The Good in Obamacare

Most of the nation is not aware of the many advantages of Obamacare.  Now that the Supreme Court affirmed the individual mandate, whereby all contribute or pay a penalty, it is clear that Obamacare is the law of the land.  The provisions are being rolled out slowly.  As each aspect is rolled out, Obamacare will become more popular because it is protective of the American public.What has been defined the term Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was signed on March 23, 2010 into law by President Barack Obama, is a United States federal statute. The PPACA is the main idea of the health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress and requires individuals not covered by employer or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate.

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called Obamacare or the federal health care law, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, it represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.” The PPACA will have a positive impact on the development and adoption of telehealth.  The ruling will further accelerate the deployment rate for telemedicine, mHealth and other remote healthcare technologies.  
In addition to the individual mandate, the Act also reforms aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs by increasing insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions and expanding access to insurance to an additional 30 million Americans. We often hear about how Obamacare will help the uninsured, most of who live in working families but lack access to affordable insurance. Indeed, the law will make health insurance more accessible and affordable for those who don’t have it. Moreover, the Act increases projected national medical spending while reducing the national deficit, slowing health care cost inflation and lowering projected Medicare spending.

The Act’s main focus is to help the over 30 million American’s currently without any health coverage, who are then forced to use emergency rooms as their main service, creating higher costs for everyone. For those who do not have the means to afford health insurance, the Federal government will expand Medicaid coverage by paying the states. Those who do not qualify for the expanded Medicaid will have the option of insurance exchanges by their state so they can afford private health care coverage. One of the biggest provisions in the act states that health insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and can no longer drop anyone from coverage.
“Opponents have called it a "socialist" and "unconstitutional" government takeover of the health care system that will increase the cost of health care and decrease the quality. They say the law will cost more than $2.5 trillion over 10 years and drive the US deeper into debt. Several congressional representatives and special interest groups have initiated attempts to repeal HR 3590”

“Proponents (supporters) of the health care legislation have called it a "historic victory" and "landmark legislation" that reforms the US health care system by reining in health care costs, making healthcare affordable, and protecting consumers from unfair insurance practices. They say the law will reduce the nation's deficit by more than $100 billion by 2020 and by $1 trillion by 2030.”

1. Take a position, articulate your position referring to information from your source.

My position on gun control is that it should be

regulated and be banned for the sake of the people    who could potentially be harmed.As the nation reels from the horror of Friday's shootings in a Connecticut elementary school, where a gunman so numb to human sensibility that he could casually snuff out the lives of wide-eyed innocents slaughtered 20 children and six adults, politicians are crafting news releases. Among them are New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who are both calling for stricter gun-control laws. on the Anti assault weapons bill people looked towards the The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. Senator Feinstein wants to reinstate this bill to prohibit certain firearms from civilians. and i believe he is taking the right measure in order to keep the American people safe. Also President Obama is supporting the

Senators cause as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

2. Articulate the alternative opinion. Make reference to information from a site you found.

There are many reasons to be against gun control. When talking about gun control you need to get into that the second amendment states the right to bear arms, and many other subjects. The second amendment states that people are allowed to keep and bear arms. The fight most people are trying to fight about is the fact that if you get gun control laws you are defeating the point of the second amendment. People feel they should have the right to have a weapon in the act of a burglary. Now because of the second amendment we can’t make gun laws that let police have guns. also in a way people would use this excuse to just have their weapons and to be able to do illegal things. This can be a front to have weapons for criminal matters, like violence, threats, murders, suicide, etc. Reasons why poeple want guns are that they seem cool, because of Legacy of their parents, Hunting, target shooting, Self Defence, and even social reasons.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003080F/favorite.htm

3. Write a conclusion stating how the alternative opinion failed to persuade you.

This alternative opinion has failed to persuade me because even though we have the right to bear arms, people are still in danger and people can still be reckless and shoot other for no apparent reason. The alternative opinion still failed to change my perception with guns because people can say that the gun are cool or it has been part of peoples history and family  but in reality they serve the purpose of hurting other and potentially killing.

Gun Control and Freedom

In my opinion I am for the Congress in making stricter laws to obtain dangerous weapons such a guns.
Guns are way too easy to obtain these days which caused all the open-fire problem starting Friday and throughout the weekend. It is really sad that something like this happened but the reality is that the cause of this is because of the gun regulation the government has. That's why Congress should regulate guns and make only people from the government is legally allowed to have a gun. Anyone else with a gun should be charged having a highly dangerous weapon illegally, that way there will be less problems. The Pros of the Congress regulating gun regulations is that it might be able to make things better about gun violence but the Cons is that the Congress doesn't care and they make it to their benefit. The privilege for people to have a gun if they have a license is being violated by people and therefore should be seriously changed. Another thing that might be a caused of the massacre is because many people think that the world is actually going to end 12/21/12 and they will just do whatever before they die. I would rather have a bill that is too strong rather than having the bill just right or too weak because it will cause another massacre like this. The reason why I'm not convinced by the people who opposes the of making stricter laws is mainly because of the massacre that happened recently. If the Congress doesn't make laws stricter, it would cause massacres like this to happen daily and uncontrollable. Joe Manchin said that he will open a discussion about people not being able to obtain assault rifles and a large amount of ammunition after the massacre. A pistol would be really dangerous and yet people are getting high powered assault rifles. Assault rifles are only used in the military or special police operations. There are even cases of  dangerous weapons of transportation that can cause major trouble. If anyone can get all these overpowered guns from anywhere easily with loads of ammunition, life would actually be like the end of the world and therefore regulation on guns should be stricter than it has to be in order to keep society into order.

