A Personal Honors History

1. What did you gain from your experiences as an honors student in the first semester (please consider novels, leadership opportunities, writing, history, projects, etc.)?

This first semester there were a lot of leadership opportunities that I utilized. For the Iconic book, I edited Artist’s Statements. In the Mock Trial, I was a lawyer for the prosecution. In the Senate Hearings, I was a lobbyist, which was a totally new and different project role. In Life: the Book, I was a Managing Editor. I read the Scarlet Letter by Hawthorne, which I never got around to doing before. In my writing, especially, I think I've improved in becoming more concise, succinct, and professional without being incoherent (as some professionals are, even if their writing is flawless a layman should be able to understand some of it). 

2. Discuss what you might have done differently if you could do this past semester of honors over again.

I think that I might have become a Senator during the Senate Health Care Hearings in order to help the Finance Committee make up their mind on where they stood on health care and explain to them, Senator to Senator, what the Bills actually proposed.

3. Discuss your goals for honors in the second semester.

I want to keep utilizing leadership opportunities when and where I can, in addition to further improving my writing...maybe in the creative sense, now? (see the answer to number four.)

4. If you could choose any specific parts of literature and.or history for our honors work next semester, what would you pick and why?

I would choose World War II, which we should be doing anyways next semester, and I would want to focus on creative writing. Now that the class has tried their hands at literary journalism, I think we're ready to move onto creative writing. It's probably not part of the standard curriculum, but this is High Tech High, isn't it? I also enjoy creative writing and think that we would be able to apply pretty much every writing tip we've learned thus far (and will learn in the future) to a story or poem of our own creation. It would also engage all the students and get them involved...and we could publish a compilation of short fiction stories.

What new deal can the New Deal inspire?

One government run program from the New Deal that could be effective during the Great Recession of today is the Economy Act of 1933. It was designed by the Roosevelt Administration to balance the budget deficit by cutting the salaries of government workers and veterans. Initially, the act was supposed to free up $500 million and allow the President to reorganize executive branch agencies (to a limited extent) that were ineffeciently run.

I think that the Economy Act had good intentions, but I disagree with the provision to cut the benefits of veterans—men who risked life and limb for the United States of America. If a bill similar to the Economy Act of 1933 was passed without the provision to cut the pay of veterans, then I think the bill would benefit Americans and help to ease the current economic crisis America is in because. In my opinion, the most beneficial part of the bill would be the president’s limited ability to reorganize the executive branch and all of the agencies that have sprung up in the past few decades that are a part of it, like the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Transportation, and Treasury, not including all the independent agencies, boards, commissions, committees, and bureaus that fall under the umbrella of the executive branch.

In the 1930s, there weren’t nearly as many executive agencies as there are today, even though many got their start, ironically, as part of the New Deal. President Obama passed passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in order to ensure that “Recovery Act funds are expended for projects that further the job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Recovery Act and are not used for imprudent projects.” In addition, I think that all the expenditures of the executive branch itself should be made public knowledge and society’s concern. If we reorganized executive agencies, of which there are, in my opinion, too many, then we would cut the national deficit and be able to focus those remaining executive agencies towards providing inexpensive public options for services whose rates are ever-increasing, like utilities and healthcare, which are necessities that are, for the most part, privatized.

I think we should give the president the power to cut government salaries and reorganize executive agencies so that Americans will have cheaper public options for necessary public services and so the government will be spending less money in the executive branch that they can use elsewhere.

Olson, James Stuart. Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940. Santa Barbara, calif.: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.

Lee, Mordecai. Institutionalizing Congress and the Presidency: The U.S. Bureau of Efficiency, 1916-1933. College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.
Feldmeth, Greg D. "U.S. History Resources"
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/USHistory.html (31 March 1998).


Botti, Timothy J. Envy of the World: A History of the U.S. Economy and Big Business. New York: Algora Publishing, 2006

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748895,00.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-20-09/

Dear Mr. President,

Great men withstand the pressures of society, the world, even their peers, in pursuit of goals and reforms that they know to be true. Even before he was elected President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.” I would go even further to suggest that when a cause is honest and just, the concessions that are made must never compromise the original objective. If anything, the elements conceded must only be given up as a sacrifice for a greater purpose. FDR had to sacrifice universal healthcare in order to pass the Social Security Act of 1935. However, today it is vital that this administration makes no compromises unless they are explicitly demanded and totally necessary. And we must acknowledge that this administration has not made significant, powerful changes in the United States. Expanding Bush’s stimulus package, negotiating a health care bill that gives no new public option whatsoever, and the new tax cut proposals that will include the cut the taxes of the rich as well as the poor—all of these are actions that leave the American people hoping, but nothing yet has fulfilled or justified their hope.

To go down in American History, not as the first African-American president, but as a great political leader that made a difference, I have two words: No War.

Roosevelt saw regulation as cooperation between individuals, or private entities, and a government that seeks the liberty of the community—disassociating mandated guidelines and parameters from socialism, totalitarianism, or any other brand that society may put upon something like universal, government-funded healthcare. And he also observed that the deficits of the Great Depression were “caused by payments for past, present, and future wars.” The most effective way to truly rise out of the Great Recession is to end the war in Afghanistan and possibly speed up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There are times for war, but now is the time to focus on the domestic crises that have arisen before we attempt to solve problems halfway around the world or win a war that has cost time, money, and lives. Society will support this magnanimous effort and if you take this step towards peace, you will regain more public trust and confidence so that you can promote change.

