Blog 10.3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30693652/

This article, written by Robert Pear of the New York Times, says that Barack Obama’s “health care push faces daunting odds”.  On Monday, President Obama, in an attempt to create fervor over his ambitious health care hopes, brought leaders of the health care industry to the White House.  It says that doctors, hospitals, drug makers, and health insurers have “voluntarily offered $2 trillion in cost reductions over the next 10 years”.  I am not sure if I understand this statement, especially the word “volunteered”, but nevertheless, it certainly sounds good from my perspective!  Unfortunately, the proposals are incredibly vague, and history tells us this could be a recipe for failure.  Yet, the event itself was historic because it showed consensus on health care reform, something that was certainly not the case in the Clinton-era.  This consensus is something that has occurred seemingly overnight, and it is for that reason, I worry.  I fear that this whole reforming of health care will occur too quickly; it will allow for mistakes that could ruin it in the future.  I have learned a lot doing my blog on health care this semester. At the beginning of the year, I wanted change immediately.  Stories that I have read, such as this very article, prove how complicated the issue is and how we must work and listen to one another before any real change can come about.  Yet still, I remain sided with Obama in working toward a health care system in this country that is universal for all.  

Blog 10.2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=AthL1Z3BNgN7Spp23cWrcxqyFz4D

Senators are purportedly considering limiting the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits in an attempt to help pay for Barack Obama’s plan to provide coverage to the uninsured in this country.  That number is guessed to be around 50 million according to this article.  This I see as a problem because it definitely goes against some of the rhetoric that Obama used against John McCain’s plans to tax it—Obama was highly critical of it.  But, as the article explains, there are really no easy options when it comes to paying for the plans he hopes to accomplish.  The final plan is likely to include “a mix of increases in taxes, and spending cuts.”  Some of the items that could be heavily taxed are ones that can often cause health problems (where insurance is then needed)—they include: tobacco, sugary products, and alcoholic beverages.  Baucus says that one way to make this taxing problem easier is only taxing the health insurance of those who have higher incomes—I tend to agree with that.  

Blog 10.1

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/the-note-512200.html

This article starts a bit critical of President Obama and his hopes for universal healthcare.  “President Obama has found perceptions to be easier to manage than realities,” author Rick Cline writes.  The major problem that this article focuses on is not the idea of health care reform; it is how it will be paid for.  The main problems are money and time—basically 2 trillion dollars over the next decade.  There is a quote from (finally confirmed) Kathleen Sebelius that I think is important to all of this.  She says, “People are demanding a chance…they want to be a part of the change.”  I think this is important because while the chances of this reform being successful may seem bleak, it is what the people seem to want…important in a democracy.  

Blog 9.3

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/19/medical-records-internet-cio-technology-medical-records.html?feed=rss_technology

I found this article fascinating because it is so different than others I have read on the health care debate.  It talks about medical records and how no matter where a patient is, he or she must always be filling out those papers with information before a doctor can see them.  There is an obvious lack in computer automation, and this is very surprising considering how much money goes into “medical research and the rising costs of premiums for health coverage.”  According to this article, this expenditure is “one of the inefficiencies in the medical system.”  An electronic system is the answer? Perhaps.  For one, they explain the extent of the coverage, something that otherwise has to be search for.  Second, they could provide a complete medical history of the patient immediately; these records can “lower doctors' insurance, eliminate redundant tests, speed up treatment and cut costs across the board”.  I like hearing ideas like this one cause it really is not political.  Too often are the “answers” to our problems only found between bickering parties—this is something that both parties may agree on while it also could help toward improving the efficiency of our current health care system.

Blog 9.2

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103275839&ft=1&f=1027,1030,1066

This article is about how the drug industry will be pushing for health care for the poor of this country.  This is very interesting because during the last large scale attempt to overhaul the current health care system, it was the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America that were among the most powerful opponents.  The reason for this is because of the fear that the government would have too much control over the price and perhaps “limit their profit margins”.  Now PhRMA will team up with congress with the hopes of expanding coverage to those who qualify for Medicaid.  The president of PhRMA says that he will support this legislation because simply too many people cannot afford the medications they need.  The longer and longer that these people go without these medications, the more likely they will have some sort of emergency in the future.  I think this is really important for the national health care debate as well; large, national companies must be in favor of it for it to be successful and pass in congress.  

