Once upon a time, a Conservative wasn't wealthy...

Okay, the secret is out--I'm a Conservative. Now I fit nicely into the stereotype of white, male, probably in the South, Protestant, and undoubtedly financially comfortable. The only problem with this stereotype of a Conservative voter is that I [at 19 years old] have yet to live in a household with an income above the "poverty line." My father moved out when I was 6 and it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing since then.

I've definitely reaped the benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid system for most of my life. It has given me and my brothers insurance under PeachCare for a long time. LBJ did a great thing by signing Medicare/Medicaid into law--my younger brother might not be alive today had he not. I know the system works, but we're aren't average people. We were three kids living with a single mother that had that lifestyle forced upon herself after years of stability. This is an instance where public services are sound investments in the welfare of the People.

Last October, I turned 19 and I lost my insurance. I went a good six months without medical insurance until I luckily got on my father's. My brother just turned 18 in June and he's in the same pickle. My mother has been unemployed for over a year now--and she doesn't have insurance. I know what it's like to live without insurance.

She and I laugh at the idea of universal health care--or anything in between here and there. We know that anything you want badly enough, you can get. Anything. We deserve nothing we've not worked for--and even then we may not. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm somewhat poor and have actually had to put forth an effort to find myself in a more stable lifestyle. The point I'm making is that it's a prejudiced arguement to believe that just because I believe health care isn't a right that I also proclaim "the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill." Because, you see--I would then be condemning myself to death/debt.

I just believe in getting my hands dirty to get what I want in life. I'm not alone when I say I'd rather be in debt than under Big Brother's reign.

-RichardWest

P.S. For those of you that refuse to think of health care as anything but a right, let me say this: I have the right to become a millionaire in this country. Does that mean it's the government's job to make that happen? I fear some of you may still answer "Yes..."

America's Healthcare System: Where are we going and where did we begin?

It is amidst the reality of failed initiatives to remake the healthcare system of the United States of America over more than 60 years that one approaches the efforts of our Congresspeople and President to pass healthcare reform. I feel that the posting by scholar's logic was an impeccable analysis of the influence of lobbying efforts on healthcare reform. To understand the resistance to healthcare reform happening now it is helpful to look back for inklings into today's political reality. More than sixty years ago Harry Truman tried to enact what he called his “Fair Deal” and (despite its many parts) one thing it centered on was healthcare reform. Lobbying efforts by the American Medical Association led to the failure of Truman's healthcare reform imitative. President Lyndon Baines Johnson had success in passing healthcare reform and signed Medicare & Medicaid into law. One cannot help but note the fact that President Johnson had the support of the American Nurses Association and the American Hospital Association. The loftiest opponent Johnson faced to his ideas of federally funded healthcare and the idea of a national healthcare plan was the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, there were some achievements in 'moving the ball forward' on healthcare reform. People branded his healthcare as socialized medicine and Johnson had trouble with people feeling that many of his reforms were going to the 'undeserving poor'. Moreover, public opinion was decidedly against the deficit spending that would be required to uphold these Federally funded programs. President Nixon's Comprehensive Health Care Act failed in the Congress. The most recent attempt by President's past was of course by Clinton and that also failed. The American Medical Association has been opposed to every major healthcare initiative aimed at reform.

So what is different with President Obama? Won't he Fail? Well one should be put at relative ease considering that the American Medical Association has actually been working with President Obama and has endorsed his plan (as 'a work in progress'). The fact that the American Medical Association is at the table with the Congresspeople (to me at least) seems to say that there is a consensus for change. Those who are arguing for the status quo and claiming that the current government proposals are a form of socialized medicine are correct. Pointing out that these initiatives are proposing socialized medicine is kind of like standing on the highway and screaming out what billboards say to passing traffic. WE KNOW IT IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THANKS! We've already socialized medical care for many Americans already (with Medicare & Medicaid).

The fact of the matter is that millions upon millions of Americans are uninsured and so there is a need for socialized medicine. For those who say healthcare is not a right let it be clear what their argument really is: “the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill.” Most people don't choose to get sick. Others choose to make bad decisions that are not conducive to good health and serve as proof for why we need greater emphasis on preventative medical practices.

The point is that we need healthcare for all Americans at affordable prices. The answer is socialized medicine: period.


(P.S.Because I feel an obligation to actually answer the question posed in the title.... Here are some good sites the first is a history of healthcare and the second is a good article from NPR... check it out to find where we're going)
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106859971&ft=1&f=1007

Healthcare, Lobbyist and the Future.

