Critique of "It's About Time"

After reading Owen's post I came up with this critique of "It's About Time"

Owen, I agree with your idea that military should handle military based operations when it comes to war. But, we have seen what happens when we let military take over operations, example Guantanimo Bay prison. I wish that politicians were involved in the war for the betterment of bringing troops back home, but that just isn't the case. There is too much to gain from helping Afghanistan (oil) and money talks. But as far as military personnel handling the good majority of decisions when it comes to combat I agree because they know what it takes to win wars.

I have to say though, I hate the idea of Obama sending more troops. Wasn't his campaign about bringing them home? I feel that the U.S has lost track of finding Osama bin Ladin, and is focused more on helping set up Afghanistan in the likeness of the U.S.

And your comment about how many are seeing this war as the next Vietnam is plausible I think. I mean look how much effort has been put into the war and what have we really accomplished except the loss of many Americans. I agree that I wish the job needs to get done, but how much more can we do if a country's leaders are ready to change but they're people aren't. We need to let countries handle their own business and not stick our noses where we have no business being. We need to focus on problems that are affecting our own country. But overall I liked your post. You presented the information in a manner that your position was clear and it was clear who you were addressing it towards. Good Job!

Should Cancer Medication cost $30,000?

In "Questioning a new $30,000 a-month drug" a new form of chemotherapy has been released and it costs $30,000 per month. The FDA recently passed the drug due to its positive affects in tumor size. The drug Fotolyn has significantly shown reductions in tumor size in patients with aggressive blood cancers. Although the drug is successful in decreasing the size of tumors among patients, the results are not permanent. Also, the drug has only been shown to increase the longevity of patients by a few months.

One insurance provider, UnitedHealth Care is charging way too much. A spokesman for UnitedHealth care called the drug Fotolyn "unconscionable." He claims that Fotolyn would cost as much in one year, as it would take to treat a person from diagnosis till death. And although Fotolyn is being seen as an overpriced drug, there are many other forms of chemotherapy that cost 3 times that amount.

The top researchers and scientists try everyday to come up with new drugs to help patients diagnosed with cancer. We have not yet found a form a chemotherapy that has permanent affects, but we are getting close. There are the lucky patients who benefit from such drugs a Fotolyn and who go into remission. But there are also patients who use the chemotherapy that is recommended to them, and still do not survive. Cancer is a dangerous disease, and every victim diagnosed with this disease should be given every opportunity to survive if possible. So why is it okay to charge so much for medicine? Don't these corporations already obtain government grants and special funding? And even though there is growing concern about health care costs, the price for cancer treatments continues to rise. Thats exactly why we're in the position that we are in with health care. Most patients with pre-existing conditions are turned away from recieving new health care. Mainly because the cost of curing the patient outways the profit that insurance companys benefit from the patient.

The government needs to hurry up and get the health care plan in motion, so not only will it be possible for patients in need to afford their medications/chemotherapy, but also so they won't find themselves having to take out loans or mortage their homes due to the difference that their insurance won't cover. Everyone deserves the right to benefit from new medicines discovered, because it shouldn't have to depend on how much money you have, just to live.

For the 6th entry to my blog I read the article The People Need Socialism by Much Ado about Government (Henry).

I completely agree. It is rediculous the amount of money that people get paid for their "skills." Skills that don't benefit the country yet are paid to these athletes in the millions. A semi-socialist country would be a great idea to spread the wealth around for everyone. There should be no need for poverty if everyone is able to earn a decent living and not living under the weight of earning their paycheck and watching a large portion disappear to taxes. It is pretty sad that we are considered a model country yet we don't have the health care, or eduction to back it up.

Overall, it was a very good and interesting blog. I feel that you addressed key points to prove your point and provided sufficient explanation.