Blog 9.1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292853/

This article is about how senators are now looking at real possibilities in how to insure the over 50 million people who are currently uninsured.  I liked how in the first paragraph it says, “Hopes are high that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground for a bill to emerge by summer”.  The article talks about how hard and how “history-making” this bill will have to be; health care reform has a history of failing in this country for the past 50 years.  This article also talks about how bold it will have to be to try to unsure the millions who are not covered during this time of recession and national debt.  Senator Max Baucus of Montana said that the only way for this sort of legislation to pass is to “do it in a way that keeps the vast majority of both parties moving in the same direction”.  This article says that liberal democrats would prefer to pay for all of this through upper-income tax increases and sales tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and even sugary sodas. Republicans want “most of the financing to come from spending cuts and from making the health care system less wasteful”.  

Blog 8.3

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_us/drug_prices_aarp;_ylt=AlSKu7L5K4W_HKU6U0l4RRXVJRIF

This article is about prescription drug prices and how they are rapidly rising.  It is also about how many generic drug prices are falling and how, in response, many people are switching from prescription to generic drugs.   The AARP really wants policy makers to “focus on how to bring down drug prices as congress prepares legislation to reshape the nation’s costly health care system.”  It is interesting that this article talks about how prices of prescriptions have gone way higher than the actual inflation from production.  The manufacturers are to blame for this.  The drug lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America dismissed this report with the senior vice president saying that the AARP “distorts” and “dramatizes” its reports.  Prevacid (acid reflux), Wellbutrin (depression), and Lunesta (sleep) saw the biggest price increases in 2008 and this affects hundreds of thousands of Americans.  The AARP’s public policy director says the “increases make the case for policy changes”, and I would agree.  I worry about this because as I’ve said before, it will be far more expensive when there are emergencies created from these people not taking medicine they simply cannot afford. 

 

Blog 8.2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/health_overhaul_compromise;_ylt=AtrISQfWYgAnhcF6_VoMcuLVJRIF

Barack Obama’s top health care advisor said that there is a “compromise within reach on a government health plan for the middle class that wouldn’t drive public insurers out of business”.  This is one of the primary fears of many conservatives who are against a government plan for Americans—that it could lead to a government takeover and run private companies into the ground.  Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House health reform office, says that a deal “could be” reached that addressed all concerns.  One example she provided as evidence is that under this new plan, it would pay hospitals and doctors rates similar to what private insurers pay.  Something I personally thought was very interesting and something that I think few Americans already know is that the U.S. government already pays for about half of the total health care tab through programs for the poor, the elderly and children.  Obama plans to expand that.  The Lowen Group did a study recently and found that if the new plan were open only to individuals and small businesses, then its impact would be limited.  I look forward to hearing more about the details of a compromise in the near future.     

Blog 8.1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29706982/

This article is about how the recession is really affecting illegal immigrants.  I liked this article because it touches on an issue that can often be overlooked.  The article starts with a story about a woman who has relied on her county’s health clinic to help her with her diabetes.  However, next month, she will be on her own.  This county in California has taken “the drastic step of cutting non emergency health services for illegal immigrants”.  There is little data on how many illegal immigrants do not have health insurance, but it is estimated that it is up to 59% of the 11.9 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.  The financial crisis has taken such a toll because local health systems are largely affected by it, as is often seen in the loss of jobs in the industry.  The math is sort of difficult and grim for illegal immigrants because if counties do decide to cut them from health services, it can potentially save the counties millions.  I am worried about that the most.  During these times, it may be hard to think rationally about the consequences of doing this…even if it is an attempt to save money.  We need not forget these people are no less human than each American, and I hope under Barack Obama’s plan, there are specific outlines for how to deal with illegal immigrants humanely.  

