The Advocate

Clinton's Proposed Universal healthcare Plan

Hillary Clinton's Proposed Healthcare Plan- CNN

As we talked about during an earlier class last week, the view most Americans take on the economy has changed drastically since the inception of our country.  The time of laissez-faire economic policy has ended, and today the government regulates business and the economy much more so than in the past.  FDR?s government-funded work projects began a period of government interference in what was a traditionally pure capitalist nation; yet I doubt most states today would be outraged at the federal grants and aids that they receive. 

The question then becomes, at what point has the government overstepped its boundaries?  My answer immediately to this question is that it completely depends on the time period in which this question is asked, for as a general rule the American people, and the people of the world, become more liberal as time goes on.  The current article discusses Hillary Clinton?s proposed universal healthcare program, one very similar to the proposal she made on Bill Clinton?s behalf in 1993.  14 years ago, however, the proposal met strong resistance in congress, and public opinion was not in favor of any such plan.  Currently, however, it seems that much of the population would support such an idea, and although her republican counterparts would have you believe such an action would cause the downfall of healthcare as we know it, almost every democratic candidate is using the universal healthcare card in some way, shape or form. 

Personally, I feel that one of the biggest concerns of any society is the health of its citizenry, and to deny any citizens healthcare as a function of money or otherwise to me seems counterintuitive to a productive country.  It has been tradition in this country for the government to take a ?hands-off? approach toward most economic sectors, but as I stated before, times have changed and exceptions are made, and to me this is the next logical step.  Hillary?s proposal is not socialist, it does not give to each his needs and take from each his abilities, it simply channels governments funds and adjusts taxes to give its citizens one of the basic necessities of life in a modern society; healthcare. 

A big criticism of this plan comes from the rugged individual line of thinking that traditionally runs strong in our country?s way of thinking, and that criticism addresses the idea of benefiting those who give the least to society.  It is true, this plan will benefit those who make the least amount of money and pay the least taxes and sometimes will benefit those who do not work at all.  True, the idea of giving tax dollars to individuals who are lazy and do not work is not ideal, but in this situation I am of the belief that the vast majority of people who receive benefits from this program are not lazy and unconcerned with their health, but rather the opposite; hard working individuals who fear that their health will fail them and they will not be able to provide for their families.  Besides, I?m not sure someone should be denied the ability to receive medical attention because they are unemployed.

Questions to consider:

If this program is adopted, would it open the door for more radical, less rational programs that would unfairly burden working individuals to benefit those who are not (essentially the slippery slope argument)?

At what point should a person be denied tax-paid-for healthcare, for example, someone who is morbidly obese but refuses to lose weight, or a smoker that refuses to quit smoking?  Should someone ever be denied free healthcare?

Some critics claim that Hillary got many of her ideas from European healthcare programs, and thus they feel as those it is a foreign system not fit for the United States, do you agree?

Feel free to post responses to any and all questions, and any other comments.

Posted at 06:11PM Sep 17, 2007 by AGOSTA, VINCENT in General  |  Comments[0]

Factions in American Politics

Oprah's support of Obama- CNN

    In class we have been discussing the issue of factions, groups that advocate for certain rights and privileges that selfishly regard only that group and may conflict with the rights and privileges of other groups.  In federalist #10, James Madison talks about the threat that factions pose to the America and how the constitution he aims at getting ratified will help to alleviate the problem.  Madison suggests that a large republic, with so many competing interests, will prevent just one or two factions from dominating the political arena, whereas a smaller, state-level sudo-democracy would leave open the possibility of certain groups coming to power despite their abuses of power.  Since Madison saw factions as inseparable to human nature, he concluded that dealing with them, not eradicating them, was the answer and that his vast republic would do so. 

    The article I have come across recently (link at top) addresses the issue of interest groups, which is pretty much the modern day equivalent to factions.  This specific article discusses the role that Oprah Winfrey will play in the election process as she throws her support behind Barack Obama and holds a fundraiser to help him with his campaign.  She and her semi-religious following, in modern day terms, constitutes a faction that is attempting to further their own interests.  The question is how correct was Madison with his assertions?

    Personally, I find him to be undeniably correct in most of his opinions regarding factions.  Firstly, his assertion that factions cannot be eliminated has held true, seeing as how over two centuries of American history they still exist and exist to an even greater extent than they did before.  Secondly, I believe that the republic has been successful in keeping corrupt factions from taking over the entirety of the government.  Although I believe the true power in the United States is held in the hands of an elite few, I don't think that factions themselves have come to assume all the power, as demonstrated from this article.  Oprah, just like the NRA or the AARP, has some power and a following, but does not have the overwhelming ability to sway the election.  Likewise, she does indeed have power to persuade thousands of opinions, and thus has not been eliminated by some larger, dominating faction.  So overall, I think Madison's statements have held true. 

    The opposing opinion to this, however, is to say that the elite that makes up every single presidential candidate we have or have ever had is a faction in itself.  Even though these individuals are different in their political agenda's, the fact that they are wealthy elites technically means they are part of a faction, one that Madison specifically mentioned as a dangerous one.  To me this falls somewhere in a gray area.  Although they are part of the same faction, I think that faction is so vague and all encompassing that they don't really work together to achieve similar goals, and thus do not pose a threat to the fair election process.  I do, however, recognize it as a valid argument.

    Questions to consider:

    Was Madison correct about the creation of factions being central to human nature, or do you think they are more a product of their society?

    Was Madison correct in assuming a large republic would create enough competing interests as to eliminate the threat of faction oppression?

    Would something like race, gender, or age constitute a faction?  If you believe so, where does faction classification stop?


    Feel free to answer any or all of the above

    -Vince

Posted at 10:45PM Sep 08, 2007 by AGOSTA, VINCENT in General  |  Comments[0]