Affordable health care answer

I could not get a computer to do this, so I typed it in my iPhone. But the. It it deleted. But here is a snapshot of it!

Kirsten's Current Event

The main idea of this article is that Stephen Colbert, who is a comedian on Comedy Central, runs a super PAC has taken in over $1 million as of Tuesday according to a disclosure given to the F.E.C (Federal Election Commission.) His super PAC is called ‘Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.’ Colbert said in a statement to the FEC, "Yeah! How you like me now, F.E.C? I'm rolling seven digits deep! I got 99 problems but a non-connected independent-expenditure only committee ain't one!" He has raised almost $200,000 in January alone. Expenditure means the act of spending funds. The term "independent expenditure" means “an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate”. The non connected part means that they can accept money from anybody and they are usually formed by Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress.

Super PACs are independent political committees in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation. Super PACs can't contribute directly to a candidate, but they can run favorable ads about a candidate—or negative ones about their favored candidate's opponent.

• 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called for campaign finance reform.

· 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This Act further defined how a PAC could operate.

· Congress in 1974 set limits on contributions to PACs and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

· 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled PACs may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.

· They helped publicize and demote candidates, depending on their popularity and amount of money.

As a super PAC the organization can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money will be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos.” Colbert's super PAC is doing what other super PACs do: spending unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates, .Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow ran ads in advance to publicize Rick Parry And while Colbert hit the campaign trail in South Carolina, the super PAC ran ads that referred to Mitt Romney as "Mitt the ripper." He uses Parry rather than Perry so Rick Perry gets less votes. To wrap it all up, he is basically using the money from his PAC to make fun of other PACs that are supporting specific candidates.

Question:

Do you agree with Super PACS, in a sense that they should or shouldn't be allowed to fund a specific candidate? Do you agree with people like Colbert, who are using money to put down or make fun of the candidates, rather than promoting one, or do you think it is a waste of money?

Affordable Care Act

• Governor Mitt Romney signed a health plan act in 2006 so legislation provides health insurance for every citizen.
• Romney signed this act into a law.
• It requires everyone to buy health insurance if their work does not provide it.
• People who recieve under three times the federal poverty level ($29,000) a year, can buy a state-subsidized health plan with no deductables and rich benefits, including dental care.
• Currently, Obama wants to change it to the Affordable Care Act.
• This law aims to improve the current health care system by increasin access to health coverage for Americans.
• This law also introduces new protections for people with health insurance.
• Health insurance plans will now cover out-of-pocket costs for many services, such as a mammogram.
• This law also will help small businesses pay for their employees health insurance.
• Not all jobs offer health insurance, or people could have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, such as cancer.
• This law now offers plans for people with these pre-existing conditions, and insurance companies cannot deny coverage to these people.
• This law aims to reduce premium costs for working families and small businesses by providing tax relief.
• This law also pivots the constitutionality of its requirement that all Americans need health insurance.

**Should health insurance be a requirement in the United States or do you think it should be up to the citizen to choose?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/30/if_national_health_law_falls_massachusettss_law_could_face_challenges/?page=2

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/18/mitt-romney-on-romneycare.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5330854

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html

http://www.healthcareandyou.org/what-is/

US Postal Service Crisis

Last Thursday the US Postal Service announce new plans to close 223 mail plants. The move is expected to save over 2.1 billion dollars, but would put over 35,000 jobs at risk. The Postal service is making this a part of their effort to save $20 billion in the next three years, a move that will hopefully keep them afloat and competing with private companies. According to the postal service in the past year they had a net loss of 5.1 billion, which would have been roughly 10.6 billion if not for a legislative act which postponed 5.5 billion in retiree health benefits.

The postal service is in debt due to a decline in the use of their services because of competing private companies such as UPS. The United States Postal Service is required to have across the board prices, which reduces its ability to compete with private companies that can change their prices at will. It also is in debt due to a congressional mandate that they must prefund retirement health care benefits. "Passage of legislation is urgently needed that provides the postal service with the speed and flexibility needed to cut costs that are not under our controll, including employee health care costs," said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

The plant closings are the latest in a series of moves being considered by the Post office. The Postal Service is also considering cancelling Saturday services and hiking the price of stamps to 50 cents. Under the plan nearly every state would lose at least one mail processing plant with California losing 14, New York losing 12 and Illinois faces the loss of 9 plants. A single plant in Tulsa Oklahoma employs 600 people, and is slated to be closed. According to the Postal Service if nothing is done by the government to bail the Post Office out of debt then they will face 18 Billion in losses by 2015.

Question: How do you think the United States government can save the Postal Service? Or do you think they should allow it to dissolve by itself due to competing private companies?

Sorry, I pressed save instead of publish originally...that's why this is so late.

Shell Chief: Energy Prices too Cheap to Change Consumption

On Friday March 23, Peter Voser, President of Shell gas said that “for certain things energy prices need to be expensive….If you look at the world prices today I would say the prices are too high because they reflect geopolitical issues. But I would also say it will not go down too much because it will not otherwise allow industry to develop enough to supply.” The reasoning of this is because gas prices are based on the law of supply and demand, and when you factor international conflict with countries like Iran (most of our oil is from the middle east) the gas prices are going to increase. To see dramatic changes in gas usage, Voser believes the prices need to spike much higher. But to avoid this, he wants America to turn to renewable energy sources. Already, Shell gas company has invested in 80 MegaWatts of Photovalics to solar energy (for those who don’t know, photovalics is when solar radiation is converted into current energy).In addition to these energy inefficiencies comes water inefficiencies. There is a predicted water shortage of 40%, something that will surely raise the costs of water. Furthermore, it doesn't help that 15% of our US water is lost each year through leaky pipes. Shell has also stated it is working on some Carbon Capture and Sequestration projects to limit the amount of CO2 emitted int the atmosphere. (caps carbon emissions). In addition, Voser is also a supporter of California’s cap and Trade carbon emissions policy, which puts a carbon cap on the amount of emissions companies can use. Last week, Shell has signed an agreement to invest in Shale oil along with China. Shale oil is thought to have less carbon emissions than coal and it is expected to lower gas prices since there is an abundance of it in the US. Furthermore, another issue coming to international attention is that our global population is increasing exponentially. As more countries become developed the need for energy is greater. In fact, Voser states, "We estimate that the energy demand will double from now until 2050 - 90% of that will be in non EOCD countries and half of that will be in China. This doubling will only happen if we can solve some of the energy efficiency problems."

