Editorial #3: We Should Be Provided Free Health Care

Standing by Greece and Poland, the United States is one of the only three countries in the world that doesn't provide free health care to its people. Although some people might claim that receiving free health care may be beneficial to the people individually, but not to the country itself. However, I think that the government should provide us free health care.

First off, if we look at the country as a whole, it will cost a lot to provide everyone in this country with free health care at the moment and the near future once the government implements this plan. Studies show that the amount of money that the expansion of insurance coverage under Obamacare will increase the debt by $340 billion in the first 10 years. However, in the long tern, the total health care spending might be lowered by $592 billion in the first year, and up to $1.8 trillion over the next decade due to the lowered administrative and prescription drug costs.

Secondly, having free health care will help the government promote health, and also, it could improve public health. According to the New York Times, studies show that people who are provided with free health care are less likely to be depressed and are able to maintain financial stability than those who are not provided with health care. She also includes that studies show that people with Medicaid were 35 percent more likely to go see a doctor. Despite the positive results of having health care, around 10.4 percent of the total U.S. population did not have health insurance in 2014. That is 33 million people, which is a lot.

In conclusion, I believe that the government should provide free health care to everyone, since it will help to promote health, save lives and money. The government has previously implemented some actions towards health care, like Obamacare, but many people claimed that it is not fair to the majority of the people. The government should equally and fairly provide free health care to everyone.

Commenting on Classmate's Blog #2

In one of my classmate's blog post, Hit the Road, Frack (part 2) by Deena Ismail, she talks about the consequences of fracking, which is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks in order to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. The author suggests reducing fracking slowly, and I completely agree with her.

Not only is fracking bad for our environment, I personally think that fracking is not very efficient or effective. It takes around one to eight million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing (which can NOT be good for the environment), and in the process, methane gas and toxic chemicals contaminate groundwater. These are only some of the cons of fracking, listed by Dangers of Fracking. Although fracking may have some benefits, like have alternative sources of fuel and lower energy costs, I think that the cons outweigh the pros.

Some of the possible solutions include: solar and wind technologies and "green" fracking, but I think that the potential solution that Deena proposed is good, which is slowly reducing the act. The government may not have placed restrictions on fracking, because it will decrease the total supply of natural resources by 9 percent. Fracking also provides more jobs for people, so the unemployment rate for the country will increase if the government prohibits fracking.

Editorial #2: We Should Fight For Global Climate Change

Everyone is affected by the climate, uses natural resources, but also, majority of the people affect global climate change by thickening the atmosphere. I believe that people, as individuals, should help reduce global warming, but more importantly, have government leaders and officials to implement solutions to the worsening global climate change, especially since humans are the major cause of global climate change.

Since every single one of us is affected by global warming and climate change, everyone should help to save the planet. Individuals can help by doing their part in saving the planet, like simply changing the light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb, and setting the thermostat two degrees down in winter and two up in the summer. Simple ways like this will most likely save you money, but help the environment. If everyone takes part, it will add up and definitely make a difference.

However, we, as humans, can make a significant amount of difference in reducing factors that cause global climate change by electing leaders to promote ways to save the planet. Possible solutions to global warming are limiting the amount of carbon that vehicles are allowed to emit, investing in efficient energy technologies, industries, and approaches, and reducing tropical deforestation. Although this will mostly likely be costly at first, but I think that taking these actions will benefit all of us. According to the New York Times, even increasing 3.6 degrees will take lives of many, and at this rate, by 2100, there is a 10 percent chance that the planet will increase 12.4 degrees. If the government of urban countries increase taxes only to help the planet by limiting the emission of carbon, many people would gladly accept it, since it is for the benefit for everyone.

I personally think that possible solutions to global climate change is fairly easy, with today's technology, and that the governments should fight for global climate change, with people individually helping the planet as well.

Commenting on Classmate's Editorial

In one of my classmate's blog posts titled "Drug Offenders Need Rehabilitation, Not Punishment,"  Nicolette Loisel wrote about the treatments that drug addicts should get instead of punishments, like going to jail. Although I see very clearly her point that giving treatments is effective and also less costly, I will take a different stance on this topic and say that drug offenders should get punished.

Firstly, many drugs like marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are illegal in many states. However, they are commonly used by many people who do not have rights to possess them. The majority of those people are addicted to drugs, meaning that they violated the law and shouldn't even own them in the first place. Saying that the government should give treatment to drug offenders rather than punishment, I think, is not very effective, because then, the people who do illegal drugs would not get any punishment for breaking the law. Also, if the government provides treatment, people will not stop using drugs, because they know that they won't get in any kind of trouble even if they do drugs. Additionally, I personally believe that people who are addicted to drugs are at their own fault, and should have some consequences for doing something that they shouldn't have done in the first place. The majority of the people know that drugs are not good for one's health, and that you should not use it. If the people take that risk and still use them, I think that they deserve some kind of punishment.

