The New York Times and its effects of Online Newspapers

Since the beginning of the year, New York Times articles have been the staple for our blogs. This form of information supply has been overlooked by the general public because it does not present the news in an entertaining way. There is no doubt that the articles supply a wealth of information to the general public with separate opinions, but young people do not have the attention span to read each one. Blogging on the other hand is much more useful, considering that it allows intelligent and mindless information to be presented. Magazines are probably considered the least informative when the categories are usually concerning celebrities and are a distracting pseudo-reality. Taking all of these forms into consideration, the newspapers are the most informative but the least entertaining, while magazines are the opposite. My opinion is that blogging is where enjoyment and intelligence meet and where they can be both appreciated.

Television's Impact on the Public Opinion

Although a wealth of useful information, television has become a higher form of entertainment than an intellectual source. Between the reality and contestant shows, there aren't many ways that the general public can digest political information. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do provide current event analysis for young people, although analyzed as extreme leftist and manipulated by the Fox news answer on the O'reilly Factor. If true, O'reilly's presented some scary facts about the young population concerning their knowledge base, but they tried to correlate this with the liberal media impact, which I could not buy. Whether left or right, it is evident that television can be a tool for information or for blind entertainment. On Wednesday's episode of The Daily Show, Stewart discusses how the Royal Wedding has out-shined real news and the effects of the birth certificate release by Obama.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg stole classified information concerning Vietnam, known as the "The Pentagon Papers". He gave them to The New York Times to publish, but the government stopped the printing of the papers and the case was sent to the Supreme Court, under the challenge of the First Amendment right to free speech and press. The government's point was that it could endanger national security. The court issued per curiam, meaning the court gave the verdict as a whole, with separate opinions written (6 concurred, 3 dissented). The per curiam stated that the government had not not carried a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity". Several justices agreed in their opinions that the press should not be tampered with and that by releasing these papers, that they could not directly cause any imminent danger or harm. Opposing views by other justices provided a good point that the papers could cause increase danger on the battlefield and that there is a question about the limits of the separation of powers. My opinion is leaning more toward a freedom of the press, unless it can be proven with enough evidence that the released information will cause harm to Americans.



The story of Daniel Ellsberg was made into the movie called "The Most Dangerous Man In The World". This provides several opinions and a glimpse of the societal pressures concerning free press and national security

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow

A man named Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the New york Criminal Anarchy Act. Criminal anarchy is defined as "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force of violence, or by assassination of the executive head or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means". His publishings of overthrowing the government, based on the Communist Manifesto, violated this act according to the state of New York. The case was sent to the Supreme Court because First Amendment rights of free speech and press were called into question. The Court ruled 7 to 2 that Gitlow should stay convicted because his work had the potential to create "a clear and present danger...that Congress has a right to prevent". Justice Holmes argued against this, saying that citizens should be given the right to state their opinion, an idea was not being forced upon others, and the minority that accepted the belief was too minor to be taken seriously. My decision in this case would be more split down the middle than the Court had decided. I feel that individuals have the ability to accept an idea and are not so easily persuaded, and if the "clear and present danger" rule applies to society now, that some members of the Tea Party should be reprimanded for causing social damage. I believe that this is more circumstantial than anything, because if a hostile and violent takeover was imminent, then the convictions should stand.
The link provided is an expansion of the views of the Court and the dissenting opinion

Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas (1954)

The Brown case helped decide multiple cases that focused around the subject of African-American children not being able to attend segregated, white schools. The case of Sweatt v. Painter (1950) was different from Brown because it involved a singular Texas Law School, that had no alternatives for blacks. Each previous attempt was to overthrow the Plessy v. Ferguson  ruling of "separate, but equal". In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the plaintiffs are deprived of their rights, given by the Fourteenth Amendment and that segregation in education is unconstitutional. This decision I completely agree with and there is no reason why Plessy's ruling should carry forward in society. Viewing the facts, Brown is a prime example of the Constitution's ability to adapt.



PBS does a great job of highlighting the key characters and the importance of societal viewpoints in the 1950's.

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Gideon. 