Change in the form of peace. If you withdraw from Afghanistan, you can show the public that you’re thinking of new things to do that are right. Then you can campaign for effective financial reform, fair tax cuts, reduced carbon emissions and pollution, gay rights, migrant workers’ rights, and better healthcare reform.

Don’t give up a just cause, even if you don’t support it now. The war on Afghanistan is a losing battle that isn’t ours to fight right now. Show the people that you will support them and they will start to support you.

Sincerely,

Noah Schlottman

Resources:

Obviously, the New Liberalism by George Packer and The Test by Steve Coll from the New Yorker.

Payne, Scott. "Obama's Loss Is Conservatives' Gain." Editorial. The Washington Examiner. 07 June 2010. Web. Dec. 2010. <http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/obama039s-loss-conservatives039-gain>.

 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15250.

Smith, Jean Edward. FDR. New York: Random House, 2007. Print.

Burns, Steve. "Why Wasn't the War an Issue in the Election?" Editorial. OpEdNews. International Humanities Center, 09 Dec. 2010. Web. Dec. 2010. <http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-wasn-t-the-war-an-issu-by-Steve-Burns-101206-797.html>.

Federalism versus Anti-Federalism during the Civil War

The American Civil War was a conflict that raged between eleven southern states and twenty-three northern states from 1861 to 1865. It is a very clear example of Federalism vs. Anti-Federalism in that the South did not think that the federal government in Washington D.C. should have power or control over state policy. States thought that they should have the right to determine what is right and wrong in the area under their jurisdiction so that, ideally, the will of the people could be better carried out. States' Rights advocates saw the Constitution as a pact that unified the states, not a document that surrendered all their power to Washington.


On the other side of the coin were the Federalists who believed in the power of the strong, central government to enforce fundamental human rights. Abolitionists and Nationalists were two major groups that opposed anti-federalist efforts. The former thought that the federal government needed to step in and stop the South from violating human rights through slavery and the latter thought that States' rights would create a weak, inviable nation that was less one country than an assembly of smaller government entities that would not be able to function as a nation.


Ironically, although anti-federalists thought that states should be able to pretty much do what they want, Southern slave owners also thought that they should be able to take their slaves anywhere in the USA and still have them remain their slave despite laws that outlawed slavery in many northern states--basically, that meant that they were saying that people shouldn't have to listen to the federal government in these cases, but in those cases, you should.


During the Antebellum Era, the friction between and separation between the anti-slavery, pro-federal North and the pro-slavery, anti-federal South increased. The North tangibly discouraged slavery through laws that established tariffs on southern goods and compromises that threatened the South's slave-dependent economy. When Lincoln was elected president, the South feared that slavery didn't have a chance in...America. The voice of the slave states was already minor in federal government, so they decided that now was the time to secede from the Union. Before Abe even took office, seven southern states had seceded from America, receiving little resistant from Buchanan, who was a Lame Duck at this point. President Buchanan even said that declaring war on a state that has withdrawn from the union and entered the confederacy "is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress."

Nonetheless, Lincoln ended up fighting for the Union against the Confederate States of America, reunifying the country and freeing 3.5 million slaves at the cost of over a million casualties, a country that was still divided in the hearts of her people, the crushed southern economy that is perhaps still recovering, and, well, three and a half million slaves that didn't have homes, jobs, food, etc. Nevertheless, although Federalism won the Civil War, anti-federalism was not stifled in America but continued as a strong force even during the Reconstruction era.

'The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.' ~ Black Reconstruction in America (1935) by W.E.B. DuBois


Some Federal Issues
Nationalism
Abolitionism
Jurisdiction (extends to where?)
Tariffs


Some Anti-Federal Issues
States' Rights
Slavery




Interviewee: Roger Schlottman
All Questions were asked in the context of the Civil War


What do you think of States' Rights?
I believe in very, very strong States' Rights and a weak central government. The more responsive and local a government is to its people, the better and quicker it can react to their needs. People in different communities have different needs and different lifestyles, the people in La Jolla as supposed to Barrio Logan have different issues and community standards--what is right for one is often not right for the other.


But what does local government have to do with States' Rights?
As I already stated, the smaller the government, the more responsive it can be to its citizens' needs. One of the major challenges of a large, central bureaucracy is that it attempts to meet the needs of millions of diverse people with varying opinions, religions, practices, beliefs, and cultures. Basically, States are a form of a much more local government than a national government, which tries to make one size fit all.


And what does all of this have to do with the Civil War?
Because the federal government ignored the southern states' needs, like lower tariffs, cheap labor, etc. 
In order to free three and a half million slaves the federal government killed almost one million Americans and maimed almost five-hundred thousand. We also destroyed the economy of the South for the next hundred years and although African-Americans were freed from slavery, they remained slaves to discrimination, segregation, and the Jim Crow laws.
The most important point, in my opinion, is that slavery would have died out within the next 10 or 20 years. The U.S. was the last major industrialized country that had slavery.


