Republicans and Health Care Reform

"Afflicting the Afflicted" is what Paul Krugman calls his article. In this opinion on Thursdays health care summit he discuss things said by the Republicans in reference to the health care reform debate. His intended audience seems to be anyone who has an interest in the health care reform, although his article seems to also be sided more to Democrats. Krugman's claim is that the Republicans "didn't bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking." He argument leads you to believe that he feels that the Republicans didn't make a good enough case on where they stand, especially with the amount of time, research, and emphasis put into the health care reform. While Krugman's article is definitely one sided, he does have great evidence to support his claim. When he discusses the republican representatives comments on premiums going up he does mention that the Democrats say that "average payments for insurance would go up". Krugman does acknowledge that this is something the Democrats did say would happen, but that the Republicans didn't speak on the Democrats entire statement and notes that rise would be due to"better coverage" and the "federal aide" would help to offset this cost. He also discusses the use of reconciliation and how is was stated by the Republicans that it has "never been used for something like this" Krugman points out that it has in fact been used twice before in health care reform. While I do think he is accurate here, I don't agree with it being used in such an over hall of the health care system and I think that is more the point that the Republicans are trying to make. I do however agree with his comments about the Republicans inability to adequately discuss the issue of pre-existing medical conditions. I also agree that it seems very wrong to deny someone health care coverage because of the many reasons that we currently do and feel that the Democrats putting an end to this is a great thing. I, like Krugman wonder why the Republicans didn't give an answer for this issue. Overall Krugman makes a good argument for his claim, he backs it up with direct comments from the Republicans and discusses their lack of evidence. It is his last comment at the end that leaves me feeling like it is more a one sided push for the Democrats and their plan. He comment of "But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform", leaves me thinking he himself must be a Democrat as well, which is where he must get his logic from, and also that he has forgotten that it isn't just up to the Democrats. This issue affects the entire U.S. and it is not something that they can create by just finishing the job, its going to take a lot more work than that. Before reading that statement I thought that his article was pretty good, he even had me siding with him. He last comment kind of soured me though and makes me wonder that even though he is very skilled in economics knowledge and has written many books and received many awards if he wasn't just siding with the Democrats. I think that with him being such a great writer he may have been able to write just as good of an argument for the Republicans.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html

Don't Ask Don't Tell

This news article discusses the recent decision to get rid of the ban on gays in the military and the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. Although I do think that it takes time to implement a new policy, or rather get ride of an existing one, I do disagree with some of the things in the article. For one it discusses "third party outings" and how "service members are kicked out after others report them to be gay". I think that this is way wrong, how can someone else get you kicked out for something you may or may not be. They also discuss how it would be "the biggest upheaval to the military's personnel policies since the 1948 executive order on racial integration". I realize that this is a huge step for the military but I also think that the decision in 1948 was a huge step as well and something that needed to be done. The next part of the article talks about possible backlash. I think that if any member of the military were to backlash against this new change that they would not be focusing on the real issues. Robert Gates's comments make sense but I wonder if he is thinking of the people who are gay in the military or just the people who are against gays in the military when he says, "Stupid was trying to impose a policy from the top without any regard for the views of the people who were going to be affected" However I do agree the fact that their should be an internal review. I really feel that the main issue here is that anyone who is willing to serve their country and put their life on the line should not be kicked out or not allowed to join because they are openly gay. My uncle is in the air force and I know that the thing that keeps him going is the thought of his family. Especially his wife and his children. I cant even imagine being over seas or away from my family and not being able to even say the exist or put of pictures of them, those who serve in the military and who are gay would not be able to do these things. Even though I am not gay and would not choose this for myself, I do feel that people who are have the right to serve our country and not have to hide who they really are. They are Americans just like the rest of the people fighting for us every day, and I think that anyone who has a problem with them being there should offer to take their place.











http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/repeal-of-military-s-don-t-ask-ban-239850.html