Isabel Acevedo's Blog

Healthcare Now

Isabel — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:56:03 EDT

The World Health Organization (WHO), the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system, just released its 2008 report calling for universal health care. Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO tells us that "A world that is greatly out of balance in matters of health is neither stable nor secure." And this is a problem that is not limited to undeveloped nations. We have this problem is right here in the United States. Tajikistan spends less than $100 per person on health care and has an average life expectancy of 70, a figure comparable to the United States, which spends more than $2,500 a person on health care. This discrepancy of expenditure might be explained with the fact that only 0.1% of our health budget is allocated to health systems research, the kind of research that policymakers use to decide how money is spent. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry in our country has as great impact on health care: the average expenditure on prescription drugs in 2005 was $1,141 per person, twice the average in Canada, Germany and Britain, and 10 times the average in Mexico.

Both candidates say they'll push for measures that would lower health care costs. They both promote the use of electronic health records and coordinated care and prevention efforts. They both want to reduce the impact of the pharmaceutical industry on high drug cost by promoting the importation of safe medicines and the faster introduction of generic drugs. But how do the plans differ?

The Obama-Biden health care plan is not a government-run program that requires health care for every American. It does, however increase the federal government's role in health care by requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing or chronic conditions and requiring all employers other than very small businesses to offer coverage to their employees or pay part of the costs to cover them. The plan also includes private insurance options. In other words, the plan builds up on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to ensure healthcare is affordable and accessible to every American.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options. The federal government has remained inactive on the health care issue. This has created big health care coverage discrepancies among states. The Obama-Biden plan creates minimum federal standards that will stabilize healthcare availability among states, while giving local governments room for further experimentation.

One of the biggest problems that we have is that individuals with pre-existing conditions are being denied health insurance or perhaps the insurance they are offered is too expensive. To solve this specific problem, the Obama-Biden plan requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums. The plan increases competition between insurance companies and establishes a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals to buy affordable health coverage.

The National Health Insurance Exchange will also make health care affordable to small businesses which are increasingly unable to provide health insurance coverage for their employees because of the high costs. To further assist small businesses in providing affordable health insurance, the plan introduces a new Small Business Health Tax Credit. Small businesses will not be fined if they do not provide health benefits. The plan does impose a pay-or-play requirement to large employers, in which they will have to make meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees. Now, keep in mind that the current tax system encourages companies to offer insurance, and that 61 percent of the nonelderly population in the U.S. had insurance through their jobs in 2006.

The main aim of McCain's plan is to reduce health care costs by increasing competition. He will promote competition by allowing the sale and purchase of insurance across state lines. No federal standards would be imposed and insurance companies would not be required to cover preexisting conditions. Instead, he will increase high-risk pools that exist in many states to cover those who have been denied coverage or have high-cost health issues and offer some financial assistance to low-income people in such pools. He plans a $5,000 refundable tax credit for families and $2,500 for individuals to buy health insurance and if the insurance costs less than the credit, people can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts. People that have employer based healthcare will be taxed on the value of their benefits, so the tax credit will be partially offset.

Initially McCain's plan would result in a net decrease of the uninsured, but experts foresee a net increase of the uninsured within five years. Those who would benefit most from McCain's tax credit are those who already buy their own private plans and don't receive tax benefits. And initially those who are uninsured may find the tax credit provides enough financial incentive to sign up for health care policies. But average annual premium costs for individually purchased plans ranges from $1,163 to $5,090 for singles, and $2,325 to $9,201 for family coverage. This means that already the tax credit proposed by McCain is not be enough to cover health care in most cases. Because the average premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance increase much faster than the health tax credits, we will see a reduction in employer-sponsored coverage. This would increase demand of individually purchased plans, thus increasing health care cost. So, about 61 percent of the nonelderly population in the U.S. will be at risk of losing their insurance and younger workers usually have lower income. These means that most of the people losing their employer health benefits will be in the high-risk government pool. In the end, more people will be uninsured and dependent on the government assistance to afford health care.