Are there any Federal issues concerning the Civil War that you have an opinion on?
Conscription. Conscription happened for the first time under Lincoln. They also controlled the press and restricted freedom of speech. These precedents have, except for maybe World War II, not served us well (i.e., WWI, Korea, Vietnam).


Are there any good things about Federalism, especially during the Civil War?
No, can you? Wait a minute, I thought of something. It helped speed along the industrialization of the North producing war goods. The transportation and industrialization systems were in place after the war for the North to start expanding. 


But can't people's fundamental, constitutional rights be abused and violated without a strong, central government to enforce them?
Do you mean like the African-American's rights after the strong, central government prevented the secession of the South? No, just kidding. To bring it to today, I believe if you have a state that supports equal rights, equal pay for women, gay rights, etc. that those people will flock to a state where they are treated respectfully, where justice is done, and opportunity is available for all; and those states will flourish because of the rightness of their laws. That it will be a vibrant, strong, economically viable state as opposed to those other states that do not have an equal playing field in place, states which will suffer.
I call it the natural selection of government policy, where the most responsive, flexible, and honest government thrives. This would give us 50 different experimental governments that would show which ones would be the most viable over time, ideas that they could then share with the other states which they could decide if those policies would be a good fit for their state.


But wouldn't constitutional rights still be abused by some states?
Sure. But isn't that already happening today? And isn't this a more honest system, one that rewards good government behavior and open policies? Eventually, less constitutional rights, I believe, would be violated because that doesn't promote economic viability. For example, people are trying to get into the U.S., as opposed to any place where human rights are not respected and economic opportunity is not available.
In my state, all water and power would be operated on a non-profit basis. Public transportation would also be operated on a non-profit basis, with education and healthcare being funded by the state, giving all people a level playing field from which to pull themselves up. One last thing, my police wouldn't have guns.

A Brief Treatise on the Influence of the American Medical Association on HealthCare Legislation in the United States of America

The American Medical Association was founded when organized healthcare in America began to first take shape. After the association became more politically active around 1900, the AMA, which advocates in the interests of its member doctors and patients, soon became an institution that would not only alter the course of American healthcare legislation for the next hundred years, but one that continues to affect government health care decisions today. Any efforts concerning healthcare reform have always been either supported or opposed by the AMA, whose political viewpoints and endorsement have varied throughout the years.

In pre-WWI America, the Progressive Movement marked an era of social, federalist reform where an individual’s welfare and betterment was seen as the government’s responsibility. In 1916, a bill that would create compulsory healthcare in the United States was proposed and gained major support from the AMA, which said it would be “the inauguration of a great movement which ought to result in an improvement in the health of the industrial population and improve the conditions for medical service among wage earners.” The AMA’s president, Rupert Blue, described it as “the next step in social legislation.” However, after such socialist ideals were branded as “Prussian” and “Made in Germany” in 1917, the bill didn’t pass. However, the American Medical Association’s influence over the healthcare corridors of power has increased since.

By the Roaring ‘20s, the AMA, perhaps realizing the greater monetary potential in private rather than public healthcare, was totally opposed to a mandatory, government-run system. Thus, health reform was not an issue until the Great Depression, when FDR planned on including national healthcare in the Social Security Act of 1935, but stopped due to pressure from the AMA.

After WWII, President Truman (“an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”) saw the corruption of the American health system, where money was the priority and not patients, and where the AMA ran an expensive campaign opposing a government-run health system. This campaign succeeded in thwarting Truman’s efforts with Legislature and keeping the President on the defensive.

Under Eisenhower, the AMA stopped the Kings-Anderson Bill, which was the precursor to Medicare, from passing.

Fortunately, LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that, among other things, led to the desegregation of hospitals. However, the AMA originally opposed to the act and ignored or even obstructed the civil rights agenda.

Afterwards, the president was only able to pass the Social Security Act of 1965, which included Medicare and Medicaid, due to an extremely liberal House and Senate that the AMA could not defeat.

Recently, the American Medical Association backed President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which probably contributed to legislators passing it in March 2010. Although the AMA currently only represents around ⅕ of America’s doctors, the association spent $15,800,000 on lobbying in 2010.  Even though its membership has diminished, the AMA still remains a powerful force in shaping politics and healthcare, with the drive and the funding to achieve their goals.


Resources:

Edwin E. Witte, "Compulsory Health Insurance" (1973) in Robert J. Lampman (editor), Social Security Perspectives: Essays by Edwin E. Witte (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962), 316-317. Print.

Soon or Later On: Franklin D. Roosevelt and National Health Insurance, 1933-1945
Journal article by Jaap Kooijman; Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1999

Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, p.96

"Lobbying Stats." American Medical Assn. OpenSecrets.org, 2010. Web. Dec. 2010. <http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000068&lname=American Medical Assn>.

"Healthcare Timeline." Healthcare Crisis. Public Broadcasting Station. Web. Dec. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm>.

Kooijman, Jaap. ...And the Pursuit of National Health: The Incremental Strategy Toward National Health Insurance in the United States of America. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Print.

Life: the Book--A Reflection

1. What are you most proud of in your Life: The Book writing? Try to describe this is detail!
I am happy that I was able to write an extremely informative article that could educate an educated audience without boring them to death. But most of all, I am proud of the interviews that I landed with Dr. Cinnamon Bloss and Dr. Nicholas Schork of the Scripps Translational Research Institute.