Blog 7.3

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=1&ref=health

Richard Gephardt made his primary issue of his failed 2004 presidential campaign the issue of universal healthcare.  He said it was “the moral issue of our time.”  However, he is now saying that universal healthcare cannot pass this year.  Otherwise, he argues, President Obama risks losing the same battle that President Clinton went through nearly 15 years ago.  I have not thought of this before, mainly because I was too young to follow the healthcare debate 15 years ago.  But this is someone who is saying he sees a lot of “déjà vu” between the times then and the times now.  Representative Ron Kind says that the hardest part is cost, but acknowledges that if the system were reformed more immediately, there would be nearly immediate savings because emergency health costs would go down.  This is a debate that further shows the complexity of universal healthcare—whether to act right away and then figure out a way to pay for it OR vise versa.  I would agree with the former even though I acknowledge it could be economically disastrous.  I just feel that the more this debate goes on and on about cost, the less likely any action will occur.  With each day that goes by is another person having a heart attack who had been denied cholesterol medicine due to cost…

Blog 7.2

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7300173&page=1

I enjoyed reading this article because it talks about something I studied in the past—the fact that many people in this country are not consulting with their primary health care doctors and instead end up in the emergency room.  It is proven that taking care of these issues before they become an emergency will save money over time.  The Mayo Clinic is one place that realized that even its own employees were using the emergency system too often, so the clinic “took steps to make care more accessible and to control costs.”  They started by setting up a new department for the whole family (children and adults); they also built new medicine centers and set up a 24-hour phone service.  The president of the American Academy of Family Physicians said, "If we get the right person in the right office at the right time, we can help reduce the cost of care, provide quality and provide access and appropriately get referred to the right specialist.” These huge changes have been made without increasing insurance costs per patient, so I am thrilled and support changes such as these to hospitals across the nation.  

Blog 7.1

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/04/13/daily14.html

This article was interesting because it involved a politician who I so rarely hear about outside of comedy or satire of his work—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Schwarzenegger has recently announced a “$32 million initiative to reduce the shortage of critical health care workers in California.”  This article touches on an issue in the healthcare world that is seldom talked about—the shortage of these workers.  (Most of the time it is the shortage of those who have healthcare.)  But if these uninsured people do get health care—via the government, as Obama as pledged to do—then who would be the ones caring for them?  The initiative will start in the fall at 25 community colleges, and the focus is to “boost” the number of lab technicians, dental hygienists, physical therapists assistance and others.  The state is already facing challenge and as the population ages, there will be growing numbers of people who need help.  Gov. Schwarzenegger’s quote summarizes my opinion of this perfectly: “Today we are taking some great action to put Californians in jobs and pump up the economy — and at the same time, improve the quality of health care.”  I would even encourage Obama to look at this idea because these problems that California is currently facing are universal in the U.S.

Blog 6.3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30076798/

From the start of this article, I could not exactly know how I felt.  Reading “Public Plan May Doom Private Health Insurance” has a bad connotation, but the more I thought about it, the less pitiful I felt towards private health insurance companies.  I mean currently health insurance is provided privately which is good IF you have a job where it is offered or can separately afford it.  Unfortunately more and more people are losing their health insurance—a number that is growing by the day.  The “problem” that some people foresee is that this government program (Obama’s) could enroll up to 131 million people…a huge number that could potentially help the uninsured and middle class while also putting “private insurers out of business”.  The democrats are thinking of a plan that would compete with the private insurance business that covers nearly 170 million people.  I would hate to see businesses collapse because of government programs; however, I would also hate to see more and more people get sick or die when it could have all been avoided.  A tough issue we are sure to hear more about in the coming months and years.  