By creating minimum federal standards, Obama's plan guarantees that more people will have affordable and accessible health insurance. On the other hand McCain's plan has no intention on regulating the healthcare system. And we have seen the impacts of deregulation on our economy. McCain's plan may offer an immediate decrease in the uninsured, but it eventually makes the disparity of health care availability even worse. And as always the poor and sick behind will be left behind. "A world that is greatly out of balance in matters of health is neither stable nor secure." It is time our government works proactively to balance healthcare availability within its 50 states. We need to feel safe first in our nation and be able to guarantee rights and liberties to our own people if we want to effectively fight for democracy in the rest of the world.

Link to the WHO 2008 report: http://www.who.int/whr/2008/whr08_en.pdf
Link to Obama-Biden Full Healthcare Plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
Link to McCain's Plan: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

On Energy

Isabel — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:24:21 EDT

On Aug. 23, 2008, federal officials reported the sighting of 10 polar bears swimming in open Alaskan waters. Eight of the 10 bears seen in an aerial survey were within 15 miles offshore. The others were 35 and 50 miles from shore. Although, polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

Polar bears live in the north, where ANWR is. Palin has been quoted in interview before the VP nomination came along saying that she opposes cataloging polar bears as endangered species because doing so will affect drilling in ANWR. She argues that most polar bears are in Canada so drilling ANWR, even if it drives away all polar bears in the region won't have a great effect on the polar bear population. Just as recent as Oct. 2nd, Palin was not able to acknowledge the fact that human impact is the main cause of climate change. With the ice pack retreating, the risk of furthering endangering the polar bear's habitat by drilling is unacceptable. We need to stop human abuse of resources and find an alternative way of energy that doesn't require drilling. Luckily, McCain himself knows that we should not be drilling in ANWR and has a track record of saying no to drilling at ANWR.

The US holds less than 3% of the world's oil and it has been predicted that the largest source is in ANWR. As a result, drilling in ANWR would be essential to achieve the full potential of oil production in the US soil. Yet, the quality of oil we hold is almost 40% less than foreign oil. That means that less gasoline can be produce with this oil. So the monetary value of the oil here is much less than foreign oil. Oil companies know this. That is why they have not started to drill in the more that 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) they have leased form the US. Even if production reaches full potential, the investment in infrastructure will not be offset by sales revenue. Oil companies don't care about Joe Sixpack's pocket or Hockey Mom's purse. They care about increasing their own profits. And drilling here will not be profitable for them.

But, even if we start drilling here today, that oil won't get to the gas pumps until 2018. Besides, the oil drilled in American soil will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will. And with less 3% increase in the world supply of oil, we will not see an effect in prices at the pump. So, drilling here will not reduce our dependency on foreign oil and will not reduce gas prices.

It is impossible to come up with a viable solution unless we understand the problem. More drilling will prolong our addiction to oil and eliminate economic incentives to find an alternative source of energy. There are no economic or national security benefits to drilling in US soil and on top of that it damages our environment. We would do much better by reallocating the money, time, man power that would be used on drilling to create more jobs that will double the efforts of finding alternative energies. The result, that alternative will come twice as fast. The research and development is already being done. The next president needs to stimulate these efforts by giving incentives to private institutions doing the research.

Barack Obama understands this and has an energy plan that focuses on reducing energy usage by increasing fuel efficiency standards. He proposes the allocation of $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities. Obama will also commit to weatherize at least one million low-income homes each year. His plan also builds up on the work that is already being done: he prioritizes the facilitation of construction of the Alaska Natural-Gas Pipeline (which still does not have federal approval to start construction) and requires oil companies to develop the land they have already leased and are not drilling on. As a short-term relief, Obama proposes the enactment of a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. In the mean time thousands of green jobs will be created and our economy will get stronger.

In contrast, McCain's plan focuses on drilling and provides little incentive to Americans to reduce energy usage. As a matter of fact, at a republican rally in O'Fallon, MO I heard a politician say that we need to drill because we need to fuel our large minivans and SUVs which we have because we need the space and we need the safety. These politics of fear are selfish and have historically resulted in a decrease of our liberties and rights. Fear drives away innovation and because we have been living in fear since 9/11 our country has been falling behind in education and technology compared to the rest of the world.