A man named Clarence Gideon was arrested for attempted burglary of a pool hall. Free counsel was only afforded to capital crimes so he represented himself. He was found guilty, but he wrote a petition from from jail, saying that the verdict violated his right to a fair trial, based on the fact that he did not have the funding (forma pauperis). It was a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court that anyone convicted of a crime should be afforded a lawyer. Although I think that Gideon deserved his time, it is obvious that counsel is needed in every case, based upon a US citizen's rights.




This video is footage of Clarence Gideon's initial court case. I apologize for the quality




The audio from the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The justice sums up the importance of their decision and the background of the preceding case.

Miranda v. Arizona (1996)

Ernesto Miranda

Ernesto Miranda was arrested and questioned for kidnap and rape. He was not made aware of his Fifth Amendment right to an attorney or the right to remain silent. After being interrogated, he signed a written confession and was found guilty. The Constitutional argument was that the Fifth Amendment states that no person can be a witness against themselves. Viewing the case, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, decided that Miranda could not be guilty without a doubt because of interrogation methods. Personally, I feel that the system worked correctly in terms of future cases and helped prevent inhumane interrogation methods, but for this case, Miranda should not have been let free from a moral point of view. The important idea to accept is that the Supreme Court is there to uphold the Constitution for all individuals, despite personal views.




An American government teacher breaks down the history of the Miranda case and goes into detail about the Fifth Amendment. The question he presents is whether or not the results of the case hindered or benefited police enforcement.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Allan Bakke

In 1973, UC Davis had a kind of 'quota' system for minorities or disadvantage students which held a certain GPA and minimum MCAT score. A white applicant named Alan Bakke was refused submission even though his  MCATs were substantially higher, so he sued. The CA Superior Court ruled that the program was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and for his eventual admission, but the Regents of UC Davis took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 vote that the program was unconstitutional because it did not give INDIVIDUALS equal protection under the law. If the quota aspect and racial specificity was done away with, the court would find this constitutional and equally competitive. Having scene the evidence, I feel that this particular case was blown out of proportion, but the outcome was satisfactory for equal opportunity for individuals.
This link allows further information on the effects of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Miller v. California (1973)

Chief Justice Warren Burger

In 1973, Miller wanted to advertise 'adult' books and films, but under California's obscenity law, he was prosecuted and found guilty. Miller appealed that it was his First Amendment right to free speech and press, but the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision in favor of California. Since the previous standards for 'obscene' material were outdated, Chief Justice Burger put into place three statutes. First, the community standards are to be applied. Second, is the sexual material presented in an offensive way. Lastly, the work must have some literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in order to be presented to the general public. My view is that the court ruled correctly for this particular case. The new precedence allows a good balance between federal and state control.
This link describes the entirety of the case with all the technical clauses and facts.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson ended with the result of separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites. Justice Brown felt that the underlying fallacy of segregation laws were that they implied that one race is inferior to the other. Votes tallied at 7 to 1 in favor of separate but equal, placing Justice John Harlan as the hero against the odds. Seeing the decision, I believe that this was a case where the decision was completely backward. There is only so much that can be blamed on societal expectations, so the need for a conservation of Constitutional rights trumps party affiliation or personal agendas.



Gary Orfield discusses Plessy v Ferguson, separate but equal rights, all deliberate speed, and that 'equality' is subjective.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

In the Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that President Nixon must deliver the tapes he had recorded in the oval office as evidence. The constitutional issue was whether or not Nixon had the right, under the duty of President, to deny the court. The ruling was that he could not deny the court and that he must agree to the subpoena. Instead of delivering the tapes, Nixon decided to step down as president. My opinion is that the president is not above the law, especially if he/she is under investigation for something unlawful.An instance where executive privilege might be used would be if the information that would be revealed, would jeopardize the lives of Americans, domestic or foreign.



This is a video of Nixon's speech before his resignation. Ultimately, Nixon's last act was one of rebellion against the court and the political process.

