Taxes and healthcare and socialism, oh my!

When you hear "healthcare," what comes to mind?  Vivid images of infinitely long waiting room lines and mediocre doctors?  Meager paychecks due to horrific tax rates?  Yet another government-run program and the beginnings of socialism?  Instead of a knee-jerk reaction (one that is honestly completely validated considering the state of our country's balance of payments), let's remember what's behind all this "socialism" nonsense:  our fellow Americans.


No matter what side of the fence you sit on, it would be hard for any decent person to say that not everyone deserves accessable healthcare.  Sure, in principle, we all agree, but things get a little touchy when we begin discussing logistics:  How can we care for those who can't pay for it?  I earn my own money, so what if I only want to pay for my own healthcare?  How can we make sure the standard of care won't go down?  Shouldn't we work to lower the exorbitant costs of care first?  Yes, these are all important questions to consider, but we also can't ignore the basics:  you're asking those questions from a very fortunate position.  You probably have insurance and no trouble paying for your care, but unfortunately, a lot of Americans are left out and have little to no access to even basic procedures.  And if they can't go to a clinic to get care due to lack of insurance, they go to the ER.  And when that happens, you and I are the ones who end up covering the costs.  So, the idea is that if we extend insurance coverage to more people, this little scenario won't happen.  Another solution is to work to lower the horrible high costs medical bills often ended up amounting to.


But despite all those quintessential arguments we tend to bring up, we're leaving out the human element; that part of the story that will tug at your heart strings--and should!  To explain, let me share a story that a friend told me; why he agrees with the healthcare proposal.  Not because he loves high taxes or because he doesn't notice our current economic meltdown, but because of a condition he was born with--Cystic Fibrosis. 

"I agree with it [the healthcare plan] based on one big thing. Once I'm not a full time student, I have to find an employer who has good insurance because I have a disease that I was diagnosed with at birth and therefore have a pre-existing condition."

And if you're unfamiliar with this part of the issue, it's incredibly difficult to find insurance on your own when one has a pre-existing condition, and his job hunt after college will have an extra stress the rest of us don't have to worry about.  Job-hunting will have to marry insurance-hunting.  And if he can't find an insurance plan that covers something he can't control?  Then he'll have to pay outrageous amounts of money for treatment.  Treatments that already exist, but he may not have access to simply because of cost.  Now how is that fair?


But it gets even less fair.  He goes on to explain,

"Also along with my disease, you can test to see if babies have my disease before they are even born. And there is medication being tested right now that would be able to minimize the effects of CF to almost nothing. But testing a baby for a disease before they are born then means that they have a pre-existing condition and the second that baby is born, the family will more than likely be dropped from their health insurance. With the new health insurance, CF, a terminal disease, can be very close to having a cure."

Makes it a little harder to say our care system doesn't need some work, right?  Maybe the House and Senate bills aren't the right solution--they do indeed have a lot of pork and the process employed to get them passed before the New Year was nothing short of ridiculous.  But they were a step in the right direction.  Our health system needs work, and we need to pull down our ever-high, ever-guarded Republican-Democrat fences and work together to fix it.  It isn't a party issue, it's a people issue.  We can't throw the idea away just because we'll have to be creative in how to actually implement it in a way that works for everyone--whether you're rich, poor, liberal, or conservative.

Read more...

Speak up!

Today I met with someone for coffee and we were discussing how scary it is to get your voice out there about how you feel--not just in politics, but in personal relationships, as well.  This whole thing is quite terrifying--essentially, I'm letting the entire world hear what I have to say, welcoming a whole slew of things with open arms.  I could be disagreed with, I could be yelled at, I could be insulted, I could make mistakes, I could misspell elementary words (which I already did--oops).  The possibility of confrontation is frightening--but the potential to discuss is exhilarating.  Essentially, what's the point in living in such a great country, with a vibrant, thriving democracy if we aren't going to exercise our right to say what we want?  If you don't like something about the world, change it!  And I resent that people my age often fail to discuss issues that directly affect them, so I'm going to start.  I, and I certain many can relate, sometimes am intimidated by a) the fact that what I think doesn't always line up with what everyone else thinks, and b) the fact that being open makes one feel quite vulnerable.  In fact, I was so terrified to start this little blog that I tried too hard to make it perfect, resulting in a blaring typo in the title, of all things!  Bottom line:  free speech is scary, but worth it!

