http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/sns-health-swine-flu-homeless,0,2606961.story
Since I know no one is going to click on this link, I'll give you a quick synopsis of the article, written December 8, 2009.
According to the article:
-the homeless are way less likely to get an H1N1 vaccine
-the homeless are way more likely to suffer from serious complications if they get H1N1 (three to six times more likely than the average person
-many free clinics have ordered their H1N1 vaccines but have yet to receive their supply
So what's being done?
-the National Health Care for Homeless Council prepared a manual for all shelters and soup kitchens and such for the prevention of the spread of influenza and H1N1
And there you have it folks.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Something new I found out about today...
Warning: not specifically related to US politics
Kiva is an non-profit organization that links donors to entrepreneurs in developing countries to help them out of poverty. It's more of a "lending process" than a donation. When the business takes off, the entrepreneur repays the loan and the lender is free to take that repayment or re-loan it to another entrepreneur.
http://www.kiva.org/
So, I know what charity I'm donating to this year. Merry Christmas!
http://www.kiva.org/
So, I know what charity I'm donating to this year. Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
minimum wage
The new federal minimum wage is in effect for 2009. Minimum wage workers can now expect $7.25 an hour, as opposed to $6.55 an hour prior to 2009. While it's great that Congress finally passed a law to raise the minimum wage, empirical data has shown that anyone living on a minimum wage salary makes less than $15,000 a year, below the poverty line ($23,500). Based on this data, and recent inflation rates, it's easy to see that a minimum wage salary, common among the unskilled/uneducated poor population of this country, is not enough to be pulled out of poverty.
The other side of the argument is that raising the minimum wage would actually be a detriment to the country. As employers are forced to pay employees more money, many legislators and interest groups believe that employers will want to hire more skilled workers, leaving out anyone from inexperienced high-schoolers to the unemployed poor. In addition, they say raising the minimum wage would cause high-schoolers to drop out (supposedly, a minimum wage salary is enticing enough for some to quit school and not go to college), reduce other job benefits (though healthcare reform might debunk that claim), reduce competition, and cause suffering in Third World countries that are home to multinational corporations.
While I'm no economist nor political scientist, I did my research! While raising the minimum wage to mirror the cost of living wouldn't bring everyone out of poverty, it would definitely reduce the number of people living below the poverty line. Many studies have shown that unemployment rates would stay the same with an increase in the minimum wage. If unemployment did increase, the change wouldn't be a major economical one. Based on my research on welfare reform (I did my essay on it!), a raise in the minimum wage would decrease the number of people in government assistance programs. The average minimum wage worker is an adult, contrary to popular belief that minimum wage workers are teenagers living with parents. The bottom line is, the current minimum wage, though better than it was last year or two years ago, is not fair. When kids and families are affected, the issue becomes a moral one.
Still interested? Watch "30 Days: Minimum wage". It's a enjoyable way to approach the issue. The link is posted below.
http://www.fancast.com/tv/30-Days/62565/562085655/Minimum-Wage/videos
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Reach out to the homeless in Grand Rapids!
If you're passionate about putting an end to poverty, start locally! There's nothing more humbling than turning your heart to those that others may turn up their noses to. I've done some asking around and found some faith-based organizations for the homeless (which is more up my ally). I'm gonna check each of these out when I get the chance. Y'all should too!
Dégagé Ministries: Our Mission: To reflect the love of Christ to all who come through our doors by building relationships and offering programs that foster dignity and respect.
The Other Way Ministries: A Christian ministry that walks alongside Westown urban families as they strive to grow spiritually, relationally and economically.
Mel Trotter: Mel Trotter Ministries exists to demonstrate the compassion of Jesus Christ toward the hungry, homeless and hurting of the Grand Rapids area. A friend of mine spends a lot of time here and has nothing but good things to say about the work they do.
Guiding Light Ministries: Guiding Light Mission exists to provide a healing community
that allows broken individuals to discover a new life in Christ. We provide food and shelter while equipping men with social, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual skills, thereby preparing them to serve.I'll keep you people posted as I volunteer with these different organizations.
Until next time...
Ain't no party like a political party 'cause the political party don't stop!
I know that political parties are important to the function of a democracy and all, but I can't help but LOATHE them, especially with the system we've got going in the United States. It's hard to have any warm and fuzzy feeling for Democrats and Republican when all I see are personal agendas. But, alas, they are a necessary evil.
For instance, after the House passed their version of health care reform, the Republican National Committee released this statement: "Today with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months -- a government-run health care experiment that will increase families' health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare." I'm not trying to be bias by only providing an example of a Republican attack on Democrats (believe me, I tried google-ing "examples of democratic bias" but the results were mediocre at best). This is just one example of many attacks commonly seen in Washington. Couldn't they just say, "this is what passed through the House and this is why we're unhappy about it"? Or is politics like a worse, adult-version of high school? If the latter, count me out.
Campaigns have become personal attacks which make the average voter feel like they're choosing the lesser of two evils instead of feeling 100% confident in their choice. No wonder we have lower voter turnout than some other democratic countries.
My suggestion (though not likely to ever happen) is to change our electoral system to proportional representation, a multi-party friendly system. PR is aimed at matching the percentage of votes per party to the number of seats that party gets in the legislature. We'd still have a few major parties, but imagine all the minor parties that would get a vote. So long manufactured majority! Hello coalition government! (can you tell I'm in more than one political science class? :] ) Well blog readers, thanks for listening to my fairly negative political babble! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did!
In the words of Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon on SNL's Weekend Update, "Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow!"