Health Care Reform Reform Reform

In a recent USA Today article, the President discussed his new followers in Health Care. President Obama's visit to the White House press room came as no surprise after recieving news that The American Medical Association and AARP are endorsing his health plan bill. In a bill that most American's are viewing as another chip to the deficit pile, this bill is going to make health care more affordable and available for all Americans. The new health care plan will be a trillion-dollor endeavor to make the goal of better health insurance a reality. As of now 65 million Americans, or 18% of the population are without health care. This plan will ensure that Americans have good health care at their jobs and health care in between jobs. Without a new health care reform, health insurance will continue to rise and become unaffordable for many Americans. "I urge Congress to listen to AARP, listen to the AMA and pass this reform for hundreds of millions of Americans who will benefit from it," Obama said. Overlooking the fact that this new plan will cost trillions of dollars and will increase taxes for Americans who make over 350k per year, this is a plan that all Americans can benefit from. We have the most expensive health care system yet we don't rank in the top twenty for the overall health in the world. (World Health Organization, 2000) Our health care is in need of serious reform and the Conservatives believe that a government run health plan would lead to a government run health care system, limiting the choices of the consumer. When we see first hand how the European nations have a great health care system to offer their residents, who can resist. It is a plan that will insure the health of the nation as a whole, and provide less corrupt medicine for the benefit of living longer lives with full coverage health care.

Compassion Deficit

After reading an editorial in the New York Times titled Compassion Deficit, I have to say that I disagree with the editor's postion. As Americans we are born with the natural ability to grow and prosper. There are some Americans either by choice or by birth who simply cannot conform to this ideal. Its seems a little harsh to view it this way, but there are plenty of people in our country who don't have a lot to their names but they don't give up. I feel like the editor of this article makes it seem like its okay, for people to live on the streets and feel like they deserve a handout. They go about naming cities in the U.S. that are trying to decrease the number of homeless citizens by giving them shelters and providing them with food. Too me this is just a way of enabling people to be weak. If you want to have money...you'll get money. If you want to be poor and remain in that particular situation...you're not going to change. Granted its understandable when circumstances arise that people cannot control, such as job lose then I believe its good to help people get back on their feet, but what I hate is "moochers." As far as the article goes, it was an interesting read by I think if they were trying to prove how beneficial setting up shelters and providing people with food was she should have focused more on one or two cities. But all they did was name cities that were doing different things to help out those in need. They also claim that the reason for most homeless peoples situations to due to forclosed homes, or kicked out renters. This probably is a small percentage of homeless people but I believe a big reason to be drug and alcohol abuse, runaways, or people that just can't cope with responsibility. In writing about homeless people that have been forclosed on, I believe their intented audience would be people with money that would be able to donate to local sheltes, and possibly even banks/governments to allow extra credit or leniency to struggling families as in the past. Like I said I agree with helping out those who are just down on their luck but I don't believe in helping others who refuse to help themselves.

Broken in U.S.A

In an editorial found in the New York Times, Broken in U.S.A points out the devastating effects of non legalized workers. A clothing factory lost 1,800 of its workers due to the fact that most had false identities and were not legal residents of the United States. Since President Obama has entered the white house, he has made it a point to enforce and crack down on illegal immigrants. White house representatives are calling this a milestone in the fight against illegal immigration. But along with the writer of this editorial I too wonder, who is going to benefit from this? These were taxpaying people who want to make a better life for themselves and their families. They work hard, and under horrible conditions to make the same minimum wage that most Americans complain about. It is easy to understand why most immigrants don't file for legal residence. The process can take many years and is very thorough. I guess that could be seen as a good thing, but when peoples lives are on the line and they're willing to work which in turn boosts our economy who are we to pick and choose who we'll allow to stay. The United States is founded upon the idea of immigration so it makes sense to continue that tradition. But as much as people see this as a burden for so many immigrants to try and set up residence in the United States we have to think...they are willing to do the work that most people think themselves too good for. Why should we not let them earn their living like everyone else, and also have a better opportunity for a new life. But now all thats left is 1,800 jobless people who only add to the decline of an economy. So as the article said 1,800 down only millions to go, which I agree with is just ludicrous!

Feds plan to spend millions on remote Montana border posts

When it comes to things of importance in the United States one would hope that since we're already in such a deficit money wise, the government would be a little more selective when spending money. So when I read that the government is planning to spend $31 million to simply upgrade two border crossings, I thought to myself..."man I love being in debt, our roads have never looked so good!" The border that they plan to "fix" is located in a remote area between Montana and Canada. What is the importance of fixing a border that approximately on 22 cars pass through per day? Its topics like these that make me wonder what priorities congress has. I wonder if this border will be completely "green?" All recycled supplies and run with solar energy???

If you'd like to read the rest of this article, I've included the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/17/border.security/index.html?iref=24hours#cnnSTCText