This is where our daily reactions to the readings will be posted. Also, we will be able to reply to each other and continue discussions outside of class.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Domestic Politics 2
Let's start the posts for our second week on Domestic Policy.
We only have two meetings again this week. I will be in Chicago on Friday advancing human knowledge.
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
11th Journal “The Necessity of Free-Market Prices for Medical Care”
Throughout this reading, Robert Gervais claims that there should be very little government intervention in economics so that the idea of free-market can prevail. He believes this theory is extremely important for Medical Care. Gervais discusses that in a free-market, the physicians would deal directly with the patients in order to come up with medical care, but in the real world, both parties must go though a third company, known as the insurance company, or the government for Medicare/medicate. In my opinion, I agree to a certain point that Medicare does not follow our free market ideals. But, there are many other examples in which the government has revoked a completely free market in order to help the little people. The government began regulating monopolies in the early 1900s when companies would become so large that they would be the only supplier of a particular good. Thus, this would eliminate competition and force consumers to pay a higher price. So, the government had to step in. With medical care, a similar problem occurs. In order for poverty-stricken Americans to receive heath care they must go through the government because it is unlikely they can afford a companied owned medical service. I found his example of China’s regression to poverty interesting. I do not think that they effects of having a government aided free-market will be the same as they were in China, but it still puts the thought in our minds.
Today I want to discuss the issue over whether or not the US should continue to enjoy a market system with little involvment from the government. The system that we live on today, is the system of America. To change that, and have the government begin to regulate on who makes what, and how much they make, we destroy a little piece of our country known as the American Dream. The most amazing thing about our country is that anyone, from anywhere, can be the next millionaire, or the next bum on the streets. I guess when you see it that way, it could be a little scary. The point I am trying to make is that America is an equal opportunity country. That gives people who were not blessed with the best circumstances, a motivation towards building a better future. There are so many opportunities in this country that anyone can take advantage of, and build on. Regulation among this market makes us an average country, where you can work as hard as you want to, but still never be rewarded. This American market system is the dream of all Americans, you can literally be as rich and powerful as you want to, without any interference. That truly is a beautiful thing.
At the presentation by the speaker last week the man in the audience was right about the report on restrictions on history subjects in the UK. They think better to not really teach and discuss much about the holocaust and the crusades. I think this is really good example of some of the things he was saying. The officials there think these subjects are too contreversial and bring up bad feelings. Kind of like the California history book's glossing over of slavery. It wouldn't really be politically correct to tell what really happened or it would remind people of how bad humanity can be. Doing see for one thing does a great injustice to the victims of say slavery, holocaust, victims of war crimes, etc. Also it can lead to the public never being trully aware of what can happen and the events that can lead to tragedies that could have been prevented.
The reading refers alot to free market with as little government intervention possible. As I scanned Rachel's reaction to the reading she refers to Medical care and the the third party being the insurance company. As I read it I could not help but think of the movie "John Q" and the struggle the character went through trying to get his son on the donors list for a new heart. This was due to the insurance that was provided by his job and it did not cover a surgery of that magnitude. This was extremely accurate to today's struggle that most people have when it comes time for things like this. I believe that the doctors and the patients should handle a payment plan on their own without relying on the insurance company or the government.
As far as the debate was concerned, I feel both sides were very persuasive in their arguments for and against buying prescription drugs from foreign countries. However, I do agree with Michael and John in saying that it should still be illegal for Americans to purchase drugs in other countries. It is very expensive for pharmaceutical companies to research and develop new drugs, and it is also a very tedious process. The men and women who work on developing these drugs go through extraneous amounts of work to change a chemical here and there to produce a product that will save lives. Not only the amount of research and the cost of chemicals, but the patients who volunteer to try these new drugs have to be compensated for their time as well. This is why these drugs are so expensive and because the FDA’s regulations are so strict about which drugs they allow into the market. Also, I wanted to say that some name brand prescription drugs do begin to go down in price as the years pass. Penicillin was discovered in the 1930s and last week it was prescribed to me for strep throat. Twenty pills only cost me $20. We just have to be patient with the cost of these drugs because they do eventually go down. Another thing is all of the drug recalls that happen in America, do they happen in Canada and Europe? If a generic drug is being made in Canada, do the Canadian pharmaceutical companies recall it after they purchase it from the Americans and then the Americans recall it? I am not sure, but I would worry about that. You know in America, every pharmacy pulls recalled drugs off the shelves, but do foreign countries pull their generic drugs off of the shelf?