Blog 6.2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30093462/

This article has to do with the same ideas that I have touched on in previous articles; it has to do with the fact that many people, with the higher costs of healthcare, are skipping drugs (or splitting them—something I did not know) to save money.  However in this article, it says that help is available and sometimes people simply do not know.  Even “hundreds of programs offer medicines free or at a discount.”  In this article, it says what to do if you are in the position of not being able to afford medicine.  First, talk to your doctor and explain the situation to him or her.  Next, do some simple research on the Internet for these programs.  Patients who have been through the process of applying to certain programs say that rejections are not final and should not be taken as such—sometimes it helps to write a letter or to apply elsewhere.  There are also assistance programs that help individuals with things such as applying for Medicaid.  I enjoyed reading this article because as bad as I know things are, it is at least somewhat assuring to hear there are programs to help those struggling.  

Blog 6.1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30190141/

This article was interesting to me and somewhat depressing.  It starts by saying that if the uninsured were a political lobby group, it would be bigger than the AARP.  The truth is that those people who are currently uninsured lack political power; it is the uninsured who really need to rally for change in Washington.  The problem is, as this article points out, that health insurance, to a lot of people, is still considered a personal issue—one that cannot really be broached on the national stage in congress.  However, as talk of reform has come about, advocates say that these people need more of a chance to voice their opinion and be a part of the process of changing America’s healthcare system.  Without a “vocal constituency”, it will be difficult for lawmakers to make the case for such reform when paying for it is the hardest part.  I disagree with a professor at Harvard who said that “the uninsured do not provide political benefit” to politicians.  I tend to think that if someone is given health insurance that ends up saving a life, you can bet the representative that voted in favor will get his or her vote in the next election.  I’m not sure of a solution, perhaps start an organization that can unite all of those uninsured who wish to take part in the political process?

Blog 5.3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29703278/

According to a recent New York Times article, the Obama administration is open to taxing health benefits to help with the health care overhaul.  This, I must admit, angers me because immediately when I read this, I thought about the campaign and what Obama had promised.  It was Obama who said he was strongly against the idea of this; he even highly criticized McCain for wanting to tax health benefits.  This is especially bad news for unions and some businesses.  I was and still am a big supporter of President Obama; however, I am disappointed that he would backtrack on promises from the campaign.  Something I did not know is that even during the campaign, some Obama supporters said he may come to regret his position.  It could potentially raise billions of dollars over ten years.  This would primarily affect employer-based insurance, which covers three fifths of the population under 65.  Critics say that it is unfair because it affects people of different income levels.  My personal assessment of this is that I want to see the “larger picture”—how this could help toward achieving universal health care over the long run.

Blog 5.2

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/16/health.care.survey.deloitte/index.html

This article is similar to a previous one that I did because it shows that the bad economy can actually lead to bad or worsened health.  According to the Deliotte Survey of Health Care Consumers, 24% of people polled did not seek medical care when they were sick or injured.  The largest subgroup of those, as could be expected, was the uninsured…at 36% percent.  The executive director of this independent research center says, “Costs are impacting the system.”  The study also showed there is a large dissatisfaction with the current health care system.  94% of those polled say that they think health care costs threaten their own financial security.  The abundance of options available to consumers is also “baffling” and confusing—there are several non-profits now trying to help families make the best choices with the best options.  I think this news is unfortunate because actually in the long run, it could be worse for the economy.  The longer that these people go uninsured, the higher chance emergency aid will be needed; paying for medication for things such as chronic illness is far cheaper over time.  I hope Obama’s decision making takes all of this news into account when attempting to reform the health care system.  

Blog 5.1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/health_overhaul_cost_14

This article is about the fact that a number has been reached by some policy experts as to how much it may cost to make universal health care in the United States a reality.  Essentially, the overhaul may cost upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next decade.  This number is, yes, huge—it is more than double what Barack calls his “down payment” set aside for health reform in his budget.  And because of the economy, it is difficult because more and more Americans are without or are losing their current health insurance.  The White House press secretary says that number could be exaggerated because “it is impossible to put a price tag on the plan before the basics have been finalized”.  While I will always stick by plans that lead to universal health care, this is certainly a worry for me.  And one reason, perhaps selfishly, that it is worrisome to me is that this expansion of health care is a “permanent reform”—thus, future generations will be have to provide the resources for it (aka my generation).  Reading an article like this sometimes brings me out of the clouds and back down to earth—accomplishing universal health care will be a hard process…but one we should no doubt pursue.