Roe v. Wade breakdown (1973)

The background for the Roe v. Wade entailed the woman by the name Jane Roe, who wanted an abortion because she would not be able to support the child to her best ability. The state of Texas would not allow the abortion, so the case went to the Supreme Court because it was a violation of privacy. Privacy, in this case, entails her personal beliefs, not the state's, and her enumerated rights that are given by the 9th amendmentThe state's argument was that the fetus was protected under the 14th amendment. My personal belief is that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case. Growing up in a Christian home, I would have previously said that there are some religious obligations, but every individual woman's beliefs are not the same. Therefore, there can be no blanket response concerning morals. The Supreme Court ruled in interest of the mother, child, and birthing doctors. It is not only if the baby or mother's life is in jeopardy, but if the environment in which the child is raised is psychologically, economically, or physically unacceptable, than the reasons are substantial.


This video is an extreme example of why women should have the right to choose and how separation of religious views are important. I'm not condoning the sentiments expressed by the father, but I can see where he's coming from.

Community Service Paper

Nathan Ramos

Mr. McAlister

Government

4/13/11

Healthcare:

Reforming the United States’ System and Global Application

Part I:

Since the early 1900’s the United States has aimed for total healthcare reform from privatization. Companies supplying health insurance began in the 1910’s because of employer’s personal interests and physicians securing their practice to be profitable. From opposed politicians, socialism sentiments, or loss of faith in the government by voters, Presidents have met opposition with bills regarding universal healthcare. For example, during the Roosevelt administration, private industry dictated the rules of health insurance.

Employers were still opposed to the idea of universal health care because of the freeze on wages during World War II. The freeze did not apply to health benefits, which therefore allowed employers to recruit new employees with richer health care packages. If the United States had changed over to a universal health care system, employers would have lost this recruiting tool. Physicians, the American Medical Association (AMA), and the emerging health insurance industry were also against a universal system. Roosevelt submitted his Social Security bill in 1935 but was opposed unanimously by all parts of Congress. After seeing the extent of the opposition to universal health care, he decided to cut the health insurance portion from his idea of an old age insurance program. (Farrell)

Having the government not regulate private industry, has been a common theme for future attempts at reforming healthcare. Other significant tries have been attempted in the presidencies of Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, but none had been successful until Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans that he advocated in the beginning of his campaign. While on his journey to the White House, Obama promised to make medical insurance affordable to every American. Reaching this goal would require a great deal of negotiation and compromise. Using a process called budget reconciliation, Democrats stopped the power of the filibuster. This act caused more criticism from conservatives.

Republicans heavily contested that plan, however, arguing that Democrats were using questionable legislative maneuvers to prevent them from mounting a filibuster. Indeed, many critics of the Democrats' plans blasted the use of reconciliation as an undemocratic tactic. Democrats countered that reconciliation had been used many times—often by Republicans—and that there was nothing undemocratic about passing legislation with a 51-vote majority. ("Health Care Reform.")

Although signed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could potentially be revised or eliminated if the opposition pursues a broad or specific repeal. The biggest impediment of the healthcare program is the budget crisis facing America. Since the media is centered around the economy, Americans are less concerned with the healthcare system, and focus on the taxes that they must spend to keep the government afloat. Currently, healthcare seems to be in a deadlock between Republicans and Democrats, forcing United States’ citizens to be left holding the bill.

Part II:

There are several ways in which the current policies at the Capitol are stopping healthcare to take hold. First, the issue of waivers given by the federal government to state governments as a buffer so that their personal economies do not fail. The states first to receive the waiver were Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, giving negative feedback from states who had not received waivers, but Republicans had a different view:

Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the waivers showed that the law, approved by Congress without any Republican votes, was “fundamentally flawed.” Without the waivers, Mr. Upton said, hundreds of thousands of people would have lost insurance or experienced a reduction in benefits. (Pear)

Personally, I feel that this is a form of pacification for Republicans, but at the same time, I feel that Obama is wanting the least amount of unrest as possible so that future deals can be made. The idea that this could show weakness or that he will knuckle under whenever threatened, could possibly present a problem for future endeavors concerning healthcare. Even more daunting is the debt that is hanging overhead. Americans have reached an all-time high for skipping on health insurance, evident by this survey on Health Days News:

In the United States, 33 percent of adults went without recommended care or drugs because of the expense, compared with 5 percent in the Netherlands and 6 percent in the United Kingdom, according to the report.In addition, 20 percent of U.S. adults had problems paying medical bills, compared with 9 percent in France, 2 percent in the United Kingdom, 3 percent in Germany and 4 percent in the Netherlands. (Reinberg)

Falling behind European countries with universal healthcare is a wake up call for the United States. The key for Washington is finding the right mixture of healthy spending and relatively good care, but the problem is that Americans want all of the benefits without seeing any consequences. Having seen the numbers, the state of Michigan knows full well that our current system cannot continue much longer. Employers may stop supplying enough coverage for retirement in order to save the state’s economy. Omaha officials put reality into perspective for those that are unaware:

Richard O’Gara, Omaha’s director of human resources, put the numbers in perspective. “We’re going to reach a point where in five years, retiree health care will cost us more than employee health care,” he said, adding that was partly because the city was shrinking its work force and partly because retirees used far more medical services than active workers. (Greenhouse)

This is more evidence that the system is broken, so the only answer leaves a government-funded option for citizens. The fact of the matter is that the ‘baby boomer’ generation has not fulfilled their debt to the economy and by retiring at the current age requirement, they will leave an even bigger mess than predicted.
One aspect that cannot be ignored is the procedures by which healthcare companies will fight for their current stake in the United States’ economy. Acquiring certain people in power and manipulating certain aspect of the law, most health maintenance organizations, or HMOs, are determined to make sure that universal healthcare either does not go through or is crippled. A big contributor to healthcare companies is their lobbyist faction. Gaining supporters through campaign funding and maintaining a steady pay rate based on positive results, is one surefire way to keep the blood going and money flowing. One example of the medical companies’ payment methods is Republican Phil Roe, who received campaign funding, as well as payment during the signing of Obama’s healthcare bill. Surprisingly, Republicans are not the only recipients of big company money, according to R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post:

The study, conducted for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, also shows that Republicans have been heavily favored in this period. While Democrats got just more than half of the industries' money before the bill was approved in spite of uniform Republican opposition, the Republican attracted 60 percent after the votes were counted. The Republican total for that period was $25.7 million, while the Democrats was $17 million. (Smith)

This finding was very surprising to me, considering the general rule of thumb is that Republicans are the minions of industry. Having seen the data, there is a clear distinction on the favorites, but due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, It is the HMOs best interest to play both sides of the field. If there is a problem that looks like there is no solution that appeases everyone, then Americans should look at the voting numbers. According to the recent polls, the older generations dominate in percentages. David Leonhardt from The New York Times explains:

The reason is not enough young people vote. The reason is partly political. Older people vote in larger numbers than younger adults. Children, of course, can’t vote at all. But beyond politics, Washington’s age bias depends on a basic misunderstanding of the budget — namely, that older people have already paid for their Medicare benefits. (Leonhardt)

In short, if young Americans want to make change instead of shifting the blame to the ‘baby boomers’, individuals must influence peers to vote. Having all contributed to the debt in some way or another, it is essential that each person take responsibility, instead of washing their hands about the matter. Healthcare can be a tool for unity and general prosperity, but the difficulty lies in executing decisions correctly to reach this destination.
Part III:
In my perspective, the way to resolve the healthcare issue is to remove or minimize big business’ role in the healthcare equation. Both political parties provide valid points to the table, although possibly the incorrect tactics. Republicans agree that spending should be cut, and I agree, but not to the execution of healthcare or social security. What does not work is cutting taxes at the current time, because without sacrifice as a nation, the nation will bury itself further in debt. As for the Democrats, the spending is reaching a critical point, but they see the objective that needs to be accomplished and are faithful in getting as much through as possible. Being split between what should and shouldn’t be done, maybe certain accomplishments should be considered in order to arrive at a decision. Like education, fire fighting service, and police service, government-run healthcare has the potential to be successful and effective. Universal coverage provides a greater safety net for the United States’ national debt and the American people as a whole. Seeing the world as a community, outreach programs like Medshare, allow people to expand their impact on a global scale. After working several days, I learned so much about the needs of third world countries and how easily we take things for granted. Doctors in developing countries go without or reuse gloves, tools, and gauze for operations when there is not enough. The increase in birthrate and worsening conditions force an overflow of patients and an exponential growth in the necessity for supplies. What my volunteer organization does is take extra packages from hospitals that are still sterile and organizes them into care packages to be sent to aid centers that request specific items. My specific job was to unload the trash bags that were full of hospital supplies so they can be counted and weighed. The stereotype that Americans under utilize and waste, in this case, is completely true. If hospitals sought to cut down on the surplus of supplies, money could be redirected to other national necessities. Thankfully, medshare provides goods specifically to a country with which we had a personal experience, the nation of Tonga. Meeting the princess of Tonga put into perspective who exactly we are helping. Her gratefulness was beyond what we had expected and it made the service feel like giving a gift, rather than carrying out a burden. The shipments are not just numbers, but they are tools that have the potential to better the life of another human being who was not as fortunate as those living here in the United States.