2. What are some changes or new ideas that you have developed in your writing through the course of this
semester?
I write a lot more concisely and effectively than before by employing writing tips in my article like "make meaning early," "the loop," "write to an ending," "avoid -ing verbs," and "activate your verbs." I have also developed my writing by not making it quite as boring as my previous nonfiction.
3. If you had a little more time to work on your writing for LifE: The Book, what would you do differently? What would you change about your writing?
I was inspired by some revolutionary biotechnological advances that I learned about only after I had completed my article. If I had more time, I might have written an article about the TearPen or Adipose-derived adult stem cells, both of which are pretty cool subjects that I could pursue in the future. In my writing, I would probably try and include all of the neat research stuff that I left out of my final article; they weren't necessary, but they were really interesting.

4. How has the additional element of publication in a book affected the way you approach writing?
I wanted to make sure that my work was totally professional and the best material possible, especially since I didn't want to let down the family and two scientists that I interviewed and included in my article...and since Ben Daley, who is second from the top on the High Tech Totem Pole, is the husband of one of the scientists I extensively interviewed. It also affected my stress level since it was my responsibility that every student's article and art was emailed to the design and layout editors on time, and make sure that all the articles were at least readable, a very challenging task that I hope was completed, even though I couldn't make sure that every article was perfect (even though I wanted to).

For the Senate Finance Committee's Health Care Hearing

For the American Medical Association:
What are your character's main goals for the Senate Health Care Hearings? What do you want to accomplish?


The Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2010
 and
The Medicare Beneficiary Freedom To Contract Act of 2010

to be approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

How do you plan to accomplish it?

By working with Senators from both sides of the aisle in order to get these bills voted on and discussed by Senators.

Who are you working with to get this done?

Senator John Cornyn, (R) Texas

Senator John Kerry, (D) Massachusetts

Go Deeper

The American Medical Association's Top Issues for the Senate Finance Committee Hearing:

On November 5, 2009, the AMA formally announced its support for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act and H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009. The AMA announced its support for H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3961 to convey existing AMA policy perspectives on legislation scheduled for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as Nov. 7. Together, these bills address many?but not all?of the AMA's seven essential elements for health system reform:

Expanding coverage. The AMA is committed to enacting legislation to provide health coverage for all Americans. Under H.R. 3962, the percentage of legal, non-elderly residents with insurance coverage will rise to 96 percent.

Insurance market reforms. The AMA supports insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions. H.R. 3962 eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime limits on total spending; prohibits the ability of premiums from being increased to reflect differences in enrollee health and narrows age rating practices; and creates new health insurance exchanges to provide self-insured individuals and small business employees with a choice of more affordable insurance options.

Patient-physician decision making. Preserving the power of patients and their physicians to make health care decisions?rather than insurance companies or government officials?is of paramount importance to all physicians and to the AMA. While H.R. 3962 includes a number of new government oversight bodies, the AMA has not identified any new authority that would overpower the relationship between patients and their physicians. Furthermore, expanded coverage and choice should help empower patient and physician decision making.

Investments in quality, prevention and wellness. Creating incentives and investments within health system reform in quality improvement, prevention and wellness is important to the AMA. H.R. 3962 includes numerous provisions to provide for additional resources for quality initiatives, preventive services and wellness programs. Importantly, quality improvement programs are based on positive incentives, rather than serving as a mechanism for imposing financial penalties on physicians.

Repealing the Medicare SGR. Repeal of the fatally-flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) this year is critical to preserving access to health care for millions of seniors, disabled Americans, and millions of future beneficiaries, and remains a fundamental goal of the AMA. H.R. 3961, a separate bill, repeals the SGR and eliminates the accumulated budgetary debt it has produced, replacing it with a new physician payment formula. The House leadership has expressed confidence that H.R. 3961 will be passed because it is tied to a statutory pay-as-you-go requirement that the House approved earlier this year. The House intends to vote on H.R. 3961 soon after action on H.R. 3962.

Medical liability reform. The AMA is committed to continuing to advocate for the passage of meaningful medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine. Comprehensive reforms such as those enacted in California and Texas have lowered liability costs and improved access to care. Passage of these proven reforms at the federal level has proven elusive regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority. H.R. 3962 authorizes incentive payments to states that adopt alternative certificate of merit and/or early offer liability reforms. Testing alternative reforms hold promise for gaining additional insight on new ways to reduce the cost of defensive medicine and abusive litigation practices.

Reduce administrative burdens. Streamlining and standardizing insurance claims processing requirements to eliminate unnecessary costs and administrative burdens will produce significant benefits for physician practices. H.R. 3962 incorporates several of the AMA's recommendations to streamline claims processing, improve physicians' revenue cycle and lower overhead costs.

Of course, H.R. 3962 is an enormous bill with broad scope and we recognize that more improvements are needed before a final bill emerges from a joint House-Senate conference committee. Patient choice should be strengthened by allowing more low-income individuals to purchase coverage through health insurance exchanges, and individually owned policies, such as health savings accounts, must be preserved. The public option defined in H.R. 3962 is voluntary for physicians and with negotiated rates. That said, we continue to believe that creating a public plan is not the best way to promote competition and we urge consideration of other alternatives to promote competition and more affordable health insurance options. Further, if a public option is created, it should provide patients with some reimbursement for services provided by an "out-of-network physician".