Links for info:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/17/manchin-gun-regulations-momentum/1774613/
2. http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/12/14/shooting-prompts-calls-for-tougher-gun-laws/
3. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
5. http://www.nyfirearms.com/blog/nys-gun-laws/
6. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-mayor-presidents-top-priority-guns-17992643#.UNCoKuT4KSo

ObamaCare Problem or Benefit?

ObamaCare was created to help make insurances more affordable for people. Although it’s the intention to improve and make things easier, it won’t be the case for the future. It is said that ObamaCare will cause a major problem for the United States in the future and I agree with this rumor. Since the United States is already in debt to other countries, creating ObamaCare will just make the United States more in debt.

According to an article, making ObamaCare will save approximately $100 billion for the next 10 years. But on the other hand, while the United States saves $100 billion, they will also owe another 2.5 trillion which will cancel out the savings and will owe even more. ObamaCare can only help people in the United States in short-term and not long-term. Although the lower class will gain from this short-term, they will suffer like the middle and higher class long-term.

Another article says that with ObamaCare around, insurance companies will take this chance to benefit themselves. This is due to the fact that if you are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, you’re going to have to pay for your own insurance at an insurance company. Insurance companies will do anything just like corporations would to be benefitted. Even if you are eligible for insurances by the government, it might not be enough for everyone that is eligible for it. That’s because everyone have unlimited wants but there’s only a limited amount that the government can give for free.

Some people might say that since ObamaCare is decided, people should move on to other problems instead of just facing this problem. According to the article, more than 50% of the people that took the survey said that the opposers should just let go and not waste time on trying to change ObamaCare. But in my opinion people should do what they think is right and help preserve the United States instead of just helping it get worst when you know you can do something about it. That’s why I disagree with people saying that others should move on to other issues when the ObamaCare issue is the most important and serious one.

After all the opponents’ and supporters’ views of the ObamaCare issue, I would choose to side with the opponents’. Even though I’m part of the lower class in the United States and that I would benefit from ObamaCare short-term, I wouldn’t want to ruin myself and others long-term because of the greed. If any supporters are doing this because of their selfishness, they are to be shamed on by everyone and this would make an issue so serious that they would never be able to make up for it. That’s why it’s a wise choice to oppose ObamaCare.

Phase II
3. Reflect: How does this challenge or change the way you think about your future?
I feel that our future is slowly fading away, the way we live today, is slowly pushing the limits of the earth. For me, if i keep living the way i live, it would take two earths to sustain the planet. The fact that we only have 1 earth is actually very scary.

4. How can our economic system change to make it more feasible for you to reduce your carbon footprint? Compare with America's Economic Goals. What do they mean? What needs to be added to take into account climate change?

In order to reduce my ecological footprint, I would have to follow many rules that would preserve the planet. I would have to use less electricity, water, food, and other resources. In order to do this, I have to shut down whatever I don’t need when I’m not occupying them such as electricity and water. I will have to do more walking or other exercises for transportation instead of driving or using public transport. I would also need to consume more organic things instead of consuming inorganic things. I’m not sure if this can reduce my ecological footprint to one planet, but it will definitely make a big difference. They mean that there’s many aspects that caused climate change and that there needs to be more restrictions to everyone in order to change it. People must be restricted from overusing gasoline too much but the government is being bribed by the companies to let them sell their planet killing substances. Therefore first the government must be changed first before anything else and then change how other people think about the major change that will be difficult. I used many planet preservation websites to get ideas on how to change myself and society in order to save our planet.

4. What needs to change with me and society to make a 1 footprint possible? Research an article that can give you ideas on reducing your footprint.

In order to reduce my ecological footprint, I would have to follow many rules that would preserve the planet. I would have to use less electricity, water, food, and other resources. In order to do this, I have to shut down whatever I don’t need when I’m not occupying them such as electricity and water. I will have to do more walking or other exercises for transportation instead of driving or using public transport. I would also need to consume more organic things instead of consuming inorganic things. I’m not sure if this can reduce my ecological footprint to one planet, but it will definitely make a big difference. They mean that there’s many aspects that caused climate change and that there needs to be more restrictions to everyone in order to change it. People must be restricted from overusing gasoline too much but the government is being bribed by the companies to let them sell their planet killing substances. Therefore first the government must be changed first before anything else and then change how other people think about the major change that will be difficult. I used many planet preservation websites to get ideas on how to change myself and society in order to save our planet.

3. How possible is it to make this change at this time? Explain.

It is almost impossible to make change to the point where everything was 100% natural ages ago. But even though we can't make a major change like that, we can at least slow down the destruction of the planet and attempt to make it better. As of right now, the planet is destroyed to the point where anything that we never imagined can happen, and it's nothing pleasant. Therefore, it's only right to change the planet in a positive way with all our might.