If the government gives out treatments, it may save government funding and save the drug addicts' lives, but many people may think that they won't get any form of punishment even if they violate the law, and more people could use drugs. Although being addicted to drugs may not be what drug addicts want, but I still believe that they should get some kind of punishment for breaking the law. One solution to this issue could be getting treatment in jail, so that they receive proper treatment while still being punished. However, this may be challenging, since the government may not have that much money to spend.

I think that there are possible solutions out there on this issue, and despite the fact that Nicolette has some really good points and evidence, I still believe that drug offenders need to get some form of punishment.

Editorial: We Should NOT Make Elections a Holiday

I don't think that we should make elections a holiday. The government would probably make elections a holiday in hopes of a higher voting rate, but the biggest reason why people don't vote is not because they don't have time, making the holiday useless and maybe even less effective than having elections on weekdays.

From a study done in 2012, out of 218,959,000 total Americans eligible to vote, only 126,144,000 people voted, coming at only 57.5 percent voting rate. While making elections a holiday might encourage some people to vote, it also might intrigue others to go on a vacation or just stay home and have a day off. Although "too busy" was the main excuse, or reason, why people didn't vote in the 2014 election at 28 percent, according to a survey done by The Washington Post, "not interested", "illness/disability" and "out of town" together come to 37 percent. I doubt that people couldn't find 45 minutes, maximum, to spare during their day, because they were "too busy."

Even if election days become a holiday, I predict that only the people who actively vote and the group of honest people who actually couldn't vote because they were too busy would vote. Having elections as a holiday has some risks, since it might backfire and trigger people to not vote and go on a vacation or have a day off. If people have their own plans on election days, they will still be "too busy" to vote. 

I think that the U.S. government should not make election days a holiday, since it has some risks of backfiring and losing people to vote, and it does not guarantee a higher voting rate, so it might not be effective. 

Critique of Mr. Obama's Powerful Words About Terrorism

Titled Mr. Obama's Powerful Words About Terrorism, this author supports Obama, as you can see from the title, and shows signs of disapproval towards Trump in the actual article. I think that the author's intention of writing this editorial is to emphasize the good in Obama, by highlighting his values of equality of everyone. Therefore, the author's intended audience would be people who also support Obama and possibly people who disagree with him, to show the good intentions that Obama has.

First off, the author handles the subject of the president's and Trump's individual thoughts on terrorism, but only reflects Trump's point of view with what Obama has to say about it. Using words like "condemn Mr. Trump and his defenders" and :Mr. Obama pointedly asked", the author criticizes Trump with Obama's reactions, but never really clearly shows Trump's point of view and reasons behind it. Although I do agree with the author, and even though this is an editorial, I wish that he or she showed different points of views with this topic, like mentioning what other candidates have to say, or being more logical about it while still having their own opinions.

Furthermore, the author signals the supporters of Obama are the "good people" by using phrases like "what Americans of good will understand". This conveys that the author fully supports Obama, once again, and having an underlying statement that the Republicans are "bad people", which I think is not very logical. The author also does not have much evidence in their article, excluding quotes from the politicians. I personally think that if he or she included the effects of past terrorism and the results of the solutions that Obama gave, in order to make this article more logical by adding more factual evidence. This way, people can understand the author's points better, and it can appeal to the audience more, by appearing more logical.

Overall, I think that this author has his or her points, and I agree with them, but I think that he or she could've added more evidence to seem more logical and appeal to the public more. The author's targeted audience would be the fellow supporters of Obama, like the author, or the opposite side, to convince them that Obama and his supporters are "good", and that they should support him and the Democrats as well.

Critiquing "Hillary Clinton's Triumph, and Burden"

Right from the title, Hillary Clinton's Triumph, and Burden, we can tell that this author supports Clinton, as the author emphasizes on the amount of work and burden for Clinton. The author's claim in this editorial seems to be that Clinton is doing a great job so far, has good intentions, and that you should vote for her. The intended audience for this article seems to be directed towards young Americans, since the author emphasizes on the point that Clinton needs to appeal to the younger general public, because they are important. It is a fact that Clinton definitely set some impressive milestones for women's rights, as stated in the article, but it isn't hard to find out that the author is biased towards Clinton as he or she uses terms like "more hard work" and "exapnd her ideas".

Although I agree with the author on some parts, like when he or she addresses the importance of inclusive voting for everyone, especially the younger people, but the author uses Trump's signs of lack of knowledge to make his point of Clinton not answering some important questions at the news conference invaild, which I don't think is fair, because in fact, it is true and Clinton shoud clarify some things.

The author does not have much evidence to back up the claims. The author only has unnecessary statistics, like the 50 percent of young people describing themselves as "independent", but generalized on parts where evidence may be helpful, like when the author addresses the opportunities Clinton has to "demonstrate her commitment".

However, the author seems to be logical, because they don't avoid some crucial facts, like the young Americans not having enough trust in Clinton, and that she should address it, despite the words "isn't fair" and "accurate", although the author uses a pathetic tone when he or she mentions the young people supporting Sanders because of his demands.

Overall, I think that the author could use more evidence to specify and clarify some of their claims, but the editorial itself is logical, and mentions some critical points. I definitely don't agree with the author completely, but there are some points that I would agree with.