raise your hearts, and turn you towards a greater destiny and future.
America is truly a good country, full of opportunity and justice. We are the people, for which the government was originally created. Our constitution was created by the people, and for the people. United we stand, separate we fall. That is why we are the United States. There is great hope for the future if only we look towards it together. If all of the citizens realized the truth, and they act, we cannot fail. We have to build our future with our hands, and no matter how battered, bruised, or bloody they get, we have to press on.
You now have the knowledge. Increase it. Share it. Fight as hard as you can so that one day, we can have the bright future I have promised. There is a chair in Independence Hall. It has the engraving of half of a sun in the top of it. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, Benjamin Franklin saw the chair. He said that it could either be rising or setting. He decided that it was a rising sun. Now, is it a rising, or a setting sun? And if it is setting, can we endure the night until the break of dawn, and the beams of a better world. A single man can create rights for millions. So, how much good could millions of people do?
Thank you for all of your support. I am pleased to announce the subject of my next few weeks of posts. Environment.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Is America Truly The Best?
For all of those sick of politics, or simply sick of me critisizing what you believe in, this is my second to last post on politics before I move on to another subject entirely. Now, I know that I have been putting down America and a lot of its practices and such, but I am not a hater. In fact, I am very grateful to have been born in this country, because it is a great country, and it has great opportunity possible for the generations. The question in the title might make my last few sentences seem hipocrytical, but although America is a good country, I don't believe that it is the best.
You and almost every other American child have heard your parents and other adults tell you about how great and marvelous America is, and how this and that are better that any other country's this and that. That we have such a great country that we rule the world, that we are the best. That they are proud to be an American. This is not new to you, I bet, and you probably would never guess that in any random country, be it France, Mongolia, Sudan, Congo, Paraguay, Canada, or any other country, that they do the exact same thing. Popular music tells the story of generations of pride in ones own country. Every country thinks that they are the best, and that they are better than the rest in every single way.
Why does everyone say such a thing? Why does everyone deny the existence of a country better than their own? Well, I guess the main reason is that, in your country, there are differences than in others. Different ways of talking, eating, and even using the restroom. You only want to mingle with things that you feel comfortable with, and those are the things you grew up with. You feel comfortable and ready for life in that country. Other country's traditions weird you out, make you feel uncomfortable, so that is why you think that your country is the best.
Now, in this endless mess of human drama and opinion, what is the best country? How do you determine which country is better than all the rest? The simple answer: you can't. There is no way to compare such opiniotated topics and come to a completely right conclusion. So, in a way, there is no best country. Every country is just another country, not a better or a worse one. A country can be good, but not better than another.
So now you have heard my scoop about comparing countries, its time to give the good news. We can do something about it. I don't know how much better I can describe it than in a RUSH song called Territories, as it affirms and explains my points probably better than I do, and the lyrics to it are found at this site. Read them and comment on them. http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/rush/territories.html
If you read the lyrics, you probably saw the last paragraph that reads:
Better the Pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colorful rag is unfurled
That is what you can do. Love the world, and have pride in it. Even better, love all of the humans on the planet, and feel prideful to be human. If there are aliens, feel prideful to be alive. On and on and on. You see, we need to realize that we can't divide ourselves into territories, and look through the spyglass in reverse. We need to realize that we are not alone and that we need to look ahead WITH other countries, and not racing to get into the lead.
You and almost every other American child have heard your parents and other adults tell you about how great and marvelous America is, and how this and that are better that any other country's this and that. That we have such a great country that we rule the world, that we are the best. That they are proud to be an American. This is not new to you, I bet, and you probably would never guess that in any random country, be it France, Mongolia, Sudan, Congo, Paraguay, Canada, or any other country, that they do the exact same thing. Popular music tells the story of generations of pride in ones own country. Every country thinks that they are the best, and that they are better than the rest in every single way.