Thus overall, our world is in no way sustainable and as we continue to use natural nonrenewable resources, the price of necessities like oil and water will keep increasing unless companies like shell and other large corporations can start investing in energy efficient technology or alternative energy resources.

Do you think that renewable resources are a better alternative to the pollution we are emitting? If so, why do you suppose more companies aren't turning to these alternative resources and what can be done to encourage more companies and developing countries to invest in renewable resources?

http://energy.aol.com/2012/03/23/shell-chief-energy-prices-too-cheap-to-change-consumption/?icid=related3

Obama Defends His Policy on Oil Pipeline

President Barack Obama made a speech in Cushing, Oklahoma about his policies on the oil drilling in America. He made it clear that they were not paying attention to the increased oil production and were misleading about the causes of the rising gas prices. He stated “And anyone who says that just drilling more will bring gas prices down just is not playing it straight.” He then continued to acknowledge that Americans are drilling and producing more on their own but it is still not enough to bring gas prices down overnight.

He also emphasized that even if we drill every little bit of the US there will still not be enough oil to supply the whole country. We would still have to import an enormous amount of oil from the other countries. Also by drilling in the United States it will not make gas prices go down any noticeable amount any time soon, nor will it produce long term supplies for our country. The reason why the gas prices were sky rocketing is because we get our oil from the Middle East and when tensions rise over there the the global market pricing rises all over the world not just for us.

Obama also visited Ohio State University, he said because we are being smarter and doing things better we have reduced the amount of oil we have to have imported. He also said that since he has taken office in 2009 our dependency on oil has gone down every year showing that he indeed is making changes that people are overlooking.

Others such as Rick Santorum are saying that Obama is "against everything that will create economic incentives to drill." Arizona Senator Jon Kyl agrees with everything Obama's doing but does not like how he is lacking taking action and is just keeping his plans in words. Obama followed up his speeches by adding that he is making the oil pipeline a priority and as long as he is president he is going to keep encouraging oil development and infrastructure and he is going to do it in a way that protects the health and safety of his American people.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/politics/obama-energy-tour/index.html?iref=allsearch

Do you think drilling in the US is a good thing or bad thing and will it ever make an impact in reducing gas prices for any time in the future? Also do you think he is just making this an important issue now so he has a better chance of being reelected?

Could Gas Prices Be Raised to 5 Dollars by the Summer

The title of my article is Will Gas Prices Be Obamas Achilles Heel. Some background about the author is that Ford C. O’Connell is a republican strategist who worked on the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008 and is also a chairman of CivicForumPAC which is an organization that promotes conservative activism.

So, the dramatic increase in gas prices could become the issue that slows the economy, could stall the recovery and sink Obamas chances at a second term. O’Connell says that he is shocked that Obama has handled this issue so poorly. Even though Presidents can’t do much to lower gas prices, people must acknowledge that they are doing everything in their power to ease the suffering. 65 percent of Americans tell pollsters that they disapprove of Presidents handling the gas prices.

Nationwide, gas prices have reached 3 dollars and 87 cents, which is the highest price ever recorded in March. Gas prices are even expected to rise more as the summer season approaches.

O’Connell says the popular opinion could tae a strong turn against Obama if the situation is not taken under control by the summer because Americans do not want to be paying 5 dollars for gas by the summer.

Even if Obama did change his policies, it wouldn’t dramatically increase domestic oil supplies in the short run.

Former President George W. Bush confronted a similar topic about gas prices spiking during summer and spring of 2008. He lifted an executive branch moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf region in order to jumpstart production.

Obama is leaning towards dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which might work because it does not actually increase production.

The Republican candidates want to seize the moment and push for an energy policy that would serve the interests of the middle class.

Also, President Obamas Energy Information says we will need almost as much gasoline for transportation in 20 years as we consume today.

Republican hopeful, Newt Gingrich, says we should tap into proven homegrown reserves in High Plains in Alaska. This approach can help drive down oil prices for the short term and create jobs and provide new revenue streams for the government.

In October of 1973, there was an oil crisis in America. Members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. This was in response to the United States decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. This oil crisis lasted until March 1974. With the United States actions initiating the oil embargo and the long term possibility of high oil prices, disrupted supply and recession, a strong rift was created with NATO. To address this development, the Nixon Administration began making negotiations with Arab oil producers to end the oil embargo. The promise of a negotiated settlement between Syria and Israel was sufficient enough to convince Arab oil producers to lift the embargo in March of 1974.

Obama has based his re-election hopes on an economic recovery. If gas prices don’t go down soon, then consumer spending will decrease because of the gas prices. If consumer spending is slow, then Obama could potentially find himself not getting re-elected in November of this year.

Question - Do you agree with what OConnell is saying, that Obamas chances of being reelected in November are slim because of gas prices. And would you be willing to pay 5 dollars for gas if it does reach that.