Together, H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3961 offer a path toward reform that, on balance, the AMA leadership has concluded is consistent with our principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of physician practice, and universal access. Passage of these bills represents a critical step toward the next stage of the legislative process that will enable further refinement of policies and lays a solid foundation for achieving our goal of high-quality, affordable coverage for all Americans.

In expressing support for H.R. 3962, AMA leadership articulated existing policy adopted by the AMA House of Delegates that is comprised of representatives of more than 106 national medical specialty societies, 50 state medical societies, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and representatives from the military and public health services.

As the legislative process moves forward, the AMA will continue to work with the House, the Senate and the Obama Administration to improve and strengthen the final package that is signed into law.

Stay engaged in the discussion on health system reform. To learn how you can get the facts and get involved, visit the AMA health system reform Web site at www.hsreform.org. Or contact our senior representative Noah Schlottman at nschlottman@hightechhigh.org if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the AMA.

bLOG #i7-morearticlesdebateonhealthcareinamerica

How these articles impact my article in Life: The Book--

Article 1: Obama's 'Public' Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation by Larry Kudlow

"The president’s grandiose government-takeover-and-control strategies are going to make things worse and worse — that is, unless members of that tiny band known as the Republican party can stand on their hind legs and just say no. The Republicans must come up with some pro-competition, private-enterprise alternatives for health, energy, education, taxes, and trade that will meet the yearning of voter-taxpayers for a return to private-enterprise American prosperity and opportunity."

Of course, this embodies the opinion and tone of Kudlow's whole article, that we should be moving in the direction of privatization and deregulation towards free-enterprise and 'purer' Capitalism. However, if this does happen, then there will be a kind of free reign in all fields and research. Thus, genetic engineering and eugenics research would not be inhibited by the government at all. There would only be social pressure at most, and when ever science and research is based solely on social trends, we have seen science and research support racism, segregation, involuntary sterilization, and genocide in the past.

Article 2: A Health Reformer's Scary Diagnosis by George F. Will

"...the number of seniors living long enough to have five or more chronic conditions -- 23 percent of Medicare beneficiaries--has increased. Many of those conditions could be prevented or managed by better decisions about eating, exercising and smoking. The 20 percent of Americans who still smoke are a much larger percentage of the 23 percent who consume 67 percent of Medicare spending. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of Medicare spending pays for care in the final year of patients' lives."

Will makes several points about health care in general, but one that applies to my article is that he has expressed that lack of patient prevention and bad hygiene and habits accounts for a lot of health care in the USA. If people just didn't smoke or ate right and exercised, it would make it a lot easier on the current government-funded health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Now imagine if those people had genes that helped them stay skinny or athletically-inclined. What if you could engineer in genes that were from people with almost no risk of heart disease and, perhaps, even blood types (there are studies that show blood types determine effects of diet on your body) so that people could eat unhealthy foods and drinks, but still stay healthy. For a lot of people, you're only doing wrong when you get caught. Being able to enjoy all the causes and have none of the bad effects would be a definite promoting argument of genetic engineering--after all, wouldn't there be less of a need for health care after that?

Articles 3 & 4 are very convincing in getting the point across that Universal Health Coverage would simply be 'getting what we've paid for.' However, the 4th article doesn't talk about full coverage or single-payer health care, but instead addresses it from an economic viewpoint. Americans are paying money and not getting their fair share of it. Of course, in the case of genetic engineering and possible segregation due to 'access,' it seems that Hoven would not consider that a problem. They've got the money so why not let them have the advantage? Money makes money, and everything else. So people who can afford to do it shouldn't be worried about whether or not the working class hero can afford to genetically modify his offspring--it's a personal thing that you can either afford or not. Especially since in the case of designer babies it wouldn't be a necessity, the access issue would exist in the minds of many and also be disregarded as an issue by many others.

Health Care-What the Articles Say and What I Believe

Health Care is essential to all the parts of Life: The Book. Even in Eugenics (the betterment of the human race through genetic technology of the past or present), Health Care has played and plays an important role. For Health Care in general could be defined as everything to do with caring for your health including check-ups, hygiene, surgery, and research & clinical testing. Research has gotten modern medicine where it is today and Eugenics has a lot to do with research and experimentation. Thus, if we end up having universal health care, but the cost impacts genetic R&D, then proponents of eugenics may not support such a system. Moreover, if we have universal health care but embryonic genetic modifications are not covered by it, then access and knowledge would determine what parents used the technology and what parents weren't able to. One argument against eugenics is how limited "access" to such technology could foster discrimination or, for lack of a better term, a "GenRich" class of society that would be inherently superior. However, this problem would be solved if the 'designed baby' was covered under government-funded healthcare.

Of course, like the debate over Eugenics, the war over Health Care is also fought on moral, ethical, economic, political, and social battlegrounds.

