Young Poor & Angry Press

Keeping the public safe is the key argument, even as very well organized criminals turn profits that would earn any CEO huge bonuses. Reducing crime is a mantra, but courts, jails, and prisons continue to bulge with petty criminals. Police officers are forced to make almost meaningless “quality of life” arrests instead of having the ability to focus man power and money on real criminal operations. Politicians use crime statistics to stump for votes while, in reality, the efforts to keep promises have cost tax payers much more than just tax dollars. All of this, this so-called War on Drugs, wouldn’t get it’s name for thirty-six years after the prohibition of alcohol in the United States.

However, prohibition itself, the “Noble Experiment”, was also doomed to fail from its onset. An experiment that created a short lived drop in trafficking and consumption, but ultimately lead to an increase of both in time. One that did more for organized crime than any single event in the history of this country, and at the time it’s supporters ignored that fact. It crippled law enforcement when the public was led to believe crime would be reduced. Corruption in public office skyrocketed, especially in urban areas, where decay can still be seen today and probably won’t be reversed any time soon. Thirteen years of prohibiting the production and sale of alcohol, but what did the country have to show for its efforts?

Skip ahead to today. We may never know how much money is allocated to stopping the production, trafficking, and use of marijuana, but one thing is clear. Whatever the amount, nothing we have tried is working. It’s probably safe to say nothing we try will work. Marijuana is rapidly gaining social acceptance. At an estimated $14 billion dollars in annual sales it is the largest cash crop in the state of California, a state that has been hit hard by a worsening economy. There is a wide margin between first and second, too. Next on the list is milk and cream at $7.3 billion. A study by the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank, estimates the Canadian province of British Columbia could generate $2 billion in tax revenue per year from the legal and regulated sale of marijuana. That estimate is based on current price and number of buyers in BC. It does not include sale across Canada or in the United States. If regulated, the number could be much larger.

Those in opposition of the legal and regulated sale of marijuana will often use the argument that prices cannot be maintained in a free market which would likely cause a rise in usage. This is unacceptable to many, but as Stephen T. Easton, author of the aforementioned study, points out, one simple strategy that could be utilized to curb this drop in price would be taxing the product at a rate that would keep prices close to the same as they are now. But aside from the obvious generation of tax revenue caused by a legally sold and regulated marijuana other benefits would include a lessened burden on the court systems, money saved from housing petty drug offenders in jails or prisons, overcrowding in those same jails and prisons would be eased, law enforcement would be allowed to focus on making real felony cases, and many people who could benefit from medical usage, who are not currently able to, would find relief in a safe and easy to acquire form without the fear of arrest.

To those who say this nation isn’t quite ready for a step in this direction, take into consideration the fact that eleven states had decriminalization legislation in the 1970s. New Mexico, Colorado, California, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oregon. Alaska can also be added to the list as it passed legislation in 1975, but it’s stance is murky at best after a 1990 referendum was passed by voters re-criminalizing any possession. Many of these states have a history of voting conservative, even today. So how is it, if we aren’t ready for this step now, how we were more prepared over thirty years ago in a society that was led to believe the drug is more harmful than we now know it to be?

Ultimately, this could boil down to how one interprets the Constitution. In the Preamble it is stated we are entitled to certain unalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond all of the benefits to society through taxes, redirecting money currently being spent on upholding laws that are ineffective deterrents, and the fact that a growing percentage of the populace is moving towards decriminalization, one could argue that the fact we were promised by those who founded this country our pursuit of happiness is grounds enough for decriminalization or legalization. Prohibition of marijuana hasn’t necessarily seen the growth in violent and organized crime like the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and 30s saw, but the lessons learned from that great mistake should be applied today. It may be time for our government to stop playing the parent and start playing its intended role. It’s time we take steps to insure we are, alone, in control of making decisions which harm no others. One’s morality is no better a lawmaker than government is a parent.