The most important thing that I have learned is that when people work and give out of the charity of their heart to their fellow man, without regard to what race, religion, gender, age, or political party, the outcome is far more beneficial and selfless. Without ulterior motives, politicians and voters have the ability to give aid to those who would otherwise suffer. After seeing all the statistics, it is surprising that even though the U.S. has so many charity programs helping foreign countries, it cannot give its people the complete coverage and security that the American dream has to offer. Americans should take responsibility for what has unfolded, because each vote that put respective powers into place, have not been blindly chosen. In the past, voters have chosen to deny universal healthcare from reaching the surface, but now that the law has been created, the nation can completely turn around what has been in practice for more than a century. Serving the community has greatly benefited my high school experience and learning about healthcare policies and government involvement has made me adept to the circumstances that can be molded for a better future, not only for the United States, but the world community.

Obama's Future Plan for Healthcare

After seeing the Republican's plan for spending policy, the ball is now in Obama's court. The question is whether or not his pride and joy called healthcare will suffer in order to appease certain senators or voters. He has so far fulfilled his promise, but maybe not at the speed that everyone would like, which is easy to criticize when one is not in the driver seat. Jackie Calmes explains the president's intention:

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare andMedicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes toSocial Security.

 This strategy will obviously anger any wealthy republicans that are funded by rich taxpayers as well as super liberals who don't want Social Security to even be a question. As for the Republicans, their numbers for how much their plan would actually save, might have been miscalculated.

Mr. Ryan said it would cut $6 trillion in the coming decade, though budget analysts questioned some of the claimed savings. The plan would turn Medicare into a voucher program for future generations and slash spending for the need-based Medicaid program and other domestic initiatives, while largely sparing the Pentagon and cutting $4 trillion more in corporate and high-income taxes.

 If used correctly, Obama can spin their plan against them, making his standing better in the upcoming election. This result will bode well for healthcare and can potentially give back some of the cuts for the future.

Generations Determines Your Side in Healthcare

Being a young American, I thought that healthcare was reserved for the older generation because my generation is healthy, strong, and has less need for these services. The problem with this mindset is that it is not future oriented. What certain Republican representatives, like Paul Ryan (center of the photo), want is to give people over the age of 55 a free pass on healthcare costs and for everyone else, our generation, the incredible load to carry. It is normal for people to cover their own ends before everyone else, but why should the majority of Americans suffer?

The reason is not enough young people vote. The reason is partly political. Older people vote in larger numbers than younger adults. Children, of course, can’t vote at all. But beyond politics, Washington’s age bias depends on a basic misunderstanding of the budget — namely, that older people have already paid for their Medicare benefits.

This idea is completely false, because the government is currently set up as giving twice as much coverage for each dollar in tax. Now if all people were to convert over to tightening the belt, I'm sure that most Americans wouldn't mind, but the reality is that the US is ruled by our parents' generation. Instead of pulling the people through now, the idea is to become an even greater burden that will cripple an already broken system. Resources will be funneled from education, sciences, and infrastructure, simply because healthcare for the select few is worth more than the rest.