Why does everyone say such a thing? Why does everyone deny the existence of a country better than their own? Well, I guess the main reason is that, in your country, there are differences than in others. Different ways of talking, eating, and even using the restroom. You only want to mingle with things that you feel comfortable with, and those are the things you grew up with. You feel comfortable and ready for life in that country. Other country's traditions weird you out, make you feel uncomfortable, so that is why you think that your country is the best.
Now, in this endless mess of human drama and opinion, what is the best country? How do you determine which country is better than all the rest? The simple answer: you can't. There is no way to compare such opiniotated topics and come to a completely right conclusion. So, in a way, there is no best country. Every country is just another country, not a better or a worse one. A country can be good, but not better than another.
So now you have heard my scoop about comparing countries, its time to give the good news. We can do something about it. I don't know how much better I can describe it than in a RUSH song called Territories, as it affirms and explains my points probably better than I do, and the lyrics to it are found at this site. Read them and comment on them. http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/rush/territories.html
If you read the lyrics, you probably saw the last paragraph that reads:
Better the Pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colorful rag is unfurled
That is what you can do. Love the world, and have pride in it. Even better, love all of the humans on the planet, and feel prideful to be human. If there are aliens, feel prideful to be alive. On and on and on. You see, we need to realize that we can't divide ourselves into territories, and look through the spyglass in reverse. We need to realize that we are not alone and that we need to look ahead WITH other countries, and not racing to get into the lead.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
A Truly "Savage" Political Media
I have been waiting to post this post on here for a very, very long time. For those of you who listen or have a relation that listenes to political talk radio, you will get my title. It refers to a talk radio program that features every day on KLO at 4:00 (if you live in Utah near Ogden). Its name is The Savage Nation, and it is hosted by one Michael Savage. My grandfather used to listen to him (before he passed away), so I got to hear his utterly lovely voice everyday. Enough sarcasm, for I will explain why him and other political talk shows are definately something you don't want to listen to.
In many of Savage's "discussions," he give opinions, and one or two fair points, but he is also a degrading, insulting, and insolent attention hog (although not matched by Bill O'Reily, which I will get into later). In every disscussion he has, he mocks and insults every Democrat known to man. For some reason, he has picked Nancy Pelosi to be the one who takes on the most mocking. Everything from a wrinkle on her face to the way he laughs, he insults and mocks. It sickens me that a man (dare I call him that?) who has an honest right-leaning Republican opinion feels he needs to show it by being insulting and mocking of the way people are instead of even their opinions!
Next up on the frying pan is one Laura Ingraham. She is also on KLO, but she is on at 7:00. She is a Repulican like Savage, but unlike him, she does not insult often. She is much more civilized and content with just giving opinions, but here is the catch with all people who give their opinions to the public: They can't deal with other people's opinions, and disregard evidence to do so. Laura is notorious for this, even though she is tame in the demoralizing of political officials department.
Now, the last one I am going to discuss is FOX NEWS. If you have ever watched it, it claims to be unbiased and fair, but is it? No, absolutely not. It is a Republican leaning newstation that provides what I like to call "Infotainment" instead of sheer facts. Each caster displays bias and thinks they have the dominant opinion. One of the worst is a man by the name of Bill O'Reily. He irritates me greatly. He won't let other people give opinions or evidence. Every time they try, he cuts them off and criticizes them, failing to give them a chance. I love it when someone puts Bill off guard, and is able to resist his cut-offs, and gives him back some of his own medicine.
Wow, rereading this post seems to mark me as either a Democrat or a hipocrite, but I hope I am neither. I haven't heard Democrat talk shows, but I believe that they would be just as bad as Republican ones. Remember, don't just take my word for it, listen to them a little and form your own opinions about them, and comment back what you believe.