Today we are in the midst of an important political issue this being the subject of Healthcare Reform. With the subject being both controversial and also partisan many people and their opinions rise, both for and against the idea of reform. Among these voices hides the face, which many say stopped healthcare reform in the 1990's, of lobbyist.

For many of the people who may not know who lobbyist are, Princeton defines a lobbyist as "A person employed to persuade legislator to vote in favor of legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer". These people are the ones who go to Washington, and to respective members of congress and "lobby" by means of donating campaign contributions and negotiations. Different branches of companies and also so sectors of business employ lobbyist in order to get what they want done and have influence in congress.

Now this ties into the current battle for health care reform in that the lobbyist are now being employed by HealthCare companies in order to maneuver legislation into a bill that doesn't prevent them from making profit or to completely stop it if possible. So far this seems to be working, with current legislation for healthcare being at a stand still. Another reason lobbying seems present is due to the fact that, now the Democrats, who have run on a policy of healthcare reform in both houses of congress, are now starting to reconsider their positions about healthcare with really no justifiable reasons as to why. Some might ask, "Why the switch?" I say the switch is proof of evident lobbying being done inside the Democratic party to prevent passage of this bill. This can also be seen inside of the Republican party meaning the lobbying is not just an one party phenomenon its an American phenomenon occurring and increasing in this generation.

I find this fact bad because of the possible benefits that this bill could have for this generation and future ones to come. This is why i think that we, as the next young Americans soon stepping up to take charge of this nation, should make sure that we ourselves are having what we want done and not what the corporations and lobbyist want. Whether you stand for or against the healthcare bill make sure your voice is heard through your mouth and not through the mouths of lobbyist. Lets turn this government back into one where decisions are made upon whether or not a bill is good or bad and not one based keenly on the prospect of getting campaign contributions from lobbyist for next year's re-election run.

An apple a day or the doctor you pay! [a prompt for discussion on healthcare]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

If we are to believe in the sound principles and the intuitive ethics outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we must be serious about healthcare reform. “According to the latest date from the Census Bureau, in 2007, there were an estimated 13.2 million uninsured young adults. It's the fastest growing group of the 46 million uninsured Americans today. (cnn.com)”

So there are questions to be answered in the health care debate and we'd like to hear some opinions on possible courses of action in health care reform. Is “the Obama Plan” our answer? Should there be a public option to compete with private plans? Where on the spectrum should this reform fall (the far left being complete government control over health care and the far right being a completely privatized system)? Should the government be getting involved at all and if so/ not why? Is the status quo acceptable?

The current debate over health care has our nation up in arms. Something that seems to have been forgotten in the debate ensuing over health care is how young Americans feel about these issues. If we want our opinions to be considered and our voices heard we must formulate our ideas and speak out on the issues. We can't let our emotions get the best of us and I've posted the following link to show the type of counterproductive debate we cannot afford in the discussion over our nation's health care reform: .

Consider this a prompt with liberty for improvisation and a call to speak out as the “Next Generation's Republic.

Effective Political Advertising in the 21st Century

As J.J. mentioned in his post this increasingly politically active generation will no doubt change the political landscape of the 21st century. In this past election we have already seen several campaigns attempts to reach out and tap the powerful force that is the younger generation. As J.J. also mentioned 66% of people under 30 voted for Barack Obama. This shows not only a platform that tended to agree with the younger generation but also an extremely effective targeted campaign to make communications with this group. How did the campaign reach out to such a large number of the youth? Effective advertisement of the candidate through the mediums that this particular people group uses most, specifically the Internet (social networking, youtube and email) and cell phones (text messages, calls and apps). During the campaign roughly 13 million people were on the email list for the Obama campaign, these people received as a whole over 1 billion emails over the course of the campaign. (Vargas) Social networking was also used to communicate with large numbers of supporters as well as better determine the preferences of the voters and rally more active support. Obama had over 5 million friends on over 15 different social networking sites, this includes 3 million friends on facebook alone.(Vargas) These are just a few of the staggering numbers that the Obama campaign showed as far as the use of popular media in a political campaign.
Another campaign that pulled staggering numbers using social media was Ron Paul. Running as virtually an independent in the GOP Ron Paul's grassroots campaign was one of the largest of any candidate. This was through an effectively run website that allowed supporters to sign up to receive information about the course of the campaign as well as ways to support the candidate. Also, the site featured other ways to help and be kept informed by becoming facebook friends with the "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul himself. YouTube also played an important role with media exposure being as Ron Paul received very little mention on television or in newspapers. This could be part of the reason most younger voters on the republican ticket leaned towards Ron Paul. In fact in a breakdown of supporters by age group Ron Paul doubled the support of any other republican candidate in the 18-24 age range despite the other candidates being more "mainstream". (usaelectionpolls.com)