While it is undeniable that America has by far the best, and most technologically advanced health care system in the World, no one challenges the need for reform. On both sides of the political spectrum politicians and pundits acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand. On the one hand we have the Democratic Party going away from their roots, trying to get a “public option” through congress instead of the usual attempts at imposing a single payer system. On the other, we have the Republican Party, not really coming out with a viable, popular solution to the problem. A few Republicans have come out with good solid reform plans, but no one in the party is paying any attention, because they are too focused on stopping the

Democrat’s plan, rather than presenting their own to the American people. The current Democratic proposal of a “public option” which has been endorsed by the President sounds great from a podium. The Democrat’s propaganda machine tells people what they want to hear, and frankly it sounds great. The problem lies in what they don’t say. The biggest problem with a “public option” is that it will make it impossible for private insurance companies to compete. Whether individuals purchase their own insurance, or whether it is employer provided, individuals will slowly be forced into this “public option”, giving the government a de-facto monopoly over the health insurance industry, therefore controlling healthcare in this country. When an entity is created to compete, it takes on the risk to fail. As we have found out with Social Security, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, the government does not allow its entities to fail. So if this program goes bankrupt, or runs out of voluntary contributors, it will result in consequent tax increases on a major sector of the population, thus creating a program much like Social Security, which would never survive were it not for forced contribution.

When the government seeks to promote competition by entering into a private market, it creates a competing entity with the unfair advantage of being subsidized by the tax-payer. This unfair financial advantage over the competition would make it extremely hard for the private sector to compete. Furthermore, the “public option” will not be able to survive on its own premiums, as the President claims, at least not while they keep the “hardship” clause in the program. This is going to create a system in which the non-contributor receives the same service as the “voluntary” contributor, which would cause any smart “voluntary” contributor to stop contributing. Another problem with trusting the “public option” in this case, is that many Democrats still claim that this is the first step in the path to a single payer system the likes of the England’s pathetically underfunded single payer system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E)

The proponents of this “public option” announced that “the hospitals” have agreed to certain conditions, and claimed that this will save the government $150 billion, by having “the hospitals” take on this financial commitment. First does anyone think that these hospitals are going to take a financial loss? They cannot go to their shareholders and tell them that they are going to help the government and that for a while; they are going to give up $155 billion in profits. These hospitals will either raise their rates on the private policy holders, or they are going to make cuts, either on staff, or by rationing services. Now, does anyone really think that this money will actually be saved? When the government claims that it will save money, it really means that it will transfer it somewhere else. Whether they use it to increase Pell Grants, or increase funding to protect national parks, this money will not be saved, it will be transferred, from one federal department, to another. If the government were really saving that money, it would use it for the only purpose that the government should use any saved money: Pay down the sky rocketing national debt or decreasing the ever increasing budget deficit.

A conservative proposal would spark more competition in the market by allowing individuals to purchase their health insurance across state lines, thus breaking up state insurance monopolies, not by bringing in big brother as a player/coach in the insurance game. The government has never sparked competition, nor been successful, in any of its ventures into the private sector; just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If social security became voluntary, and therefore a competitor in the retirement securities market, social security would die, instantly, because every contributor would opt out. Another way to help reform the healthcare system would be to enact tort reform. Today doctors pay anywhere from $4,000 to $55,000 a year for malpractice insurance, and if you think that reducing this cost would not reduce the cost of healthcare, well, you need to study economics. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) came out with his own Health care proposal which accomplishes all the goals that Democrats and Republicans agree must be accomplished and get’s the government back in the right track towards financial discipline. (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=0db98529-0230-3564-0e4b-fe84bdb1971b).

So I ask the question, why is this plan not good enough for the President? Does it not grant enough control to the government? Does it put too much responsibility in the hands of the individual? The difference between Conservatives and Liberals on this issue is not the endgame. The great difference is the role of government in the endgame. It would be so simple to give the American individual more choice in healthcare without getting the government in the middle of it. It is so easy to reform the system and bring cost down. Why would we create yet another colossal and arcane federal social program, when there are three already out there that do not work, we cannot pay for, and are in dire need of reform?
There are many ways to reform the system. The real question is, how can the system be reformed in a way that is compatible with the American ideals of freedom and choice? A public option might give the illusion that it is simply adding one more choice to a market that needs more competition. However, what the market needs is not a choice that will cripple all the others, but an aggressive de-regulation effort in the part of the federal government, which will enable the already over-regulated healthcare industry to again become concerned with the needs of the consumer, and not the financially arduous trial lawyer mafia, or the subsidizing of Medicare, Medicaid, and millions of illegal immigrants.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the health care system in the United States. The talking heads at the major news outlets have given you their opinions and told you how it effects the baby boomers as well as the older generation - but what no one seems to be discussing is how it effects the young people in this country that are just getting out of college, and out from under their parent’s wing.