Read more...

"Thou shalt not support equality posters."

"There are lots of states that don't support gay, lesiban, and bisexual rights so Wyoming is not alone here. And personally I have to go with what the Bible says about this issue."

The above quote came from a young woman in response to what occurred in Wheatland, WY recently.  I couldn't help but discuss the issues associated with this line of what we'll nicely refer to as "logic."  If we're going to quote the Bible here, miss, you can't pick and choose what you want to support.  Are you also aware of the slavery in the Bible?  Are you aware of the lower role of women in the Bible? And are you aware of the instance in which the Bible decrees death for the crime of homosexuality?  All are contained within.  But this isn't about the Bible--I'm not aiming to trash it, but I am aiming to discuss why sometimes one cannot always literally accept everything between the covers.  And I know plenty of wonderful people who have no trouble reconciling LGBT support with being religious.


If you're unfamiliar with instance to which I am referring, check the background out really quickly:  http://politicalpromiscuity.blogspot.com/2010/01/equality-state-apparently-not.html.  I'm going to keep chronicling the debate that stems around this event, because it is indicative of a fight that the LGBT community is fighting for everywhere--and frankly, they shouldn't have to fight it alone.  


One cannot address the LGBT rights without pulling in religion, and that's what I'm going to delve into today.  Can religion have its place in twenty-first century politics? 


Anyone who advocates the use of slavery or the genocide of the LGBT in the twenty-first century would not only be despicable, but would probably be committing social suicide.  This isn't a bad thing--discrimination and hate have no place in modernity and democracy. However, by claiming that Wyoming is right in not supporting LGBT rights because the Bible condemns it is essentially agreeing with this logic.  It is no secret that slavery is a large part of the Bible, and many modern Christians say that this is because slavery was just a normal institution in those times, and the Church has evolved to adapt with new societal norms.  Well isn't it time to adapt again?  I'm just trying to prove a point.  I realize that the Bible is an ancient text, and that differert views, values, and beliefs were present then that cannot really compared to our social and political system today.  Christians use this same argument--so why doesn't it apply to the case of gay marraige?


This isn't about Christianity, however, and I'm not here to criticize religion--that gets us nowhere, because I see no gain in trashing religious people in a post about equality and the necessity of eliminating discrimination.  I do believe, however, that we cannot call upon an ancient text to guide us politically.  If we did so, we'd support enslaving other people, we'd support putting women in a subservient role, and we'd support death for homosexuality.  Now I know the many religious people I know don't advocate these things (and if you do, you're simply not compatible with modern democracy), so there's no reason that Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") can't be overlooked in order to embrace what I would bet most Christians would say is what the religion truly promotes:  and that's love and compassion.


To demonstrate this, I witnessed a little discussion on a friend's Facebook status in which the Wheatland issue was being discussed.  One young man, a practicing Christian, pointed out that LGBT rights can in fact transcend religious differences.  He said,

"The truth of the matter is GLBT rights and marriage IS a religious issue. I go to a church that welcomes and conducts weddings for all couples. A Baptist, Pentecostal or otherwise has no right to tell me what ceremonies my church can and cannot preform, nor can their viewpoint keep my faith from loving and accepting all of the Creators children. In essence forcing the removal of those signs is an infringement on the teachings of many churches and faith groups."

Furthermore,

"The sad and frustrating fact is that Wyoming isn't alone, but running with a group doesn't mean you are right. If we are going to live under the laws of Leviticus we will be no better than the Taliban or any extreme religious group."

Well said.  So, although it's perfectly acceptable to use religion as your way of interpreting the world in your personal life, but a literal acceptance of the rules and laws decreed in the Bible are not compatible with modern life in a liberal democratic society.  The core values and emotions associated with Christianity, however, such as love and morality and compassion, are welcome in any political system--but religion stops having a place the moment it begins to promote discrimination and injustice.


So, back to the issue at hand:  although religion is a large part of a conservative community such as Wheatland, WY, I'm fairly certain that the conservatives I know don't want their platform to be associated with hatred and discrimination.  The posting of a sign claiming "no place for hate" with an LGBT group simply listed as a sponsor cannot be equated with pushing a pro-gay agenda on an unwelcoming conservative majority.  Do you advocate tearing down a mosque that you drive by on your way to work, simply because it is pushing a pro-Muslim view on you?  News flash:  we're all going to see things we don't agree with, but that doesn't mean they need to be eliminated.  Embrace diversity; sometimes being a little bit uncomfortable is what makes us grow up the most.


