I love debating politics. I will willingly get into political discussions with my friends and enjoy the back and forth. But for every person that has willingly engaged in political debates with me, there have been at least two with whom this subject is off limits. The justification ranges from “You can’t change my opinion, so there’s no point,” to “Politics is just two sides arguing, and nothing ever gets done, so there’s no point.” Hopefully, after 23 posts, you can now see the flaws in these two arguments. If not, here is one last attempt to show you that politics does matter.

It generally starts with an idea, such as universal health care. Maybe this idea has been around for a while, maybe it has been successful elsewhere, maybe it’s something nobody has ever tried before. And as the idea spreads, and as people start discussing it, more potential flaws and benefits are explored. By the time it reaches the politicians, there are enough people talking about the idea that the media start to cover it. And that’s where the idea becomes deformed. Because an idea like universal health care cannot be fully explained in a headline or a 500 word article. Because bills such as the PPACA are over 1,000 pages long.  Because the amount of variables which go into something this big make it difficult for even the experts to understand.

So the media crunches it down to two sides and two corresponding arguments. Democrat and Republican. For and against. Expanded or contracted government. And this is where people who think they understand politics tend to end the debate. It becomes either a matter of “I don’t think the government should be this big period,” or “Well, the Democrats and Republicans have completely the opposite views on this issue so nothing will happen anyways.”

But what these arguments always ignore is that when it comes to politics, debate is most often followed by action. That is the purpose of the government: to govern. To adopt policies for the benefit of the people and turn them into something tangible. This is why politics matters; the debate which occurs day to day in Washington ultimately affects us. By my 27th birthday, I will have to buy health insurance or pay a fee to the government.

With such important consequences, it is imperative that people join in on the debate. Behind every single issue, there are a million factors. Which is why there can never be only two sides to a political debate, and which is why developing a policy that benefits the most people must happen. And the only way we can expect our politicians to make good decisions is if we deliberate amongst ourselves. We need to research the policies because they will affect us and many generations after us, we need to talk among ourselves to explore different viewpoints and perspectives, and we need to communicate with our representatives so they will understand what We, the People truly want.

An idea has the ability to snowball into something that affects 350 million people. And this nation has allowed our politics to be open enough that every person influence how that snowball effect occurs. Don’t stand idly behind the sidelines.

—

MC

When Kim Il Sung brought his country victoriously out of a civil war nearly 60 years ago, the world watched in horror as the Machiavellian dictator took the reigns of a broken nation. Brainwashing the population of the newly established Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he assumed complete control of the nation, its government, and its people.

Since then, nation after nation has closed off its ports to the DPRK, enforcing the tightest sanctions ever seen. And since then, the world has waited for an impossible regime to collapse, for the people to rise up against the oppressive government, for society to understand that this sort of regime is doomed to fail. But when Kim Il Sung died, there was no glorious uprising, and the people of the DPRK welcomed their new leader with open arms. Now, Il Sung’s grandson is in power, and it doesn’t seem like any such uprising will happen. Though they have been starved, oppressed, and even tortured, the people of the DPRK continue to stand behind their new leader.

What will happen with North Korea is mostly speculation. But one thing is perfectly clear: Its survival is dependent on China. The DPRK’s powerful neighbor has been supporting the rebel country since the days of Il Sung, countering the rest of the world’s sanctions to the point where they are irrelevant (“China and North Korea: On the Naughty Step” – The Economist). And the world has been urging China to reign in the unstable country, but no drastic action has been taken by the Chinese government. Unless China enacts sanctions of their own – which seems an unlikely event – the North Korean regime will continue to stay strong. Furthermore, with fewer people left to remember a time before the war, rebellions will become more and more unlikely as generation after generation is born and educated with the same brainwashing techniques. Though most of the western world is shocked and appalled by DPRK public opinion of the United States, these opinions are actually legitimate for the North Korean people.

Since Kim Jong Un took the reigns in 2011, North Korea has been in the news for their recent nuclear activity. And according to The Economist, “Even by its own aggressive standards, North Korea’s actions over the past couple of weeks have been extraordinary” (“Korean Roulette”). Pyongyang has declared a state of war with South Korea, launched several test missiles, and continually threatens to bomb the United States. And while American public response has been largely comical – including a meme and gif campaign on r/funny – many South Koreans are living in a state of fear. I think it is unlikely that North Korea will put any action behind their words; however, if they do, there is no question that U.S. retaliation will be swift and brutal. Our alliance with South Korea compels us to protect the country, and North Korea has been a rogue nation for far too long.

