My Healthcare Problem

I've always been confused about what the answer to the healthcare crisis could be. So for the most part I avoided the discussion altogether. But now the problem seems to be getting very personal. Because of the union issues in Wisconsin, my mother faces having to spend a lot more for her medical insurance since she works in the public sector. She probably cannot pay for it. My sister also faces her family losing medical insurance, though I'm sure Badger care will cover her because she's pregnant, as well as her baby. Then again I do not know for sure how the Badger Care system works. I also do not know if that will be Scott Walker's next target.

As a libertarian, I believe in small government. So, libertarian me thinks the government should not have a role in enforcing any price restrictions on insurance, it also should not be a provider of insurance. Or maybe libertarian me only thinks that about the federal government. Yet, humanitarian me believes people should always have proper access to medical care and a doctor. Why should people's health be effected simply because they do not have money? Libertarian me answers: because the free market economy operates on money, people won't provide healthcare for free, services are never free. Maybe private organizations can make up for the discrepancy (but then that would just drive up the cost..).

And according to International Human Rights law... the government has an obligation to ensure equal access to health care. Yes, I am a Libertarian. But I also believe in International Laws. I do not have an answer for how to solve the healthcare problem: I don't know who should provide it or who should pay for it. I am only able to recognize the problem with the current system. Maybe in time I can pinpoint all the factors that are causing the problems, and with that knowledge develop some sort of theory of a solution. More realistically, though, there isn't a solution at all.

The Ugliness of Racism

“According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography,” said Pennsylvania Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalf in a statement. “The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.” 



Throughout history, new groups of immigrants
have always been racially targeted.



This piece of legislation, as well as a second racist anti-immigration bill from Arizona is blatantly attacking American freedoms that have been in our constitution for decades.

The lawmakers who are trying to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants believe the legislation will stand up against constitutional scrutiny. Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger disagrees, “This issue has been raised and litigated in our history in every instance in a racial context. That is why we wanted to have a simple, clear, definitive constitutional rule. There’s absolutely no indication the Supreme Court would have any interest in reexamining it. It would get tossed out of court early.”

They are arguing that this important segment of the 14th Amendment should be taken out because they fear illegal immigrants are "abusing" it by having their children born in the US to ensure their US citizenship. I'm going to make an awkward comparison, this reminds me of the federal government suspending habeas corpus in order to find terrorists (or rather, imprison and torture them for extended lengths of time because they don't have evidence). Arguments are that we should suspend constitutional rights in the name of safety. These racist legislators are arguing we should suspend constitutional rights (demolish, actually) in the name of saving.. money? Neither case is acceptable, because we have constitutional rights for a reason. We cannot completely ignore constitutional rights whenever the state thinks it is fitting. The reason why we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect ourselves from the state. If we allow them to ignore these rules in one or two cases, then the rules will end up being ignored completely.

I had the opportunity to attend a conference this weekend about refugees from countries such as Bosnia, Sudan, Guatemala, and Thailand. The woman from Bosnia said her family was very grateful that their youngest son was born in the U.S. I wonder if these politicians acknowledge that people such as her, who were forced to flee their country to see refuge, will be impacted by the bill. Probably not, because it is pure racism from people who believe our country is under attack from Mexican Immigrants. Pure racism. I looked around the room at the conference, and saw people of an array of diverse backgrounds; races, religions, cultures, and ethnicities.

I thought it was beautiful. Diversity truly is beautiful. And America is different from most other countries because of it. Yet, this diversity is seen as a threat. It is seen as something that must be stopped. I don't understand how they don't see the beauty in it as I do.