The debate from Wednesday brought about a lot of different points. The debate made we think on things regarding drug sales and prices here in the United States. I feel as though the prices for drugs are extremely too high. I understand that the prices must be high at the beginning to compensate for the cost of research and marketing. Since this is something that cannot be avoided, I feel as though the government should make sure that the citizens in America who hold a steady job and buy prerscription drugs when they are needed. When I say a steady job, I mean a person who is currently working and not just living off of a welfare check every month. Now I know there are things like Medicaid and Medicare, but sometimes they do not cover the extra cost of the medication. When Medicare took the cut a few years back a lot of people suffered because of this. A elderly lady in my home town could not get her perscription filled because Walgreens would not take her Medicare. She died that very night. This is why I feel the government should step in situations like this. This lady's death was senseless. I understand that drugs will be expensive, but there could be a lot more help from every aspect of the industry and government.
In her previous post Hanna said that we should wait for the cost of drugs to go down as it will happen eventually. Many can't wait for these drugs' prices to come down. Many people have illnesses that require constant medication and cannot wait. It would seem that stricter control over prices of drugs set by companies should be closely watched by government officals. During the debate the subject of costs for the development of these drugs often came up. I don't think that the expense of developing these drugs justifies the costs charged for people who are among the many who can't afford them on a regular basis and depend on them for their lives. This is really a moral issue of standing up for the general public's best interests and not letting the drug companies have a free hand. I think this might also have an economic impact though as probably many in other indusries would be afraid of government intervention in their business practices.
Through the reading, I noticed a pattern that the Supreme Court did not usually act upon the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Instead, it seemed like the Supreme Court made decisions based on public opinion and their own personal convictions. I am surprised at this because I have always expected the Supreme Court to act solely on the words of the Constitution. In the reading, the case of Barron vs. Baltimore City, the Supreme Court ruled that the state government was not held to the same standards as the national government. The whole duel citizenship response seems completely preposterous to me. In an attempt to fix this problem, the fourteenth amendment was added to the Constitution. I expected this amendment to solve all problems, but the Slaughter-House cases prove this thought to be wrong when it was rejected for the same reason as the previous cases. The Supreme Court reversed on their rulings when they revoked the Civil Rights Act of 1875. According to the Supreme Court, the fourteenth amendment applied only to discriminatory acts by state officials and not private individuals. So, when it pertains to discrimination, the Supreme Court goes back on their ruling and says that it applies only to the state and not even the national government.
8 comments:
11th Journal
“The Necessity of Free-Market Prices for Medical Care”
Throughout this reading, Robert Gervais claims that there should be very little government intervention in economics so that the idea of free-market can prevail. He believes this theory is extremely important for Medical Care. Gervais discusses that in a free-market, the physicians would deal directly with the patients in order to come up with medical care, but in the real world, both parties must go though a third company, known as the insurance company, or the government for Medicare/medicate.
In my opinion, I agree to a certain point that Medicare does not follow our free market ideals. But, there are many other examples in which the government has revoked a completely free market in order to help the little people. The government began regulating monopolies in the early 1900s when companies would become so large that they would be the only supplier of a particular good. Thus, this would eliminate competition and force consumers to pay a higher price. So, the government had to step in. With medical care, a similar problem occurs. In order for poverty-stricken Americans to receive heath care they must go through the government because it is unlikely they can afford a companied owned medical service.
I found his example of China’s regression to poverty interesting. I do not think that they effects of having a government aided free-market will be the same as they were in China, but it still puts the thought in our minds.
Today I want to discuss the issue over whether or not the US should continue to enjoy a market system with little involvment from the government. The system that we live on today, is the system of America. To change that, and have the government begin to regulate on who makes what, and how much they make, we destroy a little piece of our country known as the American Dream. The most amazing thing about our country is that anyone, from anywhere, can be the next millionaire, or the next bum on the streets. I guess when you see it that way, it could be a little scary. The point I am trying to make is that America is an equal opportunity country. That gives people who were not blessed with the best circumstances, a motivation towards building a better future. There are so many opportunities in this country that anyone can take advantage of, and build on. Regulation among this market makes us an average country, where you can work as hard as you want to, but still never be rewarded. This American market system is the dream of all Americans, you can literally be as rich and powerful as you want to, without any interference. That truly is a beautiful thing.
At the presentation by the speaker last week the man in the audience was right about the report on restrictions on history subjects in the UK. They think better to not really teach and discuss much about the holocaust and the crusades. I think this is really good example of some of the things he was saying. The officials there think these subjects are too contreversial and bring up bad feelings. Kind of like the California history book's glossing over of slavery. It wouldn't really be politically correct to tell what really happened or it would remind people of how bad humanity can be. Doing see for one thing does a great injustice to the victims of say slavery, holocaust, victims of war crimes, etc. Also it can lead to the public never being trully aware of what can happen and the events that can lead to tragedies that could have been prevented.