“The federal lending program designed to make college education available to everyone is creating a pile of debt so large it is fanning worries that it has become too easy to borrow too much.”

While doing research for a persuasive essay on lowering the costs of college tuition, I came across the article “Federal Student Lending Swells” from the Wall Street Journal. Its first sentence, quoted above, naturally drew my attention…and my skepticism.

According to the article, the availability of federal student loans to nearly anybody attending a university is causing many people to take on more loans than they are eventually willing to pay, and putting them at risk for aggregate debts they will not be able to pay. The article made it sound like low income households, the ones who need federal loans the most, are most prone to defaulting on their loans. In the article, Jackson Toby, a retired Rutgers University sociologist and adjunct scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, “proposes that students undergo a comprehensive assessment of credit-worthiness, including how much debt they currently have, their academic history and their expected income upon graduation, given their major, before getting federal student loans.” This attitude, while economically sound, worries me, since it goes against the entire purpose of federal student loans: making college more affordable.

Modern “Higher Education” is more loans for the same degree.

What I was most curious about was the effect federal student loans have on tuition. The way I see it, the higher tuition costs become, the more people have to borrow in order to pay for college. And unfortunately, federal student loans are hiking up the cost of tuition. As more federal aid becomes available to lower and middle class students, colleges and universities raise their tuition prices to account for this aid (“In Our Opinion: Student Loans Fuel Rising Tuition Costs”). The same thing goes for federal grants as well, though economists at the Federal Reserve Bank also state there is “strong suggestive evidence” that decreases in state and local funding of public universities are linked to tuition increases, particularly since the recession (“Why College Tuition Keeps Rising”).

We are left with a paradox. The federal government is trying to make college more affordable, but colleges and universities are merely raising their tuition costs in response. The result is more student debt. Naturally, this opinion has drawn some criticism (“Why Student Aid Is NOT Driving Up College Costs”), but thinking about my own college experience, this makes sense. When I received my estimated tuition bills from the colleges I was accepted to last spring, the outlines assumed I would be accepting the loans, estimated which amount I would be able to loan from the government, and calculated my parents’ contribution from what was left. This sort of backwards logic is costing me and my family thousands, but there is nothing we can do about it.

So how can we break the paradox? Though I am usually against this sort of measure, I think the government might want to think about posing restrictions on the universities, perhaps adding a tuition increase cap. This is not at all a bulletproof plan, but something must be done, and if these articles are correct, federal student aid is not the answer.

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” – Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey

One of the toughest parts about choosing which policies to support is avoiding hypocrisy. I always enjoy debating public policy with both conservative and liberal friends, but without fail, this issue always comes up. To me, it’s just a matter of priorities: which issues do I care so strongly about that I am willing to forego my usual reasoning? With that disclaimer in mind, my opinions on this topic will hopefully not seem too askew with those expressed in my previous two posts.

I believe that birth control should be accessible to all women, and the federal government should have the power to enforce this policy. When it comes to contraception, just like with abortion, women should have the option to choose whether to take it or not without any restrictions. However, I believe this should be taken a step further, because in order for birth control to be accessible, it must be affordable as well.

The reasoning behind this is fairly simple. According to The Economist, 42% of women who had abortions in 2008 were poor, over 50% of all unintended pregnancies among unmarried women in their 20s ended in abortion, and unintended pregnancy rates among 20-something women with incomes of less than 200% of the poverty level were more than three times as high than among richer women (“Women, Abortion, and Contraception: Never-Ending Arguments“). As the article rather snarkily puts it:

“There seem to be at least three conclusions. First, unintended pregnancies among young, poor women drive up abortion rates. Second, if you want to lower abortion rates, you should try to prevent unintended pregnancies among young, poor women. Third, if you want to prevent unintended pregnancies among young, poor women, contraception would help. This analysis is so hit-you-over-the-head obvious that it’s embarrassing to spell out (though I welcome any challenges in the comments). Unintended pregnancies, bad. Contraception, good.”

So how do we make birth control available to women? This is where the debate arises. Under the PPACA, contraception must be covered by health insurance, and it is this specific provision that has religious institutions reeling. Since many churches offer forms of health insurance, and many churches are against contraception, they are fighting for exemptions to this rule. In response, President Obama’s new stance on birth control coverage allows religious institutions to shift the cost of coverage to their insurance companies. Some people believe this is too lenient of a stance (“The Freedom to Choose Birth Control” – The New York Times), that religious institutions should not be exempt from the accessibility rule, but I disagree: In this case, I believe this is a very consistent compromise.