In many of Savage's "discussions," he give opinions, and one or two fair points, but he is also a degrading, insulting, and insolent attention hog (although not matched by Bill O'Reily, which I will get into later). In every disscussion he has, he mocks and insults every Democrat known to man. For some reason, he has picked Nancy Pelosi to be the one who takes on the most mocking. Everything from a wrinkle on her face to the way he laughs, he insults and mocks. It sickens me that a man (dare I call him that?) who has an honest right-leaning Republican opinion feels he needs to show it by being insulting and mocking of the way people are instead of even their opinions!
Next up on the frying pan is one Laura Ingraham. She is also on KLO, but she is on at 7:00. She is a Repulican like Savage, but unlike him, she does not insult often. She is much more civilized and content with just giving opinions, but here is the catch with all people who give their opinions to the public: They can't deal with other people's opinions, and disregard evidence to do so. Laura is notorious for this, even though she is tame in the demoralizing of political officials department.
Now, the last one I am going to discuss is FOX NEWS. If you have ever watched it, it claims to be unbiased and fair, but is it? No, absolutely not. It is a Republican leaning newstation that provides what I like to call "Infotainment" instead of sheer facts. Each caster displays bias and thinks they have the dominant opinion. One of the worst is a man by the name of Bill O'Reily. He irritates me greatly. He won't let other people give opinions or evidence. Every time they try, he cuts them off and criticizes them, failing to give them a chance. I love it when someone puts Bill off guard, and is able to resist his cut-offs, and gives him back some of his own medicine.
Wow, rereading this post seems to mark me as either a Democrat or a hipocrite, but I hope I am neither. I haven't heard Democrat talk shows, but I believe that they would be just as bad as Republican ones. Remember, don't just take my word for it, listen to them a little and form your own opinions about them, and comment back what you believe.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Sheep of the United States
You must be thinking right about now that I have truly gone insane, because I am now talking about sheep. I am not talking literally about any mammal that we make clothes out of, but about the citizens of the U.S. Why do I compare them to sheep? If you have ever talked to my science teacher Mrs. Nelson talk about political parties, you know why, but I will explain it now.
Imagine a large flock of sheep in a pasture. They are standing there, oblivious to the fact that most of the herders are on the way to sheer off their warm, fluffy coats. In fact, they are delighted when they arrive, expecting a tasty round of grains, or a few apples. There is more than one herder out there, trying to attract as many sheep as possible to their sheering buildings, because every extra sheep is money. The sheep blindly decide which herder to go to, for most of them carry a large carrot in their hands, and say sweet nothings. A few strange sheep actually look at the face of the herders, and discover who will sheer them, and who will feed them, and decide to go to those who have no treats, but have a good countenance. They are shunned and mocked by the other sheep, and become outcast.
I'll bet there are some of you readers who can already connect this to reality, and the party system, because it is very blatant if you take the time to think. Every party is one of those herders, holding out sweet promises, and we, the people, are sheep, and flock to one without questioning them at all. They do no research, no study, and just go with their party down to making this country even worse off than before.
We need to stop being sheep, and start thinking and acting to try to make this country better, and to be able to vote for those who will lead us to a better future.
Speaking of voting, I will say something about non-voting. When I grow up, I will likely be one of these. Now, you have heard all of your life that non-voters are cowards, and yellow-bellied fools. They say that we do absolutely nothing to change the future of our country, but not so.
There are two kinds: the ones who are lazy or extremist anti-patriot, and those that don't vote because there is NOTHING they think are a good choice to vote for. Why vote for the democrat who has a slightly better way of running the country, but will still bring it down. We show our dismay at ALL of the candidates, and say that we will not take the slightly better, but only the best.
In conclusion, we need to stop being sheep and realizing that not all that the politics say is evil, but just devices to gain votes. If not, our country will continue to suffer and rot from the inside until all of this is evident, but it is much too late.