I talk to people every day that tell me, “Justin I’m really afraid to get sick, I can’t afford it.” One of our readers told me in confidence that he’s worried he won’t be able to go visit his folks (who are also sick) because of the cost of his inhaler for asthma, something he can’t live without. That’s a choice that none of us should have to face, especially as young as we are. The United States is currently the only industrialized nation that does not give its citizens a right to healthcare. Even Germany, as crazy as those guys can be sometimes has a health care system.

What’s on the table now is what’s called a “single-payer health care” system. That’s a simple way of saying that the money will come from one big source, instead of a bunch of little sources, to provide blanket coverage to every person, regardless of income. Meaning you will get the exact same health care that President Obama and members of Congress enjoy today.

The big argument against this system I keep hearing from my Republican friends (yes, I do have them, see below for Joel’s side of the story) is that America already has one of the best health care systems in the world, why would we want to change that? Because basically that argument is so full of holes that it would make the Star Wars prequels look like they had continuity. Out of 28 industrialized nations this is how we rank:

23rd in infant mortality

20th in life expectancy for women

21st in life expectancy for men

67th in immunizations for its citizens right behind Botswana

Currently 17% of our population is without health care.

Still think it’s a good system? Yeah, didn’t think so. Right now Americans are spending more and getting less for their health care dollar. How much more? Glad you asked, because right now we’re spending about 40% of what we take in. That’s right, you heard me correctly; we’re dropping big dollars on a health care system that’s obviously not working. A single payer system would mean a tax increase for people making over 350k dollars a year, not your parents or you (unless of course you’re making that much money, in which case, can you throw me a loan to pay for my insurance?)

Most only going when they deem the situation dire to the expensive of an average doctor visit. For instance, not long ago I needed to find a primary care physician which is a fancy way of say “your family doctor.” When I went in for my first visit, I was shocked when I saw the bill was more than ninety dollars. Now it so happens my doctor is awesome and spends a good deal of time with each patient. But, regardless, for ninety dollars I should have received a lap dance from the gorgeous brunette nurse who took my pulse (which she said was rather high, then again she was bending over me when she put the cuff on, so that’s probably the reason.) This has made me think twice about calling the doctor the next time I get a slight cough.

The problem with this rationale is simple. If I wait too long for that cough, it could get worst. That cough could turn into something drastic, which then would require needing to go to the emergency room. The ER, as most know, is expensive… more so than my doctor’s visit. However, since hypothetically I am very ill, it’s the only option. The bill then comes and I can’t pay, thus putting me deeper into the hole. I declare bankruptcy and then fall into poverty, where my health declines further. Starting to get the picture here?

Under a single payer system, no citizen gets left behind. There are enough doctors, staff, and medical equipment to go around. There would be no management of care under a single payer, unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer pre-approval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer. Not to mention costing a lot of people a lot of money to maintain the management system. One of the proposals as well is to remove paper from the equation and go to electronic filing. From working in a hospital in administrative capacity, I can tell you that the cost of paper and printing is astronomical. The printer in the office’s cartridges were $300 a piece, and that printer held three of them. That’s $900 dollars we can free up right there. Keep going down the line, and we can cut enough costs to afford enough health care for all of our United States citizens.

Think all of this sounds good? Then pick up your phone and call your state’s representative. Tell them you’re all for single payer and you are a member of the voting public. Let them hear your voice, and encourage your family and friends to call as well. Together we can actually change the system like President Obama talked about during the election.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden says he’s advising his own family to avoid “confined places” — to stay off commercial airlines and even subways — because of the new swine flu.

Biden said Thursday if one person sneezes on a confined aircraft, “it goes all the way through the aircraft.” Going beyond official advice from the federal government, Biden said of his family’s personal precautions: “That’s me.”

Asked on NBC’s “Today” show whether the government should close the border with Mexico to try to slow the spread of the flu, Biden says health authorities advise that would be impractical because the swine flu has already spread to the U.S. and several other nations. Instead, he says people should focus on confined places where the flu could spread quickly, such as airplanes, malls and classrooms.

Biden spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander released a statement shortly after the appearance, clarifying his remarks:

“On the Today Show this morning the Vice President was asked what he would tell a family member who was considering air travel to Mexico this week. The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the Administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways. This is the advice the Vice President has given family members who are traveling by commercial airline this week. As the President said just last night, every American should take the same steps you would take to prevent any other flu: keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you’re sick; and keep your children home from school if they’re sick.”