The reading refers alot to free market with as little government intervention possible. As I scanned Rachel's reaction to the reading she refers to Medical care and the the third party being the insurance company. As I read it I could not help but think of the movie "John Q" and the struggle the character went through trying to get his son on the donors list for a new heart. This was due to the insurance that was provided by his job and it did not cover a surgery of that magnitude. This was extremely accurate to today's struggle that most people have when it comes time for things like this. I believe that the doctors and the patients should handle a payment plan on their own without relying on the insurance company or the government.
Hanna Olivier
American Government
Review # 11
As far as the debate was concerned, I feel both sides were very persuasive in their arguments for and against buying prescription drugs from foreign countries. However, I do agree with Michael and John in saying that it should still be illegal for Americans to purchase drugs in other countries.
It is very expensive for pharmaceutical companies to research and develop new drugs, and it is also a very tedious process. The men and women who work on developing these drugs go through extraneous amounts of work to change a chemical here and there to produce a product that will save lives. Not only the amount of research and the cost of chemicals, but the patients who volunteer to try these new drugs have to be compensated for their time as well. This is why these drugs are so expensive and because the FDA’s regulations are so strict about which drugs they allow into the market.
Also, I wanted to say that some name brand prescription drugs do begin to go down in price as the years pass. Penicillin was discovered in the 1930s and last week it was prescribed to me for strep throat. Twenty pills only cost me $20. We just have to be patient with the cost of these drugs because they do eventually go down.
Another thing is all of the drug recalls that happen in America, do they happen in Canada and Europe? If a generic drug is being made in Canada, do the Canadian pharmaceutical companies recall it after they purchase it from the Americans and then the Americans recall it? I am not sure, but I would worry about that. You know in America, every pharmacy pulls recalled drugs off the shelves, but do foreign countries pull their generic drugs off of the shelf?
Justin Huckaby
9th Response
The debate from Wednesday brought about a lot of different points. The debate made we think on things regarding drug sales and prices here in the United States. I feel as though the prices for drugs are extremely too high. I understand that the prices must be high at the beginning to compensate for the cost of research and marketing. Since this is something that cannot be avoided, I feel as though the government should make sure that the citizens in America who hold a steady job and buy prerscription drugs when they are needed. When I say a steady job, I mean a person who is currently working and not just living off of a welfare check every month. Now I know there are things like Medicaid and Medicare, but sometimes they do not cover the extra cost of the medication. When Medicare took the cut a few years back a lot of people suffered because of this. A elderly lady in my home town could not get her perscription filled because Walgreens would not take her Medicare. She died that very night. This is why I feel the government should step in situations like this. This lady's death was senseless. I understand that drugs will be expensive, but there could be a lot more help from every aspect of the industry and government.
In her previous post Hanna said that we should wait for the cost of drugs to go down as it will happen eventually. Many can't wait for these drugs' prices to come down. Many people have illnesses that require constant medication and cannot wait. It would seem that stricter control over prices of drugs set by companies should be closely watched by government officals. During the debate the subject of costs for the development of these drugs often came up. I don't think that the expense of developing these drugs justifies the costs charged for people who are among the many who can't afford them on a regular basis and depend on them for their lives. This is really a moral issue of standing up for the general public's best interests and not letting the drug companies have a free hand. I think this might also have an economic impact though as probably many in other indusries would be afraid of government intervention in their business practices.
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Journal #12
Through the reading, I noticed a pattern that the Supreme Court did not usually act upon the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Instead, it seemed like the Supreme Court made decisions based on public opinion and their own personal convictions. I am surprised at this because I have always expected the Supreme Court to act solely on the words of the Constitution.
In the reading, the case of Barron vs. Baltimore City, the Supreme Court ruled that the state government was not held to the same standards as the national government. The whole duel citizenship response seems completely preposterous to me. In an attempt to fix this problem, the fourteenth amendment was added to the Constitution. I expected this amendment to solve all problems, but the Slaughter-House cases prove this thought to be wrong when it was rejected for the same reason as the previous cases. The Supreme Court reversed on their rulings when they revoked the Civil Rights Act of 1875. According to the Supreme Court, the fourteenth amendment applied only to discriminatory acts by state officials and not private individuals. So, when it pertains to discrimination, the Supreme Court goes back on their ruling and says that it applies only to the state and not even the national government.
Post a Comment