It is time that this country stops living in fear and becomes more proactive. Our country has been a model for the world by proving time and time again that with determination and hard work we can do whatever set our minds on. We need to take active roles and not leave it up to the government alone to solve the crises we face. Only a president that understands this will be able lead our way efficiently. Barack Obama has said that as president he would be willing to motivate people to change and he showed this conviction at the debate when he was not afraid to admit that every person in this country will have to make a sacrifice and asked us to reduce our energy consumption. Obama has proven in the mist of the economic crisis that he is not a man of words alone. Obama is a man of action. He has shown true leadership and proven that he is not afraid of taking on the challenges of presidency.

On abortion

Isabel — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:23:53 EDT

On one side we have Obama and he is pro-choice. I don't think choice is an option when it comes to deciding who lives or who doesn't. I wouldn't abort a child because he or she has a brith defect. I don't think abortion is right, even in cases of rape, which is where McCain stands. To me abortion is out of the question, and this belief is rooted in my catholic upbringing. I believe life is a gift from God. From a moral standpoint I don't completely agree with either candidate's stand on the issue. So my only option is to reason through the issue and make some type of moral compromise.

When it comes to Roe v. Wade, I agree with McCain. The decision made is a misinterpretation of our constitution and one of the biggest mistakes our Supreme Court has made. I agree it should be overturned. But I disagree that what happens next should be the state's decision. That's the easiest way out for federal government. The feds wash their hands like Pontius Pilot did and leave to the state the task to take a stand in tough moral decisions. True, states may have a better scope of the beliefs and traditions among its population. When it comes to Roe v. Wade, I agree with McCain. The decision made is a misinterpretation of our constitution and one of the biggest mistakes our Supreme Court has made. I agree it should be overturned. But I disagree that what happens next should be the state's decision. That's the easiest way out for federal government. The feds wash their hands like Pontius Pilot did and leave to the state the task to take a stand in tough moral decisions. True, states may have a better scope of the beliefs and traditions among its population. But we've already seen that giving the states the power to decide on the abortion issue creates a whole new set of problems: it sets the battlefield grounds for anti-abortion and pro-abortion activists, facilitates corruption (in the form of lobbying), creates resentment between states that have disagreeing policies, and provokes people to cross state-lines and go to places where abortion is more accessible. We need to realize that life is our one inherent right. Without life you can't have the right to choice or privacy.

McCain's proposal does not make abortion illegal. He has made this very clear himself. His proposal leaves it up to the states to make a decision. And doing also rises a whole new set of moral questions. Let's say he gets Roe. vs. Wade overturned. Now the states have the final word and they decide it is okay to have an abortion only in cases of rape. Now the state government is left with the task to define rape. And everyone has a different interpretation of that. But let's say they are able to define rape. Now they need to come up with a way to confirm if rape indeed happen or not without invading our privacy. But let's say they have that in paper, and a woman comes in saying she was raped and is now pregnant. Now they need to be able to confirm the rape in less than 6 months after the alleged rape so she can go get her legal abortion. Two things will happen, either women will lie about being raped to get a legal abortion and by the time the government finds out they were lying the abortion would have had happened, or women will start going to underground clinics with poor sanitary conditions and put themselves at risk to have illegal abortions. This is where McCain's abortion plan is flawed.

Despite my strong personal stand ..ion, I am not in a position to judge those who take that route. No matter what their reason is. That's up to them and their conscience and their God. I am realistic. And abortions, legal or illegal, will continue to happen unless we find a viable solution to unwanted pregnancies and remove the stigmas on human sexuality. And to me the candidate with the better platform to remove these stigmas and to prevent unwanted pregnancies is Barak Obama. As a catholic, I believe abstinence should be taught as a value, but in practicality abstinence is an unimplementable policy. I believe abstinence only education is imposing a personal moral value. This is why I think that it is very important to teach all forms of birth control and for teachers and parents to be comfortable to talk to children about sex at an appropriate age. Obama strives for more comprehensive sexual education so this is where I made my compromise on the abortion issue. Maybe this outlook is based on my experience in undeveloped countries. Here in the US, our population and AIDS are more or less under control. Change the scope to the entire world, go to places like Guatemala and Africa, where overpopulation and AIDS are their crude reality, the topic of contraception gets a completely different moral dimension.

My one struggle with contraceptives would be with the morning after pill. The debate here is uncertain. There's so much we don't know about what happens between the moment the sperm meets the ovule to the moment it gets implanted. And then starts the debate on how do we define the beginning of life, answers that we cannot explain with certainty from a scientific standpoint, so they are left to personal moral interpretations. I've taken an "I won't consider it abortion unless I'm proven the contrary." And right now, moral and scientific opinion is mixed. Am I wrong by taking that stand? I don't know. It's a tough topic.

