In response to Leticia Rebollar’s blog post about free healthcare

In response to Leticia Rebollar’s blog post about free healthcare. I think this a very important topic to discuss. I do not agree that the reason healthcare is not free in the United States is because of its expenses. Even if that were the case, healthcare is a human right according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should be easily available to the public. Healthcare is not free in this country because it has been established that by having health insurance every expense is covered when needed. This becomes an issue because these insurance companies are privatized and, like it or not, are in it for the profit and not helping people with their expenses. An even bigger sign that this system is not ideal is the fact that many people can’t afford health insurance and when they do happen to need medical assistance many times go bankrupt to pay for the bills. 

There are many other countries, that although not perfect, provide public hospitals and clinics for everyone free of charge. I agree that doctors and nurses should not work for free, but when going into the medical field one should have a passion for helping others and not go into it looking for money. The United States of America is one of the richest countries in the world and by setting aside some of the money collected by taxes could easily provide a more efficient healthcare system for the people. There are definitely many things about this country that we can take pride in but the healthcare system is not one of them. I agree that is does make the country look bad. 

Like you said, there is no such thing as 100% free healthcare as it is an area that requires investments and a lot of money but I believe that it is a field that should not be profiting off of people’s sickness’ .

How Moral Is It To Be Pro-life?

A bill has been signed recently in Alabama that makes almost every case of abortion illegal. The only exception would be if the mother’s life would be compromised or the baby had a lethal anomaly. The Missouri Senate passed a bill this week as well, that prohibits abortion after 8 weeks (when most women do not even know they are pregnant.)The argument is that if a heartbeat is detected then the fetus is already considered a human being that feels pain. This conservative idea is coming back like a wave confronting the decision of the Senate in the Roe v. Wade case from 1973.

This subject is extremely problematic in many ways. To begin with, the Supreme Court has already established a person’s right to privacy according to the Constitution. There is absolutely no need for a stranger to interfere with a woman’s decision to carry a child she does not want. To make matters worse, pro-life defendants do not agree with abortion even in cases of rape. The idea that adoption is the moral way out is also selfish and harmful. Today there are countless cases of abuse and trauma suffered from children in foster care. There does not seem to be a concern about the already living children that are found in these conditions, without proper care or attention.

If we want to see the potential consequences of these actions we do not need to go far. Many countries where abortion is illegal women go through dangerous procedures to get them done. There are expensive, high risk surgeries that can lead to the death of the mother as the clinics are not regulated, or, at home "solutions" such as pills and physical harm to the mother's body to induce an abortion.

Groups such as Planned Parenthood are threatening to sue but this is exactly what they want. With such a controversial subject the chances of it going to the Supreme Court are high. The people who defend these new laws believe that the newly conservative Supreme Court will reevaluate past decisions about abortion and potentially create new laws against it.

Right now abortion is still legal in all 50 states and these laws will still take a few months to go into effect. The idea that the chances of regression are high puts many women at risk and even questions their authority to their own bodies. It should not be up to the government to decide what a woman can or can not do regarding her life. It should not be a question up for debate, if a woman is unable to care for a child she should have the right to choose what is best for her. An abortion is an expensive and emotionally traumatizing experience and if even then someone considers it to be the best option then they should have the right to do so.  

What is surprising to see is that the same people that are pro-life are the same that are against teaching sexual education in schools. Banning abortion and avoiding the problem all together in the name of morality will only make matters worse. There needs to be a focus on teaching the population the best way to prevent a pregnancy and the possibility of having an abortion in worst case scenarios. Ignoring the amount of time and energy required during a pregnancy is ignorance. No woman should have to go through something so traumatizing because the government refuses to recognize her rights.

Marijuana Should Be Legalizes: Drug Education Is A Solution

While reading the blog post “Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized - Drug Education Is No Solution” I disagreed with many arguments. To begin with I do believe that Marijuana can  have negative effects in specific situations as it does affect concentration and decision making, however, I do not believe the statistics on car accidents caused by it is not a reasonable justification to ban it completely. There are many other ways to control this such as the campaigns made against drinking and driving.