However, the issue I am a little uncertain about is whether birth control should be free or not and the stance on emergency birth control. I strongly believe that birth control should be taken only with a prescription, since there are possible dangerous side effects. Nevertheless, emergency birth control – which is essentially over-the-counter – should be available for up to 30 days. As for the cost, given the statistics, I am reluctantly inclined to full insurance coverage, making birth control free for women.

This is a topic that I do not have very strong opinions about, largely because of how complex it is. My previous post pretty much sums up the extent of my knowledge on health care, so I took this week to do some basic research on Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

I was able to find a lot of information on Obama Care Facts, a nonprofit website, about the basic provisions of the bill. Signed on March 23rd, 2010, the PPACA’s main purpose is to extend insurance coverage to as many people as possible  and lower the costs of insurance. The bill’s policy implementation spans out from six months after the bill was signed to 2020, so we have still not felt the full effects of the bill today.

Here is a basic list of some of the provisions:

• Insurers are required to offer the same premiums to all applicants regardless of gender or preexisting medical conditions (excluding tobacco use).
• All individuals not covered by an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare, or other public insurance programs are required to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty (this is commonly known as an “individual mandate”).
• Health insurance exchanges will operate in each state, offering a marketplace for insurance.
• Federal subsidies will be offered to cover the cost of health insurance on a sliding scale based on income.
• Medicaid eligibility will be expanded and the CHIP enrollment process will be made easier.
• Minimum insurance policy standards will be established by the government and annual and lifetime coverage gaps will be banned.
• Firms not offering health insurance but employing at least 50 people will pay a shared responsibility requirement if an employee’s health care is subsidized by the government.

The funding for these programs comes from a series of tax increases on high-income individuals, high insurance premiums, and manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices and branded drugs.

Of course, what interests me most about the PPACA is the wave of protests and criticisms it received during and after its passing. The media has portrayed it largely as a political battle between the parties, and for once, the media is right. With the exception of one abstaining Senator, all Republican representatives from both houses voted against the bill (Senate Roll Call, House Roll Call). Its passing was the direct result of a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate.

Before researching the criticisms themselves, I wanted to use my own intuition to find out why this bill was so controversial. The first thing that stood out to me was the individual mandate. Personally, while I understand the good will behind it (make sure everyone has health insurance), I think the government is crossing the line. Not only does it infringe on our liberties, but it also puts young people at a disadvantage. I know one of the provisions of the act was that children may stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26, but what happens after that? With the amount of schooling people need nowadays, many graduate and professional students will be at a severe disadvantage. I also think it is unfair for people who choose not to buy insurance (i.e., the upper income bracket) to pay a penalty.

Additionally, while I agree that health care should be available to everyone, I do not think that health insurance should. Like I mentioned in my previous post, insurance is a system that is meant largely for emergencies, not coverage of every single little problem. As such, the provision that insurers are required to offer the same premiums to all applicants sounds like a horrible idea. This will only cause insurers to either go out of business, or raise the cost of insurance to levels as ridiculous as health care itself. Though the act allows the government to help lessen the cost for consumers, this system will ultimately end up bankrupting itself.

Source: Forbes Magazine

The taxation meant to cover the costs of these changes also alarmed me. I have never been a fan of the “tax the rich a higher rate” idea. I think they ultimately end up putting a disproportionate weight on the middle class: The poor are generally subsidized by the government, and the rich hire lawyers and accountants to find every loophole possible. As such, I think a flat tax on income and insurance premiums should be implemented instead. Furthermore, raising taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical equipment will only exacerbate the unnaturally high cost of health care. This will then raise the cost of insurance, and the vicious circle continues.

So what do Republicans think about this? Their arguments are a more condensed, less “economic,” version of my concerns: The government is overstepping its boundaries, health insurance should be private, people should get it only if they want it (Republicans Hold Tight to Party Line).

Furthermore, the question over the constitutionality of the individual mandate and Medicaid expansions actually led to a Supreme Court case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. In a tight 5-4 ruling, the justices determined that the individual mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause – which lists the government’s right to tax – but did not approve the Medicaid expansion, placing it under the purview of the states. In response, many  Democrats worry that conservative states will not allow this expansion, putting the poor and old populations of those states at a disadvantage. Personally, I do not agree with this ruling at all; in fact, I see the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and the Medicaid expansion as constitutional.

All in all, my biggest worry about the PPACA is that it will go bankrupt in the same way Social Security is heading, but at an even faster rate. With that many people forced into the health care system, costs will continue to rise for everyone at a rate faster than taxes can cover. Of course, the full effects of this act will not be felt until 10 years from now, and as such, I hope my worries will be proven wrong.