Call me pessimistic, but opening the pandora box of either legalizing or banning abortion is not a priority for the candidates in this election. Not because it is unimportant, but because our county is right now facing one of the toughest economic, energy, and security crises in history. We need to get those issues solved, or at least under control, and return a sense of stability to our country. And then we need a president who is brave enough to address controversial issues like abortion and tolerate all the public attack and controversy that will come along with it. Until that happens, Roe v. Wade will prevail. And the same goes with other moral issues like gay rights. No matter how much they talk, the reality is that the president only has 4 years to do stuff and they need to make a priority list. Still, half of that time will be spent on on-job socialization, learning the rules of the game. And then if they decide to run again, the other half of the time will be spent in running a campaign. And then there is a senate that has to approve every decision he makes.

I still think all the issues are intertwined. While Roe v. Wade defends our constitutional right to privacy, the Patriot Act gives the federals the right to invade our privacy without even notifying the FISC. A pro-life advocate may argue that it is wrong to terminate a human life through abortion but supports capital punishment. Everyday our government interprets our rights according to what is convenient and end up contradicting themselves. I don't blame them. They are human! And it is important for us to realize that so we can demand consistency from our candidates. The paradox is that consistency does not always win the popular vote.

So here we are, also humans, trying to decide who will be our next president. It is beautifully democratic. But it is a full time job to get informed and to read every platform, and to listen to every word of both sides of the story. The media doesn't help by sensationalizing everything and deciding their top story will be who designs Palin's glasses. The result, more than half of the population go out and vote uninformed or, perhaps even worse, with inaccurate information.

This doesn't mean that we have to quit our jobs so we can keep track of every detail. It means it we talk about it. It means we demand our press to ask the important questions. It means we question our own party. We don't have to agree with every position in the platform before we go and cast our votes. The fact is that, with only two men, running for president, there is no way we will agree with everything in either platform. And that has been one of my biggest struggles: making moral compromises and figuring out what are the most important issues for this country right now. I am not an expert on any of this. That's why I think it is important to have this type of conversation.

This is why I am voting for Barack Obama

Isabel — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:23:17 EDT

On Saturday September 6th, I wrote about my disapproval of Sarah Palin as the republican VP pick. Now I have do admit that thanks to Sarah Palin I got involved in this election. If it wasn't for my interest in finding out who she is and what she thinks I would have never spent so much time on the internet informing myself about the issues of this election and about the candidates.

I don't agree with most of McCain's political views because I think his politics are too influenced by personal moral values. Also, in my understanding, a good leader is able to identify the moment when they are no longer indispensable and move to the side to let a new generation of leaders take over. I also think that this country needs a good motivator, a pushing force to bring it back to its glory again. And McCain has not proven to me that he can move the masses. Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager said: "This election is not about issues". And that is exactly what I see in McCain. A guy who will call a press conference to discuss pigs with lipstick but does not bother to call a press conference to discuss what we are going to do about the rising unemployment rates.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed to have charisma. And during the course of the primaries he managed to surprise all of us with his win. But I was worried that this country would be disappointed by him. He promises to raise the minimum wage, reduce taxes for 95% of the population, affordable health care for all, and tax incentives to reduce energy consumption and encourage alternative energy resources. He talks about everything he is going to do. But realistically how much can he do in 4 years?

Then I heard him say: "words mean something." And at that moment on Monday, September 8, I decided I was going to vote for him. Obama is a smart man that loves his country and will do everything in his power to improve it. And his conviction is admirable. He can speak to a crowd and inspire them. He realizes that one man alone cannot bring change to this country, but that each of us has to contribute to make that change happen. I strongly believe Barack Obama will inspire this country to make positive change happen and to be positive change for our nation.

I still do not agree with all of Obama's political positions. But I do agree with him in that we have real problems in this country right now that need viable solutions. Election Day is less than two months away. Let's set aside the distractions and get informed. It's hard work. And the media does not help. As humans beings we are gullible to fear and misinformation. But it is our duty as citizens of this country to demand answers. To demand truth. "Be the change you wish to see in the world."