Keeping marijuana illegal causes problems from the very beginning of the production till the end during its distribution. In many countries where marijuana is illegally planted and sold to distributors in america there are many people, including children, involved risking their lives as they are put in dangerous situations. By keeping it illegal the contraband will continue to exist directly affecting the lives of families in these countries ( as well as families in our country), and even encourage the process to continue the way it is. Prohibiting it will not reduce the number of consumers, it will however make it harder and more dangerous to acquire putting users in a situation of potential risk. By having it as an official product the control and regulation of what is being sold would allow the consumer to know what he or she is using specifically.

Another problem that is sometimes unspoken of is amount of people, mainly people of color, sent to prison because they have it on them or are involved in selling. By legalizing it there would be more jobs in the industry that are safe and legitimate lowering drastically the number of convicts associated with it and allowing users to legally carry it.

The war on drugs has been going on for far too long and essentially has not brought positive results, there is a lot of money going to it and no significant difference. There should be a government initiative of accurately educating the people on the drug and its effects on the body. More and more studies are being made as it is becoming a billion dollar industry. The taxes that would be collected from it can be used to instruct the population and so much more. As many negatives marijuana may seem to have, in my opinion, they are not nearly enough to justify prohibiting it considering the negatives that keeping it illegal result in.  With the right amount of information and regulation people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves.

Who is Venezuela's Real Enemy?

Unstable economy and government is nothing new in Latin America, for decades politics in these countries fluctuate from one extreme view to another. South America has been greatly influenced by left-winged communist ideas since the birth of the ideology, however, it has also faced brutal right-wing dictatorships in the past. This should not seem surprising. When the “threat” of communism appears, other countries, such as the USA and its supporters are quick to “defend” these “victims” from terrorism and sometimes the consequences of it all lead to the other extreme.

There is no doubt that the most powerful country in the western hemisphere, The United States of America, would not approve of a government that is not fully submissive to its rules, communist views can be a great threat to its supremacy. Now, it can seem like a conspiracy but for a great part of American history there have been policies made specifically for these situations, one of them being the Monroe Doctrine that began in 1823 and still works today. One of its main points was to avoid other countries interfering in Latin American governments, all except the USA. This was clearly an attempt to establish dominance, and it worked. Today the United States has great influence on foreign governments without needing to use the “Big Stick.”

The fear of communism has been a very real thing ever since the Cold War, not because USSR was evil, but because it was a threat to American power. Today we have smaller, less influential countries adopting some of the ideologies from that time, Venezuela being one of them.

Venezuela has been a left-wing country for some time now and recently been getting more attention from the USA. Newspapers and articles claim intervention is for the better and that the people are in desperate need for our help. Russia has been a big supporter of the Venezuelan government since the early 2000s and continues to send support to the current president Maduro. President Trump has demanded Russia to “get out” as to which they responded, “get out of Syria first.” Are America’s intentions pure? If we look into past dictatorships the US has supported I’d have to say no, once again the goal to maintain in power overcomes the “good intentions.”

I am not agreeing with Maduro’s posture and the way he governs his people, I am however criticizing Trump, and past American presidents that feed into the hypocrisy of being “the good guy.” We have to understand their country is at a delicate time and although past choices have not been the most effective ones we can’t “declare war” to the situation without digging deeper in its cause. America does not need to compromise it’s best interests, there can be effective things done by such a powerful country. If the goal is to maintain supremacy then call it for what it is, hiding behind a mask not only sets the wrong idea in the public’s mind of what really is happening but it also hurts the people that are directly involved.





Refrences:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-chavismo/loyal-to-my-revolution-despite-venezuela-woes-maduro-has-diehard-fans-idUSKCN1IJ26M

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/trump-administration-venezuela-aid.html

https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1954030200

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-in-venezuela-why-vladimir-putin-troops-back-nicolas-maduro-vs-donald-trump-us/

Is Texas the Newest Swing State?