For instance, after the House passed their version of health care reform, the Republican National Committee released this statement: "Today with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months -- a government-run health care experiment that will increase families' health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare." I'm not trying to be bias by only providing an example of a Republican attack on Democrats (believe me, I tried google-ing "examples of democratic bias" but the results were mediocre at best). This is just one example of many attacks commonly seen in Washington. Couldn't they just say, "this is what passed through the House and this is why we're unhappy about it"? Or is politics like a worse, adult-version of high school? If the latter, count me out.
Campaigns have become personal attacks which make the average voter feel like they're choosing the lesser of two evils instead of feeling 100% confident in their choice. No wonder we have lower voter turnout than some other democratic countries.
My suggestion (though not likely to ever happen) is to change our electoral system to proportional representation, a multi-party friendly system. PR is aimed at matching the percentage of votes per party to the number of seats that party gets in the legislature. We'd still have a few major parties, but imagine all the minor parties that would get a vote. So long manufactured majority! Hello coalition government! (can you tell I'm in more than one political science class? :] ) Well blog readers, thanks for listening to my fairly negative political babble! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did!
In the words of Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon on SNL's Weekend Update, "Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow!"
The healthcare war
Since we talked about healthcare reform in class last week, I thought I'd give my opinion because I'm sure the readers of my blog are just dying to hear it :)
I'll start by explaining what I know about what the bill could offer:
-expansion Medicaid eligibility
-barring insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions
-immediate reduction in drug costs for Medicare recipients
-allowing Medicare families to keep their children on their insurance plan until age 26
-banning lifetime limits on coverage
-new investments in community health centers
-efforts to increase the number of primary care physicians
-public option that would allow citizens to purchase a cheaper insurance plan from the government
-new requirement for employers to provide coverage for employees
-institution of a new review process for insurance companies
-etc.
All of this would be funded through new taxes and cuts to government run health programs, like Medicare.
Let me start by saying that I believe healthcare is a basic human right. We can all agree that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is in need of some major changes. That being said, I think legislation for this reform is being rushed through Congress. I appreciate the fact that President Obama is trying to make do on his campaign promises, but reform of such magnitude takes time. I would take more solace in knowing that the reform was being well thought out. Instead, it seems to be legislation for legislation's sake.
Another thing is this very controversial "public option", which is, to my understanding, was the forethought of the reform. In a effort to please everyone, the public option has been considerably reduced. I'll admit, the idea of our healthcare being in the hands of our government is scary. What's scarier, though, is the millions of people without healthcare in this country. So I did some research! In an ideal world, the public option would cut costs of healthcare for many living under the poverty line. However, according to Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post, "The evidence ... is Medicare, which spends about 2% to 3% of its budget on administration. But if a government-run plan had to spend its own money to collect premiums, market itself to customers, maintain a reserve, and manage care in a way that lowers costs and raises quality — none of which Medicare now does ... its administrative costs would be nowhere near 2% or 3%." Now, I'm no economist, but that sorta defeats the purpose when we're trying to cut the cost of healthcare for the average american's pocketbook while simultaneously dealing with our $1.4 trillion deficit.
It's gonna be really interesting to see how this healthcare thing all pans out. If successful, I'd be proud to be alive during one of the biggest social reforms in our nation's history. If not... well I'd rather not think about that. Anyway, I feel like I'm not informed enough to give a wise opinion, so please feel free to leave your thoughts. Any other opinions would be appreciated.
I'll start by explaining what I know about what the bill could offer:
-expansion Medicaid eligibility
-barring insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions
-immediate reduction in drug costs for Medicare recipients
-allowing Medicare families to keep their children on their insurance plan until age 26
-banning lifetime limits on coverage
-new investments in community health centers
-efforts to increase the number of primary care physicians
-public option that would allow citizens to purchase a cheaper insurance plan from the government
-new requirement for employers to provide coverage for employees
-institution of a new review process for insurance companies
-etc.
All of this would be funded through new taxes and cuts to government run health programs, like Medicare.
Let me start by saying that I believe healthcare is a basic human right. We can all agree that the current healthcare system in the U.S. is in need of some major changes. That being said, I think legislation for this reform is being rushed through Congress. I appreciate the fact that President Obama is trying to make do on his campaign promises, but reform of such magnitude takes time. I would take more solace in knowing that the reform was being well thought out. Instead, it seems to be legislation for legislation's sake.
Another thing is this very controversial "public option", which is, to my understanding, was the forethought of the reform. In a effort to please everyone, the public option has been considerably reduced. I'll admit, the idea of our healthcare being in the hands of our government is scary. What's scarier, though, is the millions of people without healthcare in this country. So I did some research! In an ideal world, the public option would cut costs of healthcare for many living under the poverty line. However, according to Steve Pearlstein of the Washington Post, "The evidence ... is Medicare, which spends about 2% to 3% of its budget on administration. But if a government-run plan had to spend its own money to collect premiums, market itself to customers, maintain a reserve, and manage care in a way that lowers costs and raises quality — none of which Medicare now does ... its administrative costs would be nowhere near 2% or 3%." Now, I'm no economist, but that sorta defeats the purpose when we're trying to cut the cost of healthcare for the average american's pocketbook while simultaneously dealing with our $1.4 trillion deficit.
It's gonna be really interesting to see how this healthcare thing all pans out. If successful, I'd be proud to be alive during one of the biggest social reforms in our nation's history. If not... well I'd rather not think about that. Anyway, I feel like I'm not informed enough to give a wise opinion, so please feel free to leave your thoughts. Any other opinions would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
