Gun Control Saves Lives

I would agree with Cristian Jaramillo's view on stricter gun control. Once a gun has 'hit the streets', there's little to no telling or means to track the intended purpose of use. While background checks may be a deterent, those with no history of violence may feel empowered and use the weapon with wrong intentions. Further more, what happens to those who decide to rid if a weapon? Many times in the reselling of guns, they more than not happen in discreet manners and profit drives poor decisions by previous owners to rid of a gun quickly. The United States holds the number one position in gun violence for developed countries. Further more, music and videos depict gun ownership as power and means to getting what isn't easily obtained through hard honest work. I do agree that guns have their place in hunting and marksmanship. As for the self defense argument, wouldn't getting guns off the streets lower the threat in neighborhoods where residents live in fear. This fear may also be so overwhelming and providing a gun to someone living in constant fear very likely will lead to accidental shootings. Again, taking guns off the streets rids us of this fear and possibility of guns falling into the wrong hands. Also, there is the millions of tax payer dollars spent on fighting gun crime and caring for those lives we attempt to save from gun violence. A majority of gun violence happens in poorer economic areas where many don't have health insurance but yet we must care for them and the hardworking pick up the tab. This is why I also think gun control even outweighs the need for health care reform.

Opt-Out Proposal Undermines a Strong Public Option

Debate started Monday in the Senate over the different proposed Health Care Reform bills and already there is much debate between the bill passed in House and what the Senate is proposing. The New York Times helped simplify this by providing readers an interactive plan comparison. In my opinion, the Senate plan is the better of the two in how it addresses paying for such a plan and the excise tax on so called Cadillac plans which are deemed premium plans that really add little additional value. However, the Senate plan does propose an 'opt-out' option for states that does concern me given this seems to me to be more of a political move in reducing political opposition that eventually could lead to quicker resolution and passing of bill. However, as I think more about such a proposal, doesn't it undermine a need for a strong public option?
These are essentially equivalent, but requiring legislative action to opt-in would probably
decrease the likelihood of state participation relative to the opting-out. My concern with such a proposal is that if a state legislation did move forward with opting out, depending on the state, those with larger poor population and sick could overall have a negative affect. Living in what is clearly a Replublican lead state and having a sizeable portion of the population along with number of low income residents, really concerns me. Even if neighboring states would create a regional co-op to negotiate lower rates, it would be safe to say that in the South and West, there is the make up of a majority of low income families and could be at a disadvantage when negotiating with providers. I vote against such an 'opt-out' proposal and that every individual has a right to a national public plan and not to provide states legislation's such an option.

Illegal Immigration Reform

Manuela Olivares shares her opinion on immigration and treatment of illegal immigrants in her latest opinion blog "Illegal Alien". I'm also Hispanic and my mother was an immigrant from Mexico but she followed U.S. laws and has had plenty success in becoming an abiding U.S. citizen and therefore I do not agree fully with Manuela's view on illegal immigrants mistreatment. Immigration reform is a must and I believe that amnesty for the existing illegal immigrants today is very plausible but it's no free ride. There will need to be a process that illegal immigrants must follow to earn their way as law abiding U.S. citizens. In turn, the U.S. government would need to have stricter policies regarding business practices and crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers. This also would be in the best interest of Hispanics through advancements in the workplace, both treatment and earning at least the minimum wages set by law. Just today, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also says the U.S. is meeting requirements set in 2007 for passing immigration reform. The number of people caught illegally entering the country dropped by 23 percent in the past year, the Wall Street Journal reported this week, citing rising U.S. unemployment and tighter security as main factors for the drop in border arrests. The time is now for reform on immigration given if the economy rebounds soon, illegal immigration may soon pick up again to levels prior to 2007. Rather than deport illegal immigrants back to Mexico, Obama already supports the idea of offering citizenship to illegal immigrants in good standing. This along with continued strengthening of our border, will send immigrants a message that legal entry into the U.S. is obtainable but there is a process to be followed and in return, protection and the opportunity for a better life.

Avoiding Another Vietnam

In a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released October 19th, fifty-two percent of people say that the eight year long conflict in Afghanistan has turned into a situation like the U.S. faced in the Vietnam War, with 46 percent disagreeing. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted that prior Friday through Sunday, with 1,038 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A slight majority, 59 percent of people questioned in the poll, also oppose sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. There are some similarities to make with American resentment to that of the Vietnam War but there are also some dissimilarities that make this a war that can have a sustainable positive outcome. I'm not saying we can thwart off terrorism all together but we can feel much safer for many years to come if we stay course in our fight against terrorism and it starts with finishing the mission in Afghanistan.