What does this show? This shows the power of the politically active youth and demonstrates to future political hopefuls that they must be able to effectively reach out to this group in order to succeed in their campaign. Just as the GOP saw in the 2008 election it is essential to be able to effectively communicate with new voters to earn their support and I believe all candidates will no doubt heed this lesson in the next election or will surely be disappointed with the outcome.

-PsyCHN

P.S.
For anyone who wanted a full look at the social media numbers from the Obama Campaign











(Source: Edelman Report)

We'll be arguing soon...

After reading the first two posts, I'm neither disappointed nor surprised to find a great deal of bias in the voice of the founders of this site. I doubt any unfair management will occur, but the opinions and ideas of the contributors lean one direction more than another. This is great. This is perfect. This is just what we need. We're in need of fervent, enlightened, and zealous debate of the issues that face our generation. Without 'strict scrutiny' of these issues, we'll find ourselves following in the footsteps of our fathers and formulating their own theories--only because they did. And as intelligent individuals, we will find division amongst ourselves when we examine ideas and processes through the lenses of our own backgrounds. Without this division, no conclusions would be made--no unique understandings held--no true opinions formed.

I hope we divide. I hope we can't always agree. If we're going to ever find a 'more perfect' democratic amalgam as the next generation, we've got to find disagreement first. Not the same disagreement as when thousands of young Americans squabbled last November over why Sarah Palin was really that stupid, how Barack Obama was the great Savior, or whether or not John McCain was older than Moses. We need disagreement that engages the Left and Right-so we find out why the Democrat or Republican (or wayward Green Party man) thinks as he does--because when we understand how our opposition thinks, we can truly find some form of agreement amongst ourselves and make principal become policy that works for most.

We'll be arguing soon. We'll need it.
-RW

Will an increasingly politically active generation change the political landscape?

As this blog is oriented towards all people interested in the “Next Generation's Republic,”and young adults in particular, it seems fitting to ask: “Will the young adults who have shown to be increasingly socio-politically active change the political landscape of America?” In a word—absolutely. “This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.---PEW, November 12, 2008 (Carville, 2009)” That is a big percentage of young people voting for Barack Obama and there was an amazing volume of young people voting: period. “CIRCLE’s preliminary estimate, based on the National Exit Polls, suggest that youth turnout rose in 2008 for the third consecutive presidential election. An estimated 23 million young Americans under the age of 30 voted, an increase of 3.4 million compared with 2004. CIRCLE estimates that youth voter turnout rose to between 52 percent and 53 percent, an increase of 4 to 5 percentage points over CIRCLE’s estimate based on the 2004 exit polls. (CIRCLE 2009)”

There seems to be a positive trend in the number of young adults voting and if the STAT from 2009 is any indication they are voting for Democrats in increasingly greater numbers. The fact that young adults are becoming increasingly active in politics means they could be a decisive voting group in elections especially if this trend spills over into local & state elections. Why aren't young adults voting for republicans? “[...] The fact is, Democrats had a 19-point advantage among young voters. In 2004, the Democrats had only a 2-point advantage in party identification. In any other year, Republicans might be able to dismiss their disadvantage among young voters with the oft-repeated claim that youth simply tend to be more liberal than their parents, but this year they've got 19 points to explain away.” I think this large gap exists because the GOP is failing to entice younger voters with their (more or less) hard-line stance on social issues which seem to win-over older voters. In the 2009 Presidential election Republicans were on the wrong side of several issues, including the following: “the economy; the war in Iraq; and the environment. (Carville 2009)”

If the GOP is trying to reach out to young adults I'm lost as to how. Furthermore, as an opposition party the Republicans have seemed weak and unorganized. It seems as if the GOP may lose an entire generation and if current trends continue they may very well lose several. “What's worse news for the Republicans is the fact that youth didn't just vote for Obama last year—they volunteered, knocked on doors, distributed pamphlets, and drove other people to the polls. That's the type of investment in a candidate and party that cements political leanings. (Carville 2009)” Will the increasingly politically active young adult population change the political landscape? In a word—absolutely! (J.J.)