Sources:
http://www.facebook.com/kpontar1?v=feed&story_fbid=443975665152


  

Read more...

The Equality State? Apparently not!

I hope you've all caught wind of what recently went down in Wheatland, Wyoming:  some student activists attempted to hang signs that proclaimed there was "no place for hate," but the school board begged to differ.  They removed the signs because a sponsor of the program promoted lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.  Now how does this reflect on the state I call home?  Not too well, that's for sure.  In an interview, a school board member proudly announced that homosexuality is not "normal"--but don't worry! He said that he "didn't have anything against them." Hmm, well that makes it alright.

This board member also went on to say that by funding such a project, the aforemetioned group supporting LGBT rights is pummeling Wyoming with a "pro-gay marriage" agenda, which Wheatland does not support.  There's nothing wrong with this state being know as conservative, but something we don't need is to be known for discriminatory practices--and that's exactly what the Wheatland school board has done.  Instead, why not tell the complainers that although they have their right to free speech, so does the LGBT community and its supporters.

As it turns out, school administrators approved the signs, but some particularly lovely Wyomingites complained, resulting in the sign's removal.  Furthermore, another  board member told the press that it's okay for gay people to live the way in which they do, but that it doesn't "need to be publicly displayed in a school."  So instead of promoting equality and diversity, this has simply added to our reputation as a "place for hate."  After all, the last time many heard from Wyoming was after the tragic death of Matthew Shepard.  Let's stop getting put on the map because of things like these!

If you want to do something about this, you can sign this petition:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/NoBanningTheBanner/

Source:  http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/22/Wyoming_School_Board_Removes_Anti_hate_Banners/
http://www.queerty.com/pro-gay-marriage-agenda-infiltrating-wyoming-school-the-solution-ban-no-place-for-hate-signs-20100122/

Read more...

Money Talks

Quick quiz:  what does the first amendment guarantee you?  If you're not familiar:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sounds good, right?  You get to worship who you want, when and where you want.  You get to say what you want, when and where you want.  You get to meet with whoever you want, when and where you want.  And the Feds can't do squat about it.  Sounds like you're not limited by much, no?

Well unfortunately, the government has decided that it's not just you that should be able to do what you want.  Large corporations also have their so-called "first amendment rights," which means these big wig profit-mongerers have significant influence over the politics that govern this country.  This issue came to the forefront of the political arena last week when our Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations--their ruling decreed "that the government may not ban political spending by corporation in candidate elections".   Now, a business can flood a candidate with money, effectively influencing the platform that candidate will support while campaigning and if elected.  A corporation is likely to have very different priorities than the average, run-of-the-mill citizen.  Despite the fact that a corporation is made up of individuals, is it appropriate that this mix of individuals have the (monetary) resources to influence politics much more effectively than the average individual?  Shouldn't we all be able to participate in democracy equally?  Yet again, we see money is what really influences what we talk about and what we choose to prioritize.  Are we "selling votes?"

This brings up another controversial issue, too, and that's the power of the judicial branch.  Do they have too much sway?

What do you think:  should corporations have the same right to political speech as you and I?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?scp=1&sq=court%20ruling&st=Search

Read more...

An Attack on Apathy

In the spirit of this seemingly never-ending health care debate (or has it ended with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts?), I decided that I am incredibily and increasingly fed-up with the fact that my fellow students often have absolutely NO IDEA what is going on in the world around them. Exhibit A: last week, when sitting at a table in the Student Union taking donations to help those in Haiti, a girl walked by and asked, "wait, what's going on in Haiti?" I suppose that's better than another question that was posed to me: "where's Haiti?" It is baffling to me, that even if one is not interested in current events, that many don't even absorb the conversations going on around them--whether it's walking by a television playing CNN, glancing at a newspaper headline, or noticing a concerned friend's Facebook status.

Thus, Political Promiscuity has been born--a blog where I'm going to discuss what's on my mind based on news, domestic and international politics, economics and business, and probably many other things. It's important to be informed about the world around you, and if you're not going to educate yourself, I'll take on that charge.  I'm not asking for you to agree with me, although I do have things to say.  After all, what's the point of absorbing information if you're not going to analyze it?

Read more...