Imagine a large flock of sheep in a pasture. They are standing there, oblivious to the fact that most of the herders are on the way to sheer off their warm, fluffy coats. In fact, they are delighted when they arrive, expecting a tasty round of grains, or a few apples. There is more than one herder out there, trying to attract as many sheep as possible to their sheering buildings, because every extra sheep is money. The sheep blindly decide which herder to go to, for most of them carry a large carrot in their hands, and say sweet nothings. A few strange sheep actually look at the face of the herders, and discover who will sheer them, and who will feed them, and decide to go to those who have no treats, but have a good countenance. They are shunned and mocked by the other sheep, and become outcast.
I'll bet there are some of you readers who can already connect this to reality, and the party system, because it is very blatant if you take the time to think. Every party is one of those herders, holding out sweet promises, and we, the people, are sheep, and flock to one without questioning them at all. They do no research, no study, and just go with their party down to making this country even worse off than before.
We need to stop being sheep, and start thinking and acting to try to make this country better, and to be able to vote for those who will lead us to a better future.
Speaking of voting, I will say something about non-voting. When I grow up, I will likely be one of these. Now, you have heard all of your life that non-voters are cowards, and yellow-bellied fools. They say that we do absolutely nothing to change the future of our country, but not so.
There are two kinds: the ones who are lazy or extremist anti-patriot, and those that don't vote because there is NOTHING they think are a good choice to vote for. Why vote for the democrat who has a slightly better way of running the country, but will still bring it down. We show our dismay at ALL of the candidates, and say that we will not take the slightly better, but only the best.
In conclusion, we need to stop being sheep and realizing that not all that the politics say is evil, but just devices to gain votes. If not, our country will continue to suffer and rot from the inside until all of this is evident, but it is much too late.
Friday, October 22, 2010
North American Free Trade Agreement
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is something that is elusive, and few know its particulars. Of course, it's also a battleground for politicians and parties to fight over and point fingers and make each other look bad. I hope this post will be able to educate you in some of its particulars, and help you to form an opinion.
The basic idea of NAFTA was to create a trade bloc, a triangular trade between the three main North American countries Canada, U.S., and Mexico. Its main function was to remove protective tariffs from exports and imports. For those who don't remember their U.S. history class, or their Civics class, a protective tariff is a fine that you put on imports and exports, that increases its price so that the businesses in the country itself would be protected from foreign competition.
The hope was that removing these tariffs would encourage a stabilizing of the three economies and the classes of the countries. If they could remove the tariffs, the government stated that it would bring Mexico's economy up, and keep America's and Canada's stable and balanced.
Of course, that is what they said.
Originally, the bill was supposed to be signed into law by George Bush Senior. Unfortunately, his final term ended before he could, so he had to turn it over to the Clintons' administration. Of course, instead of signing it into law immediately, the Clintons decided to change the bill around a bit. More on that later.
The funny thing is, many members of the Republican Party today are angry with NAFTA, and claim that it is the cause of the ruining of our economy (ask any Republican in your ward or community about NAFTA, and you will find this true), when it was the Republicans that first supported the bill and attempted, themselves, to sign it into law. Also, in Canada, Progressive Republicans actually were the ones to sign it into law, while the Liberals fought constantly to repeal it, with the support of the men's and women's of the Liberal senate, and the majority of the Canadians' opinions, and some still do. Every party is to blame for the bad, questionable things in this law.
Okay, so now is the time to tell you what is wrong with this law. First, a major part of the law that Republicans created and Democrats supported, companies of the countries they were from could sue (not technically, its more like a usage of law, but it is hard to explain so I will use the word sue instead), the government in other countries for passing laws that although may protect its citizens, they hurt the companies' investments. If you have read my bit on corporations you know why alarm bells are sounding off in my head right now.
This is basically telling the corporations that they can screw other countries over. Because of their influence, they have sucked billions out of the pockets of other countries. Because of company influence, America wins about 90% of their suits, Canada wins only 30%, and Mexico about 10%. I have a few examples of suits I will share with you now.