Currently, it is generally the Democrats (for Universal Healthcare) versus the Republicans (for Privatization). Of course, in A Good Case For Universal Healthcare, Bryan Young gives poses a provocative position to the conservative Christian Republicans who are fervently against Universal Healthcare:

"I'm sure there are a dozen Christian conservatives reading this now and asking themselves, 'Why should we help with this? Why should we help people who can't afford to take care of themselves?' In the novel Jailbird, Kurt Vonnegut provided me with the perfect answer to these questions and it's very simple: 'Why? The Sermon on the Mount, sir.' " This gives a number of reasons why at least these sort of Republicans should be for health care and not against it.

Not providing people with health care prevents them from getting medical attention, which is why "more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should," as stated in Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege by Senator Bernie Sanders. This alone shows how deeply access can affect members of society. Many proponents of genetic engineering say that access will not be a problem. However, if 18,000 people die because they don't have medical insurance or out of neglect: how many people will not even consider genetically modifying their offspring if and when the technology is available?

In my article, I will touch upon the fact that there might be possible side-effects to genetic engineering, especially when, as far as we know, almost all of our DNA is "junk." Thus, although we may be able to make fluorescent bunnies and the like, in humans changing eye color or behavioral patterns might affect or disturb some other gene (since multiple genes or parts of genes can come together to code for different phenotypes). Moreover, these disturbances might not be evident in the first generation. And people are paying for this... Going back to my previous point about restricted access to genetic technology, already people have restricted access to healthcare even if they can afford it. For people with mental illness "insurers avoid covering those with a diagnosed mental disability because of the chronic nature of the problem, which means treatment is often needed for years, and medications are expensive. This cuts into profit margins" (Health Care as a Human Right by Helen Redmond). What restrictions might be imposed on patients of genetic engineering? Could parents with a chronic illness be able to get health coverage in the first place, which might then cover embryonic genetic modifications?

Of course, the arguments surrounding genetic modifications and eugenics could all go the other way, after which they are very similar to the arguments for and against Universal Healthcare. Perhaps people who can't afford to genetically alter their offspring, even themselves, don't deserve it since they don't have the money. And asking insurance to cover something like genetic modification and improving traits? That's what Jacob Hornberger describes in Health Care Is Not a Right--Universal Health Care would create a situation where "everyone is using government to get into everyone else’s pocketbook to pay for his health care expenses, he is simultaneously doing his best to protect his own income and assets from being plundered by the government to fund everyone else’s health care bills."

Moreover, since genetic modification, like healthcare, is not something we naturally are born with, insurance companies or government agencies shouldn't have to cover it. If you can pay, you can pay; if you can't, well, heck, that's the way it's been for thousands of years. This very convincing point is made in There Ain't No Such Ting As a Free Lumpectomy by Jacob Sullum: "Did Paleolithic hunter-gatherers have a right to the 'affordable, comprehensive and high-quality medical care' that the Congressional Progressive Caucus says is a right of “every person'? If so, who was violating that right?" I don't have an answer for that, except that I don't believe in Paleolithic hunter-gatherers unless you're referring to the descendants of Adam and Eve, but that's another argument for another day.

Nonetheless, just as Eugenics would clearly create defining lines between the genetically modified and the natural children and people, Universal Health Care might really define a 'client class' and 'payer-class,' especially since Universal Health Care would tax people with more income more money (income-based tax-scale). This is argued in Health Care is not a right by Iain Murray and Roger Abbot: "Far from saving money and helping out the little guy, a health care “public option” would further increase costs and reduce individual liberty, while creating a subject client class that has an incentive to lobby for further handouts."

My Opinion

I think that we should have Single-Payer Universal Health Care. It would cost less money in the end. We would provide for everyone. For those who argue that everyone's hands would be in everybody else's pocket books, it's a false argument. Everybody needs doctor's appointments, check-ups, physicals, etc. Also, for those who think that it would be like communism, that's not true, it would be like socialism (although in the minds of many Americans there is no distinction). My answer: that's good. Ultimate Capitalism, the Utopia of Ayn Rand--a society of greed, make it or break it, and, yes, economic survival of the fittest--is what is promoted by opponents of Health Care. This leads to corruption, not competition; not the lowering of prices,  but the raising of them according to a standard agreed upon in the industry. This goes against my beliefs which are in why, the Sermon on the Mount, sir.

The Sermon on the Mount, which contains all the fundamental moral principles of conservative Christianity, was spoken to the poor, the hungry, the meek, and the merciful, who would receive the blessings of God. These principles are not the only ones in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus Christ exhorted the people to reflect God to the world, so that their good deeds stand as examples to mankind--is promoting a 'dog eat dog' society a good deed, something that Jesus would do (Matthew 5: 14-16)? He also tells his followers to love people who don't love or give anything to them (5:43-47) and to give to the needy as charity, not to impress people (6:1-4). Moreover, selfish actions that reflect sentiments like 'I don't want other people to be using my money' and 'if they want to live they can get the money themselves' are directly warned against in the Sermon on the Mount (6:24). Jesus also says the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12- "...So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..."

I think that perhaps one could call health care a supplemental right because it ensures life (helps me live), liberty (can't do anything if I'm not healthy), and the pursuit of happiness (although I was pretty happy in the hospital). Notice that both liberty and the pursuit of happiness are dependent on life, which is dependent on health among other things. Moreover, although instinctively I don't want to 'spread the wealth' especially when it's my wealth we're talking about, I always know that if I was somebody who could not in any possible way afford adequate health insurance, I would support Universal Health Care. In addition, I am opposed to the corruption and usury of all the big medical industries, which charge as much as they can for vital commodities which can determine whether we function right, or live or die.