What is different is that the public can make the distinct relationship between Afghanistan and the war against terrorism which began with the 9/11 attacks in 2001. According to the survey, around two-thirds also feel that its unlikely that without American assistance, the Afghan government will be able to keep order in their country or prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a operation base for planning future attacks. With Afghanistan elections in chaos and no strong government, there's likely no solution without outside intervention.

I feel that we can prevent another Vietnam by expediting the fight against terrorist in Afghan and surrounding areas. Obama is hesistant to send the recommended 40,000 additional troops that the top U.S. commander states is a must to succeed. Not acting quickly will only assist with the terrorist regrouping and planning another attack such as 9/11. Our vested interest is obvious, protecting U.S. citizens here in America and abroad. In any war there will be casualties and while it's disheartning to hear about the rise in casualties among U.S. soldiers, to have a massive threat among civilians is even a greater risk.

Insurance Death Spiral

A blog posted by James C. Capretta of the National Review Online addresses what he views as a crucial flaw in the plan sponsored by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. He claims the health-care plan approved this week by the Senate Finance Committee would lead to an insurance death spiral. He defines this as occurring when regulators force insurers to offer coverage at premiums below the known risk of those they are insuring, without insurance that the shortfall can be made up elsewhere. I feel that his audience here are other Republicans as well as those not well informed on the financial impact on individuals but more so on the private health care market.

Mr. Capretta does provide full disclosure that he does consulting work for private health insurance and one may argue that he has vested interest in posting such a blog that may be partial in that his clients are the health insurers but he provides what I feel are irrefutable third party findings that support his view. In a Price Waterhouse Coopers study, it points to four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law:
1.) Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement
2.) A new tax on high-cost health care plans
3.) Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare
4.) New taxes on several health care sectors

The study provides analysis that supports the key finding that overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform. Looking out 10years, on average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.

He urges that instead of focusing on 'universal coverage' and addressing how their plan would not have the same fate of some failed state reforms by forcing young and healthy to purchase insurance, he would like to see Democrats working alongside Republicans on a sensible plan to introduce reforms that would inject more market discipline into the health sector, thus making coverage more affordable for everybody. By passing the Baucus bill, he feels that Congress will be dealing with new issues and could be bailing out the private insurers in a couple of years.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Capretta's view and with the findings of the Price Waterhouse Coopers study, I shouldn't be forced to pay tax penalty if I can't afford the more expensive plan. He has my attention and I feel these findings and his comments should be heard by all.

In a recent opinion article found in the Wall Street Journal, the columnist points to federal minimum wage increases as the main reason behind low teen employment. After reading the article and the studies he references such as the Stanford study, I would agree that the impact of minimum wages can have even longer term affects on young job seekers. Yes, economy has been hit hard but there is a bigger disparity between the whole unemployment number and the unemployment number of America's teens. It's also pointed out that the number is as high as 50% for black teens. It begs the question, would teens be less likely to engage in wrongful acts if they could work during high school years. Chicago inner city has been spread accross the news with horryfing details of fellow classmates killing one and youth gang violence. Could this violence be derailed some if inner youth were incented by job creation. The columnist suggest that Congress look at creating a teenage wage of $4 or $5 hour to help put thousands of teens back to work. I also agree, without any change, this trend will continue and could have a much more negative impact that affects communities all over America. Also, as a father of a 13 year old teen, I'm dealing with him finding interest in activities that may lead to a hard lesson and this notion of little job opportunity is one less option to keep him focused on positive lessons as having a job and starting an investment in his future. States should also be given more ownership of setting minimum wages in urban cities where youth crime is a major problem and community programs do little to deter this crime. It's time to take action and protect the interest of our future workforce.

Employees to Bear the Brunt of Health Reform?

I read a recent survey of 430 human resource executives and found that one of my biggest gripes about the proposed healthcare reform may become to reality. Eighty-seven percent of employers said they were very likely to cut healthcare benefits if higher cost were a result of new healthcare reform. In today's economic times, profits have come down to single digits for many of the largest and desired employers. I have given 7 years of my dedication to the company and to know with a new healthcare reform, I can walk in one morning and be paying hundreds more for the same plan. How about those with many childern? Thirty-seven percent of employers would provide company-sponsored coverage that substantially exceeds the standard. But 29 percent said they would end company-sponsored health coverage and pay the assessment if the per-employee costs to the government were much lower than current costs. It's all about profits and to know that due to government allowing basic coverage to each individual for less may lead executives of corporations to rethink the level of healthcare they provide their employees. I see employees as the biggest assest to a corporation and hope that regardless of reform, corporations have the best interest of their workforce even at a 1-2pct profit cost.