Blog 4.3

The title of this next article is what caught my attention: Obama’s “Un-Hillary” Health care Approach.  The first thing that Obama has going for him is that he is starting with agreement that there is a need for change in health care in the U.S.  So much has changed within the last 15 years since Hillary and fellow democrats attempted to make a crack at the current system.  Something that is really helping Obama’s case for health care is how it can all be brought back to the economy.  I do agree with this and think it is a smart move because people seem to be more interested and worried about the economy now than health care.  The more serious issues such as abortion, and others that go along with the subject, are sure to be brought up later.  He is specifically saying that addressing the problem of healthcare can “create jobs and rebuild the economy”.  Even some of those that helped “kill the Clinton administration’s overall of the health care system” are now showing interest in reforming it.  On Thursday there will be gathering of those to start a larger discussion intended to change the current politics of health care.  One more key difference between now and then is that reforming the system has gotten approval from many insurers, hospitals, and other key players…something, again, the Clinton administration lacked.  I am very pleased with all of this, and it gives me hope that during Obama’s first term, we will see tens of millions get health coverage.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/03/the-note-3509-h.html

Blog 4.2

A new study has come out that nearly 87 million people in the United States have been uninsured for the last two years.  That means that one out of three Americans were without health insurance at some point during that time.  Families USA is the one who conducted the study.  There were several other interesting findings: four out of the five of the uninsured were in working families and people without health insurance “are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care”.  These figures are serious, and they cannot go ignored.  This week Obama plans to hold a health care summit at the White House because it is one of his top priorities.  The U.S. census came with numbers not too long ago (45.7 million uninsured), which were far less than those found by Families USA.  For that reason, critics say the findings are misleading.  

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/index.html

Blog 4.1

The most important thing that happened over the past week regarding healthcare is that President Barack Obama did in fact tap Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.  As I have stated in the past, I am pleased with this woman, and I think she has the potential to do a terrific job with what I think is the most important part of the job: seeking to make sure universal healthcare becomes a reality.  On one CNN article, I thought it was interesting that it may not be her resume that will be the talk of her official confirmation (that is senate-approved like all Cabinet positions)—it is her stance on abortion.  Anti-abortion groups have already been making their views strong in the public.  In the article it states that religious conservatives could “use Sebelius as a warm-up for the seemingly inevitable fight” over abortion.  On the other end, Catholics United, a liberal group, has come to her defense saying that she has taken several steps in her own state to lower the abortion rate.  The Obama administration has made no specific mention of the issue, yet.  

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/sebelius.abortion.fight/index.html

Blog 3.3

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/25/budget.healthcare/index.html

A recent CNN news article reports how Obama is seeking that wealthier Americans “deal with a tax increase and pay higher Medicare premiums to help fund a $634 billion health care ‘reserve fund’ aimed at reforming the system.”  So what is a reserve fund?  It is basically a “piggy bang…used for reforming the system by cutting costs and trying to deal with the 46 million Americans without health insurance”.  The number of “wealthy” about which he is speaking is about 1.5 million people (seniors earning over $170,000 a year who already pay for Medicare “Part B”).  In order to raise $318 billion for the health care fund, the administration will raise the tax liability of wealthy Americans earning at least $250,000 by limiting how much they can write off for “itemized deductions such as mortgage insurance and charitable contributions.”  This is sure to set off a firestorm by the Republican Party; it is exactly what many of them stand against.  However, I see that at this time, those in opposition need to look at this issue from the views of ones other than themselves.  Times are really rough for some and perhaps going to get worse.  Investing in some of the lives of those less fortunate could have tremendous rewards in the future.  