1999 Sun Belt Water Inc. sued Canada, because of its prohibition on exporting fresh water in marine tankers. Canada was worried about the stability of its ecosystem and the preservation of lakes and streams, but the company won 105 million dollars from the suit. Reports of environmental damage have been made at sites of rivers, lakes, and streams.
1996 American sellers of the fuel additive MMT sued Canada for 201 million dollars, because Canada had banned its importation, and the companies were losing some money. Canadian researches claimed that its exhaust caused neural damage, while American researches claimed it had no effects. America won, and the effects are still not quite known.
Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, sued the government 960 million dollars, because California had banned it due to some reports of it leaking into wells in the area. Of course, Methanex Corp. lost, and was forced to pay our government 3 million for it.
Metalclad, and U.S. corporation sued the Mexican government for 15.6 million after a Mexican municipality leader (who's name translated roughly to Ferris) refused the construction of a hazardous waste dump near a Mexican city. NAFTA delcared that the Ferris's statis as a municipality leader did not have the authority to stop it, because the federal government had agreed to it.
Now, with my second wrong thing with NAFTA, the responsibility for it is mostly Democratic. Bill Clinton had added a section to it that stated that America's partners had to adhere to environmental practices and regulations like their own. That means, that if we pass a law on a certain chemical, Canada and Mexico are automatically forced to have that law. We control what they do, which is very wrong. We have the ability to pull far too many strings, which is what politicians and corporations excel at.
All-in-all, I believe that this agreement is morally wrong, and gives Americans the power to manipulate the economies of others, and hurt the populations of them. There are other wrongs with the law, but I can't include them in this post, so look on some web sites. Here is a good reference website to start: http://www.suite101.com/content/nafta-is-a-bad-agreement-a46386. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement. Remember, don't just take my word for it, research and develop your own opinions.
The basic idea of NAFTA was to create a trade bloc, a triangular trade between the three main North American countries Canada, U.S., and Mexico. Its main function was to remove protective tariffs from exports and imports. For those who don't remember their U.S. history class, or their Civics class, a protective tariff is a fine that you put on imports and exports, that increases its price so that the businesses in the country itself would be protected from foreign competition.
The hope was that removing these tariffs would encourage a stabilizing of the three economies and the classes of the countries. If they could remove the tariffs, the government stated that it would bring Mexico's economy up, and keep America's and Canada's stable and balanced.
Of course, that is what they said.
Originally, the bill was supposed to be signed into law by George Bush Senior. Unfortunately, his final term ended before he could, so he had to turn it over to the Clintons' administration. Of course, instead of signing it into law immediately, the Clintons decided to change the bill around a bit. More on that later.
The funny thing is, many members of the Republican Party today are angry with NAFTA, and claim that it is the cause of the ruining of our economy (ask any Republican in your ward or community about NAFTA, and you will find this true), when it was the Republicans that first supported the bill and attempted, themselves, to sign it into law. Also, in Canada, Progressive Republicans actually were the ones to sign it into law, while the Liberals fought constantly to repeal it, with the support of the men's and women's of the Liberal senate, and the majority of the Canadians' opinions, and some still do. Every party is to blame for the bad, questionable things in this law.
Okay, so now is the time to tell you what is wrong with this law. First, a major part of the law that Republicans created and Democrats supported, companies of the countries they were from could sue (not technically, its more like a usage of law, but it is hard to explain so I will use the word sue instead), the government in other countries for passing laws that although may protect its citizens, they hurt the companies' investments. If you have read my bit on corporations you know why alarm bells are sounding off in my head right now.
This is basically telling the corporations that they can screw other countries over. Because of their influence, they have sucked billions out of the pockets of other countries. Because of company influence, America wins about 90% of their suits, Canada wins only 30%, and Mexico about 10%. I have a few examples of suits I will share with you now.