Republicans on Thin Ice Because of Healthcare Choices

It seems that the budget compromise has given the Republican party a 'Catch 22' situation. Because of the national debt limit, businesses who donated before will now be apprehensive. Since the Republicans voted for Medicare and Medicaid cuts, the older citizens will now swing toward the democrats. Since the party could possibly be all scapegoated, each individual must tread lightly when speaking, as to secure their own standing with the voters.

“They’re right to be nervous about it,” saidJames A. Stimson, a University of North Carolina political scientist and a co-author of the recent book “Mandate Politics.” By his measure, the resistance of Democrats who still control the White House and Senate means Republicans cannot claim a mandate any more than Mr. Obama could upon taking office in 2009.

 The problems with making promises verbally and in writing, is that it is documented and will be remembered by supporters. Any falter will result in a loss of faith and loyalty. Although obviously flawed, The American people indulge in the fantasy that they can have all of the benefits without any consequences. Receiving pressure from investors and everyday voters, it is clear that healthcare was an animal for which they did not fully prepare.

Healthcare Suffers from Shotgun Compromises

House Speaker John Boehner (r.), President Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (l.) brokered a tentative budget deal that avoids a government shutdown

On tangent to the healthcare crisis, the budget crisis seems even higher in intensity, due to the fact that the government will shut down without a consensus. Between President Obama with the Democrats and Boehner with the Republicans, previous negotiation had been halted over which programs to cut, reduce, or increase. By waiting for Obama to bend first, the Republicans saw opportunity to achieve their own goals, unfortunately they received what they wanted for the price of some department aid funds.

The budget agreement also takes aim at two provisions of the new health care law. It would cut more than $2 billion set aside for the creation of private nonprofit health insurance cooperatives.

It was back and forth between whether this was the correct move or not, but Democrat Ron Wyden voiced his concern about the process.

“Publicly,” Mr. Wyden said, “both parties say they are champions of choice and competition and making health insurance more affordable for everyone. But then behind closed doors they kill a program that does exactly that. This seems like a victory for special interests.”

Viewing the evidence, it seems that it is not the cause that must be just in order to succeed, but whose hand you must shake so that you gain permission. Whether or not this will backlash on a certain party is not yet known, but the current system is flawed. Although receiving several cuts, healthcare is looking to prosper, but what is not known is if it will impact the American people the way it was intended

Healthcare Lobbyists Increase Payments to Protect Interests

Republican Phil Roe holding a copy of the healthcare bill

Lobbying has been a common practice in US government, simply because candidates need funding and companies need laws in their favor. The business of health care is no different. HMO's thrive on premiums and payment plans that would otherwise be cut or downsized by the new healthcare bill that was passed by Obama. A current example of a candidate funded by medical professionals would be Republican Phil Roe from Tennessee. It would be naive to say that only Republicans receive funding from healthcare lobbyists, when the numbers suggest that the companies play both sides to achieve the same goal.

The study, conducted for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, also shows that Republicans have been heavily favored in this period. While Democrats got just more than half of the industries' money before the bill was approved in spite of uniform Republican opposition, the Republican attracted 60 percent after the votes were counted. The Republican total for that period was $25.7 million, while the Democrats was $17 million.

 The tracking of the payments also suggest that candidates are not only funded during their campaign, but are paid according to the outcome of a certain bills. For example, after Obamacare was passed, Speaker of the House John Boehner accumulated less money than Eric Cantor because he did not use his position of power for the desired outcome. Despite the general sentiment of conspiracy, there is some evidence that there are healthcare providers that would like subtle changes in the bill, but Ron Pollock delivers this hard truth:

Efforts to block universal coverage - either through legislation or the courts - have "really become almost pure partisanpolitics, more than anything else," said Ron Pollock, the executive director of Families USA, a prominent supporter of the law. "The key interest groups are divided within their ranks. In the insurance ranks, some would prefer stability more than a total makeover. "The strategy of choice," Pollock added, "is not so much a frontal attack but going after specific provisions."

 Although the bill may have its flaws, it is evident that the US due for the change. Politicians, down to their core, should be for the will of the people and not to feed their own means. I'm not suggesting that we do away with private industry's role in government, but it is a serious question to ask ourselves. "Who is governing whom?"