Blog 3.2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_go_ot/health_costs;_ylt=AssOPQ70OiyCT36zYrAnl20NJ_wE

In an AP article written by Mike Morkrzycki, it reports that healthcare cost keeps the doctor away.  A fourth of American’s said in a study that “someone in the family put off health care in the past year because of cost, including 16 percent who postponed surgery or a doctor’s visit for chronic illness.”  The study found that even a high percentage of people are now deciding to care for their problems using home remedies rather than seeing a doctor.  Also, a Kaiser survey found that most (59%) of Americans believe the country would be better off if health care were reformed.  This is unfortunately something that comes as no surprise to me.  When people are low on money, then things such as health are put off—a truth that I find incredibly sad.  I have strong opinions over this topic; I know that investing more in it’s people will help the United States on so many different levels.  The survey also said that Republicans were more skeptical on healthcare reform.  I feel like when people are obviously putting off their lives for reasons of money, all should feel pretty confident in reform.

Blog 3.1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29394788/

According to an article by the Associated Press on February 25, 2009, Medicare costs “vary wildly across the country.”  It goes on to give a specific example, which surprised me, a lot—the government is paying twice as much for treating a patient in Miami as in San Francisco.  The Dartmouth Atlas Project said that the “more expensive medical technology is only part of the picture; it is “people” who control healthcare spending, according to a lead study author and a medicine professor, Elliot Fisher.  He also believes that when there are local hospitals, there seems to be a “local medical health race”, whereas single hospitals are more “focused” on primary care.  These findings are interesting in a time when President Obama/ Congress has large plans to tackle healthcare reform.  Through reading this article, something I did not know is just how expensive Medicare is: this year it’s expected to cost more than $500 billion.  That being said, I am appalled that this money is not being efficiently used across the country.  The article mentions that doctors should opt for “conservative care”, which I tend to agree with.

Blog 2.3

1.               Just last week, I blogged on who would become the secretary of health and human services.  That article was about the somewhat controversial Governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen.  This article on MSNBC’s website says that it is the Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who has emerged as the favorite.  She has had eight years of experience as her state’s insurance commissioner as well as six years running the state Medicaid program (as governor).  Obama has said that he has long-term plans of hugely expanding healthcare coverage; this issue is where the two parties have “deep ideological divisions”.  This is where she could potentially be an asset for the Obama administration—she has a strong record of “partisan politics as a democrat in one of the country’s most Republican states”.  Next week, Obama plans to turn his attention to health care with a “blueprint that will begin to advance his ideas about covering the uninsured”.  If this is true, it is unknown when Obama may nominate her; it could be as early as next week.  I do not know a lot about her, but from this article, I think she would be a wiser pick than Governor Bredesen.  Again, this topic is one on which I am very passionate, and I will be following it very closely in the coming weeks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29275480/

Blog 2.2

1.     This CNN News article is about U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia.  She has arrived in South Korea, her third country out of four on her Asian tour.  She comes at an interesting time because U.S. officials just yesterday “cited evidence that North Korea was gearing up for a launch of a long-range missile.”  While Pyongyang is now disputing that evidence, they did say Thursday that as a country, they were ready for an “all-out confrontation” with South Korea.  These sound like scary words, but I thought it was interesting how the spokesperson for the South Korean Unification Ministry responded—simply by saying this rhetoric has been going on for years and it is only an attempt to “widen the ideological divide within South Korea.”  Clinton said this week it would be very unhelpful for North Korea to foolishly attempt a missile launch and that the U.S. is “watching very closely” the actions by North Korea.  I have worried about North Korea doing something stupid for years, and I really liked what Sec. of State Hillary Clinton had to say on the issue.  One of the most important parts of the government is to protect the people, and with her in this position, I do feel safe.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/19/clinton.koreas/index.html