1999 Sun Belt Water Inc. sued Canada, because of its prohibition on exporting fresh water in marine tankers. Canada was worried about the stability of its ecosystem and the preservation of lakes and streams, but the company won 105 million dollars from the suit. Reports of environmental damage have been made at sites of rivers, lakes, and streams.
1996 American sellers of the fuel additive MMT sued Canada for 201 million dollars, because Canada had banned its importation, and the companies were losing some money. Canadian researches claimed that its exhaust caused neural damage, while American researches claimed it had no effects. America won, and the effects are still not quite known.
Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, sued the government 960 million dollars, because California had banned it due to some reports of it leaking into wells in the area. Of course, Methanex Corp. lost, and was forced to pay our government 3 million for it.
Metalclad, and U.S. corporation sued the Mexican government for 15.6 million after a Mexican municipality leader (who's name translated roughly to Ferris) refused the construction of a hazardous waste dump near a Mexican city. NAFTA delcared that the Ferris's statis as a municipality leader did not have the authority to stop it, because the federal government had agreed to it.
Now, with my second wrong thing with NAFTA, the responsibility for it is mostly Democratic. Bill Clinton had added a section to it that stated that America's partners had to adhere to environmental practices and regulations like their own. That means, that if we pass a law on a certain chemical, Canada and Mexico are automatically forced to have that law. We control what they do, which is very wrong. We have the ability to pull far too many strings, which is what politicians and corporations excel at.
All-in-all, I believe that this agreement is morally wrong, and gives Americans the power to manipulate the economies of others, and hurt the populations of them. There are other wrongs with the law, but I can't include them in this post, so look on some web sites. Here is a good reference website to start: http://www.suite101.com/content/nafta-is-a-bad-agreement-a46386. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement. Remember, don't just take my word for it, research and develop your own opinions.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Health Care Reform Bill
Okay, okay, I know that sparks fly and teeth nash in Utah on this subject, but here I go anyway. Health care reform is a tricky thing. You have to look deeper, and for patterns in the different segments. I found a website: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you.
This website is one of the least biased ones on the web, and explains things well, even if it was made in the last spring.
First of all, I believe that the government paying for our healthcare would be not a bad idea. Now before you all point at me and yell "DEMOCRAT," I do not agree to everything that the bill says.
Good Things About the Bill:
First of all, 32 million people that did not previously have health care coverage will be able to afford coverage. Second, health care insurers cannot refuse to insure because of a preexisting condition. Third, the less money you make, the less of it you have to spend on healthcare.
If you are in what is considered to be the federal poverty rate, the government will only let up to 9.8 percent of your income go to health care. The lower you are in the poverty rate, the less percentage you have to pay (counting down from 9.8). This means that you will still pay partially for you own health care, but the government will help you. This will allow millions of people to be able to have health care.
In the past, insurers have been able to deny you coverage just because of a preexisting condition (something that has happened in the past and may happen again, or perhaps is already happening again). Now, everyone who struggled to get health care because of preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health care.
Bad Things About the Health Care Bill:
There are a few not-so-good things about the bill. First, the healthcare STILL runs thought corporations! Insurance agencys are coperations, and they will do what corperations do, squeeze every last ounce of money out of you. Second, the rich societies will be taxed for this. Third, you will be required to buy health care. Also, do realize that I am only fourteen, and I don't know ALL of the good and bad things, just those I have been able to research.
If you want my rant about corperations, you should read my blog post entitled Corporations. Just keep in mind that insurance agencies are corperations.
To cover costs of the bill, the government is taxing insurance agencies, tanning booths, and the rich societies of the United States. Now, some say that taxing the rich is bad, some good. (I put it in bad because the message about corperations was short). It makes sense to take money out of people who have lots, and give it to people who have little, but many rich people got where they were through a lot of hard work and determination, and to have that given perhaps to people who don't or didn't work is a little unfair. Not to say that all poor people are lazy, because most are not.