Blog #15

Using a specific example, describe what makes a compelling character in narrative nonfiction or literary journalism.

There are many things that can make up a compelling character. Among them are attributes like:

• Goals and desires
• Accomplishments/Achievements and even Shortcomings
• Obstacles he/she faces
• What they like/dislike--opinions, views
• All of the above and anything else that can CREATE A CONNECTION with the audience
• Moreover, the character has a DIRECT CONNECTION to the subject of the article and therefore works as a key example, a manifestation, of the topic to the audience

Chrissy Falletti, in the article Open Channels by Jerome Groopman, is a great example of a compelling character. The beginning of the article revolves around the tragic story of Chrissy's experiences with Cystic Fibrosis. When we see the facts and truths of this genetic disorder from the eyes of a girl who has it makes us sympathize and connect with her and others that also have Cystic Fibrosis. We see her parents--a doctor and a nurse--having to raise their daughter with the knowledge that there is nothing they can do to stop this disease. We see the challenges she faces as she tries to breathe through her ever-congested lungs and searches for cures. The audience is compelled by her, as a living, breathing human being, to understand and empathize with those who have Cystic Fibrosis and feel upset at the channels successful trial drugs must go through before they are available to people like Chrissy. She faces an obstacle that effects every part of her life and her goal is to overcome it; although that obstacle is not ours, the audience can realize that Chrissy's may be greater or equal to their own crises in many ways, and everyone wants to overcome that which stands in their way. The frustration she feels when things go against certain success, the desire to feel normal, these are all feelings we feel too. A compelling character serves as the conduit through which the audience can understand the subject or topic of an article and be truly affected by mere words on a piece of paper--because they are more than boring nonfiction: these words tell the story of a person like you or me, and sooner or later we come to the point where we say, "Man, I gotta do something about this."

Using a specific example, describe what makes an interesting plot in narrative nonfiction or literary journalism.

An interesting plot answers, through a storyline or order of some sort, the basic questions about a subject or topic: Who?, What?, When?, Where?, Why? Darwin's Surprise is a good example of an interesting plot because it answers all the vital questions in an orderly fashion while presenting both sides of the issue. This is done by answering, thorugh the course of the article, 2 main research questions: What are the ethical/social/political/scientifif implications of brings retroviruses back to life? and Are the risks worth the benefits? However, this is narrative nonfiction or literary journalism--without a story or character study the process of answering these questions is pretty boring. But in Darwin's Surprise we follow Thierry Hiedman and his colleagues who have brought these viruses back to life and their goals for curing current viruses like HIV/AIDS through this new technology. We can follow Howard Temin and David Baltimore and see how their studies reveal that, perhaps, without retroviruses there would be no live birth and no mammals and no great human evolution into the world we have today. Finally, after controversy over these variouis scientific studies and arguments, the audience is brought to the conclusion that this technology is as vital as the survival of a continent--and when Africa falls to AIDS, what part of the world will be defeated by microbes next?

What specific steps do authors take to write non-jargon-based scientific writing?

Authors take several steps to write non-jargon-based scientific writing. Most of the time, authors take a complicated scientific subject and break it down into steps and simple terms that people understand--i.e. genetic mutations are described as " 'mispellings' in an individual's DNA," which, if identified, ""would allow science to identify an individual's disease risks well in advance of onset..."--mutations are just described as spelling errors, which pretty much sums up their basic definition. Also, analogies are sometimes used in order to compare a complicated subject to a much similar topic that everyone can relate to, making them transitively understand the scientific concept.

What specific steps do authors take to encourage their readers to connect with their stories?

Different readers connect to different things in stories, and most everyone is a different reader. Therefore, writers put many different elements into their stories through their characters, settings, and conflicts. For example, Francis Collins in The Covenant is a character who goes through many moral and mental changes, who faces challenges even as Director of the National Institutes of Health. He was essentially a farmboy raised in an agnostic family with little formal schooling. By the time he was studying for his Master's at Yale, he was an atheist. But afterwards, he became a fervent Christian. This and other issues can connect the reader to Collins and the article as a whole.

A Basic History of the American Government's Role and Involvement in the Shaping of Health Care in the United States of America [Short Edit]

In pre-20th century USA, for most Americans health care meant being looked after and tended to by family members or townspeople when one was ill or injured. The thought of paying a large sum of money so that you could visit a hospital would have been a foreign concept to most of America, which was rural at the time. However, there was the small-town doctor who could tend to colds and fractures, yet his fees were inexpensive (a little more than any other worker's) and his medical knowledge (in comparison to modern health) was relatively basic. In 1913, the American Medical Association (AMA) stated that only 10% of America's physicians were making a comfortable living. But times were changing.