Blog 2.1

1.     While most of the pressure is on the Obama administration to make sure things work out under his new economic stimulus plan, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan said Thursday that “banks and lending institutions must step up to the plate making sure that the administration’s new home foreclosure initiative succeeds.”  This Yahoo! News article by the Associated Press goes on to say that the administration is not only working to improve the mortgage crisis but now also the jobs crisis.  Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Company, said that there would “still be some borrowers who lose their homes to foreclosure…but [it] should have a significant reduction in the foreclosure rate.”  This part got me to thinking about all of this.  Yes, it is a huge amount of money, but if some people are still going to lose their home, then obviously it’s not the answer we are all looking for.  When you lose your home, that’s the entire world to you, no matter how many “others” are helped.  Bair went on the say (on the Today Show) that she hoped that the “loan modifications beginning in March would temper the ongoing declines.”  This gave me some hope because it means that a lot of what is happening with the stimulus will have almost an immediate impact, helping millions of Americans.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_foreclosures;_ylt=AjI5NVcTbisYNFlaAcOLEkys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJjdjd0NDI3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwMjE5L29iYW1hX2ZvcmVjbG9zdXJlcwRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNodWRzZWNyZXRhcnk-

Blog 3

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29116793/

1.     One Government Issue that I am particularly passionate over is healthcare…and how it must be reformed.  In this published article by the Associated Press, I learned that the Obama Administration is reportedly considering Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen as the health secretary.  While, yes, he “knows the pitfalls of soaring costs” better than nearly anyone, he is unfortunately best known for making huge healthcare cuts.  In 2005, he cut 170,000 adults from Tennessee’s Medicaid program.  Critics tend to fault him for this and are throwing their support in favor of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.  However, many believe Bredsen’s “stand shows he’s willing to tackle the toughest of problems.”  Dennis Smith, who was in charge of Medicaid during to 2005 cuts that were made, said that Bredesen’s actions were “necessary and appropriate” because Tennessee lacked certain controls within the program.  As one could perhaps suspect, the choice has drawn praise from conservatives because of Bredesen’s willingness to cut when spending is out of control.  I was not sure how I felt about Bredesen until I read this quote: “I certainly believe there's an underlying right and the federal government ought to be financing a basic level of health care for everybody".  If he truly believes that, then I would not fear his appointment and would wish him the best in making universal healthcare a reality in the U.S.

Blog 2

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_co/bailout_banks;_ylt=AnsrFz4b5YXC3fo8DT4d6DKyFz4D

Eight chief executives from the nation’s top banks met in Washington, D.C. to “assure lawmakers that an infusion last fall of the $165 billion in taxpayer money to their banks was good for consumers”.  This Yahoo! News article by Jim Kuhnhenn reported the banks as saying that lending has increased, and this is something vital towards helping businesses grow (and thus, the economy strengthen).  The executives said to the House that they would pay back the taxpayer money by 2012 and “sooner if they could help it”.  In addition, lawmakers asked over and over if the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” had helped extend credit; the executives said yes.  Republican Gary Ackerman was skeptical of how much it has helped saying that he has not been deaf to the voices he hears of people who cannot get loans, refinance their houses, and send their children to college.  One small part of the article that had an effect on me was the fact that all of the executives admitted to taking their bonuses at the end of last year that were “in the millions”.  At a time when they are asking for (tax) money, I think it ridiculous that they took that money and didn’t allow it to stay in the company to help those in real need.  

Blog 1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus;_ylt=AuPXN1rOecQVKKAsUMFpxfyyFz4D

 After what felt like years, the democratic-controlled congress and the White House passed a stimulus bill to help the struggling economy.  I am excited about this because the bill, as stated in the Yahoo! News article by David Espo, has the potential to create millions of jobs.  Something I thought to be very interesting is the fact that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, said that most of the bill is “dedicated to providing tax relief for 95% of American workers”.  I see this as important work towards bipartisanship simply because many people think of Democrats as working towards raising taxes, while Republicans work to lower them.  However, I am also very aware that this bill is not the most popular on the Republican side.  Many believe this bill to be “wasteful spending” and think that over time, it could be disastrous.  One reason the bill took so long to pass was the provisions of the bill.  Nancy Polosi, for example, did not approve of it until there was an explicit section devoted towards funding for school construction.  Being a democrat, I feel like I should be agreeing with all of this; however, I simply do not know enough about the economy and stimulus packages to have a strong opinion.  It all sounds good, but where is the money coming from?  If it doesn’t work, will I be one of the ones paying for the damages?  Of course, I am hoping the best…