Last but not least, you will be required of the government to buy health care. I cannot think of a reason why they would do this, and it doesn't say why in any of the websites that I have been to. So, I put it as a bad thing, because the government will give you a cumulative fine (one that increases in percent annually) that can cost a lot more than the health care.
Common Misconceptions:
There are a few things that people don't understand, or they ignore because they are biased (usually journalists and politicians). First, the government is not forcing us to buy health care directly from them, but from a corporation or small agency. The government only gives us support in the costs. Next, people claim that it is unconsititutional to force people to buy health care, but every major war we have had to draft people into the military. We FORCE them to risk their lives. With the health care bill, we will save many lives. My mother (who is a nurse) had to recently turn out a man dying from serious lukemia on the street basically to die slowly and painfully. With the bill, no person will be rejected from the hospital, because everyone will have health care. Are we all going to stick up our heads and declare selfishly "Unconstitutional!" or are we going to swallow our inflated pride, and save that lives of people that are hoping desperately for this bill to pass so that they can be cured and treated of diseases they can't afford to treat.
This website is one of the least biased ones on the web, and explains things well, even if it was made in the last spring.
First of all, I believe that the government paying for our healthcare would be not a bad idea. Now before you all point at me and yell "DEMOCRAT," I do not agree to everything that the bill says.
Good Things About the Bill:
First of all, 32 million people that did not previously have health care coverage will be able to afford coverage. Second, health care insurers cannot refuse to insure because of a preexisting condition. Third, the less money you make, the less of it you have to spend on healthcare.
If you are in what is considered to be the federal poverty rate, the government will only let up to 9.8 percent of your income go to health care. The lower you are in the poverty rate, the less percentage you have to pay (counting down from 9.8). This means that you will still pay partially for you own health care, but the government will help you. This will allow millions of people to be able to have health care.
In the past, insurers have been able to deny you coverage just because of a preexisting condition (something that has happened in the past and may happen again, or perhaps is already happening again). Now, everyone who struggled to get health care because of preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health care.
Bad Things About the Health Care Bill:
There are a few not-so-good things about the bill. First, the healthcare STILL runs thought corporations! Insurance agencys are coperations, and they will do what corperations do, squeeze every last ounce of money out of you. Second, the rich societies will be taxed for this. Third, you will be required to buy health care. Also, do realize that I am only fourteen, and I don't know ALL of the good and bad things, just those I have been able to research.
If you want my rant about corperations, you should read my blog post entitled Corporations. Just keep in mind that insurance agencies are corperations.
To cover costs of the bill, the government is taxing insurance agencies, tanning booths, and the rich societies of the United States. Now, some say that taxing the rich is bad, some good. (I put it in bad because the message about corperations was short). It makes sense to take money out of people who have lots, and give it to people who have little, but many rich people got where they were through a lot of hard work and determination, and to have that given perhaps to people who don't or didn't work is a little unfair. Not to say that all poor people are lazy, because most are not.
Last but not least, you will be required of the government to buy health care. I cannot think of a reason why they would do this, and it doesn't say why in any of the websites that I have been to. So, I put it as a bad thing, because the government will give you a cumulative fine (one that increases in percent annually) that can cost a lot more than the health care.
Common Misconceptions:
There are a few things that people don't understand, or they ignore because they are biased (usually journalists and politicians). First, the government is not forcing us to buy health care directly from them, but from a corporation or small agency. The government only gives us support in the costs. Next, people claim that it is unconsititutional to force people to buy health care, but every major war we have had to draft people into the military. We FORCE them to risk their lives. With the health care bill, we will save many lives. My mother (who is a nurse) had to recently turn out a man dying from serious lukemia on the street basically to die slowly and painfully. With the bill, no person will be rejected from the hospital, because everyone will have health care. Are we all going to stick up our heads and declare selfishly "Unconstitutional!" or are we going to swallow our inflated pride, and save that lives of people that are hoping desperately for this bill to pass so that they can be cured and treated of diseases they can't afford to treat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)