With technological advances in the areas of transportation, communication, and medicine, there were more effective hospitals and doctors. They could now treat and cure more people; in some cases, these services were free, but in others meant lots of fees. There were different health plans in which a person could pay either a physician, hospital, or organization for his/her healthcare, but most were costly. However, some employers offered health insurance as part of the job, and the premiums weren't a lot of money at all. In Europe, healthcare 'reform' was one of the main issues. Specifically, in 1883 Germany, there was Compulsory Sickness Insurance, a precursor to national healthcare (socialized medicine). However, as healthcare and health insurance became increasing profitiable in the NineTeens, "critics said that it was 'made in Germany' and likely to result in the 'Prussianization of America' (Lepore, The New Yorker, 2009)." Obviously, the American government didn't even consider healthcare reform as the war with Germany continued. After the war was over, the cost of doctors and hospitals had not gone down, and neither had the anti-German sentiments that had helped silence the voices of healthcare reform 3 years previous. The Western world was trying to stabilize and return to normalcy; this, in addition the Red Scare of the Bolshievik revolution, meant no social reform of any kind was tolerated. As a result, the U.S. government did not regard it as an issue either until the Great Depression.

As America got deeper into the Depression, less and less people were able to pay the hospital and doctor's fees illness required, so less people even went to hospitals for treatment. Once again, some sort of national health coverage was considered in U.S. government. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to include national healthcare as part of the Social Security Act, which was part of thew New Deal.  However, pressure from the AMA and private insurance interests dissuaded Roosevelt from including the reform in his already controversial bill. Nonetheless, later on in 1938, Roosevelt's Administration sponsored the National Health Conference in order to address the problem of  a large number of uninsured Americans--who would care for them and their needs? However, heavy publicity against National involvement in healthcare swayed public and political opinions against reform to the point that in 1939, the Wagner Health Bill, which included Federally-funded healthcare, was easily defeated in Congress. Moreover, that same year Germany invaded Poland and the Second World War began in Europe, shifting the earth's focus from the welfare of some Americans to the welfare of the whole of earth.

 After WWII ended and America quickly surpassed its pre-war status, President Harry Truman tried to increase federal involvement in healthcare. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" was the other Truman Doctrine. Despite this, his efforts only succeeded in preventing the passing of bills that would give the AMA and private insurance companies even more control over who got insurance and received treatment and who didn't. Truman based his actions on the belief that the lage profits physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies amassed were, essentially, ill-gotten gains taken from sick and ailing patients that had no other choice but to pay.

In 1960, the Kerr-Mills Bill gave Federal funding to States to aid the "medically indigent" (eldery) who were part of government health programs. However, many saw this bill only as a compromise between national healthcare and special interests. President John F. Kennedy, after his election, unsuccesfully attempted to convince Congress to consider Federal-funded healthcare. Nevertheless, Kennedy's fight against segragation and discrimination led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by acting President Lyndon B. Johnson after JFK's assasination. It was the beginning of the end of segregation and places like hospitals now had to extend federal funded programs and charity to colored peoples. This paved the way for the Social Security Act of 1965--another law that reflected Kennedy's desires and goals. This Act included 2 key government programs that help millions of Americans with healthcare and have come to be dubbed Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare primarily covers Americans 65+ years old and Americans younger than 65 who are disabled. It is fully funded by the Federal government. In contrast, Medicaid is a program that States can voluntarily enter into, where they can provide up to half of the funds for the need-based programs they administer. Eligibilty is mainly based on income and financial resources, making Medicaid a welfare service.

After the Medicare and Medicaid of the 60s, President Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance and presented the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act, which would have required employers to get health insurance for their employees and created a Federal Health Plan that any American could join and pay into based on their income. It was never passed; however, the HMO Act of 1973 was passed to regulate and promote managed care. During the 1980s, a bill was passed to make sure that healthcare plans could extend after retirement.

In 1993, the Clinton health care plan was unsuccessful and only served to create disunity among democrats (who created their own different reform plans) and unity among its opponents. Dissenters of this health care plan dubbed it "HillaryCare."

The Patients' Bill of Rights (which is rather self-explanatory) was proposed in 2001. The initiative was strongly opposed by the AMA and major Pharmaceuticals and was not passed in 2002.

In 2003, the United States National Health Insurance Act was proposed but initially had small support and was therefore not a big issue. However, that same year, President George W. Bush passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which, among other things, gave people on Medicare prescription drug benefits.  In 2007, interest in the US National Health Insurance Act was renewed and in 2009 the bill was renamed the United States National Health Care Act and reintroduced to the legislative bodies. Although the bill is at the forefront of healthcare reform, focus is primarily on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unlike HillaryCare and the health plans proposed by Roosevelt (either Teddy or Franklin, I'm not sure), Truman, and Nixon, the health plans that have been considered in Congress in the past 2 years only provide a subsidy, and don't address mandatory national healthcare. After a long process of politics as usual--Legislative debates, vote-counting, filibuster threatening, bill amending, compromising, and name-changing--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate and, eventually, the House of Representatives, after which it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.  7 days later, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 into to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. On March 23, a lawsuit filed by 13 states challenged the bill. Alas, among their reasons cited was a violation of States' Rights...anti-federalism, non?

The best conclusion to give at this point in history is: the debate over the issue of healthcare (or pretty much any issue) continues.

For more info., check out these resources:

http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec20171/index.htm

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/339640/a_brief_history_of_health_care_in_america.html?singlepage=true&cat=5

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

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

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php

and, of course,

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/12/07/091207taco_talk_lepore