In the blog from HuffPost, Roque Planas writes an article titled “A Beto O’Rourke Presidential Campaign Could Flip Texas.” Throughout the piece, Planas speculates the possibility of Texas flipping, and how this may happen in the next presidential election. Speculators say that the historically known red state might be changing to blue with this new candidate.

Planas uses the results from the Midterm elections from last year to back up his argument as well as the results from internet poll conducted by UT Texas that states that only 39% of the population in the area would vote for Trump again. Beto, a Democrat candidate, won a substantial amount of votes against his opposition, Ted Cruz, last year during the Midterm elections and surprised many people. His campaign is focused on low-turnout cities (even if they were mostly blue), strong red counties in the north, and large cities such as Austin and Houston. He encourages opposing parties, such as Republicans and Independents, to come together and join him.

The author is optimistic about this change and brings valid and interesting points into the discussion. Texas being only 45 percent white but with a low-turnout rate of Latinos seems contradictory to his argument, but he reminds us that this demographic along with millennial voters has been increasing. I think he is clear and realistic when he claims these are just predictions and that historically this has not happened. Just as the writer does, I believe that if it were to happen now is more likely than it has ever been. More liberal leaning people have been migrating to Texas, and the Democratic voters have been growing as more people turn 18 and are incentivized to vote. People were very hopeful during the midterms, yet Ted Cruz still won despite Beto’s intense campaigning in the state. We also have to remember that it is not only Texas that will determine this election and there are many white Republican states out there that are less likely to flip. In the end, it will depend on what the rest of the country is leaning towards and how many people are still convinced in voting for Trump.  

The truth about social mobility.

Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times recently wrote about a statement made by Ivanka Trump commenting on social mobility in America, claiming Americans don’t want to be guaranteed the minimum, instead the people want to work for what they receive and create their own chances of moving up economically. Krugman criticizes Ivanka Trump saying that she lacks self-awareness and how she got to where she is now is not the reality for most Americans. He claims that social mobility in this country is the worst compared to other developed countries, such as Canada and Scandinavia. These countries implement a larger government and provide basic help, such as affordable healthcare and enough funds going into schools, so that the chances of social mobility increase.

The author's intended audience is the american people. He tries to create awareness concerning the current state of the country regarding this “easily attainable social mobility” that many Americans believe in, when in reality it is much harder than people make it to be and often times leads to shaming people for not working hard enough and not giving the necessary attention to policies that may help these cases. The author is credible as he uses several studies and provides links defending his arguments he is also a Professor at a university and has won the Nobel Memorial Prize in  Economic Sciences in 2008.

I agree with Paul Krugman, this topic is important to discuss as it seems to be quite unknown by the general population. Criticizing the wealthy’s delusion that many get there by hard work is also important, people with everyday jobs work long and hard and most of the time don’t come close to what these people make, it is irresponsible to claim that people do not want to be “given things by the government” as these “things” aren’t given, they are deserved by any citizen. I also liked how the author touched on the subject of how Republicans call these policies that Democrats are defending Socialism, and how it is inaccurate to do so. The outcome the the two parties defend, a good economy and increasing social mobility would be a direct consequence from aiding low-income populations.

Is coal really "an important part of our electricity generation mix?"

On February 12, 2019, National Public Radio posted an article debating Trump's coal policy, whether coal is still relevant and important to the US economy or if he is acting out of pure personal interest. The article focuses on a specific power plant in Tennessee that conveniently buys coal from one of the major donors to Trump's campaigns. His opposition is TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) that is pushing to close as many coal plants, as they want to focus and invest in more renewable forms of energy. Environmental groups that are participating in this discussion claim that “Coal is a bad choice for the people of the Tennessee Valley. Not only because it's uneconomical but because it's a dirty way to generate energy.”

The article is interesting as it shows that political decisions can many times be focused on personal gain and not on the greater good. It is also important to say that this article offers a follow up on the president's actions regarding the coal plants as it was a key concern of his during the election campaign to protect this industry.