"Obamacare, the Good, the Bad, and the Myths"

           Much stir has been created since the president of the United States, Barack Obama presented his Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Surveys have revealed that public opinion is divided in two groups, the supportive and unsupportive (the majority). Those against the Act have raise false concerns: Is the Act constitutional? Is the Affordable Health Act copying the European's Public Health, or is the US turning communist? Most of the uninformed population has been blinded by the immediate answers to these questions; not seeing there are more layers beneath the surface.

            The Obamacare requires that everybody in the US is insured, and those who refuse will pay a fine. Lawyers and Congress are trying to prove that this document is unconstitutional, because nobody should be obligated to pay for something they do not want. However, it is important to say that with the Act, the cost of health insurance plans will decrease and all insurance packages will provide Americans with free preventative care. Also, Americans with an annual income lower than 15k who cannot afford to pay for health care will qualify for Medicaid. Today, 30% of the Americans that make less than 36k a year are uninsured. Young adults will be able to stay under their parents’ health insurance until the age of 26, instead of the age of 18. In the present, 24.5% of all young adults between the ages of 18-25 are uninsured. Why do not they say that only 1% of all Americans (that can afford health care), do not want to pay for it? This issue reminds me of the abolition process before 1865. We all know slavery is a horrible thing, but before 1865 slaves were considered property. It seems unreasonable that somebody would find abolition unconstitutional, but the very few white farmers who owned slaves felt that they were being striped from their right to own property. When the 13th amendment was ratified, hundred thousand of slaves gained their deserved freedom, and nobody cared about the few selfish farmers who where "affected." Therefore, I understand that Affordable Care Act will be unconstitutional for that 1% that does not want health care, but what about all the other people who need it but cannot afford it. Taking all these facts into account, this Act does not seem unconstitutional to me. (here you can see your benefits)

            The Obamacare is not a copy of the European's Public Health, nor will it make the US communist. Obama has stated that he does not want to recreate the European's health program, so let me explain what is the main difference. First, the European societies found their public health care mainly by taxes. European countries have both public and private health care and services. It is not Obama’s intention to raise the taxes to cover for health care; on the contrary he is planning to create a set of tax credits that will help people to pay for insurance. US health care will still be founded by the cost of services provided by hospitals. On the other hand, the US is far from becoming communist. First, the Obamacare is not going to provide medical attention at free cost. Even if it did, what marks the difference between communism and capitalism is how these societies evaluate property, not their health care. Obama is trying to implement a health care system that will fit the needs of the American society and does not intend to copy the European Union, or goes against the economical principles of the country. 

            It seems to me that the American public needs to be more informed before they pick sides in this matter, otherwise many could lose the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. I support the Obamacare Act and hope that Congress focuses on the benefits that all (insured and not) will receive.

Joseph A. Califano does not like Austin on April 20th.

         Joseph A. Califano, founder of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, wrote an article in replay to Pat Robertson’s marijuana support declarations. Here is the link to article called ‘Why Pat Robertson’s pot plan is a (bong) pipe dream,’ published today by the Washington Post, provides data that supports the point of view of an individual in favor of the war on drugs. This article was written to target conservatives, and in my opinion is an example of how media does not tell you what to think, but what to think about.

Mr. Califano argues that some of the reasons behind Pat Robertson’s statements are shallow and lack real evidence and support. He focuses his article from the perspective that the US already has problems with the two legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), which are taking a toll on teenagers, and how marijuana would have the same effect. To support the argument, Mr. Califano offers a series of links that redirect the reader to a series of research sources and statistics. Even when the author does a good job backing some of his statements, I think due to some flaws in the focus and support of the article thesis, Mr. Califano was not able to present a convincing argument.

First, I think the attitude he adopted towards the issue on drugs was very radical, which offers a narrow approach to the topic and made the author seem short-sighted. Second, he compares the social repercussions of alcohol and tobacco to those of marijuana without mentioning that alcohol and tobacco may be legal, but much more dangerous for users’ health. Third, some of the information offered in the article is misleading. For example, Mr. Califano says that ‘Forty-six percent (6.1 million) of all high school students currently use addictive substances,’ which makes the reader think that marijuana is at the same level of other more dangerous drugs. When I read the full link he offered, I found that only 3.6 million students have tried marijuana, a statistic that includes addicts and one-time users whereas over twice as many students have tried alcohol. Fourth, Mr. Califano backs up some statements with predictions rather than facts. For example, he mentions that the world of illegal drugs like marijuana is violent, and how legalizing it will increase this violence. This particular statement makes me think about ‘prohibition’ and the intense gang violence that accompanied the dry period, while today alcohol is legal and regulated, and there is no violence related to its sale and distribution. Fifth and last, Mr. Califano alludes to the idea that legalizing marijuana will not imply some regulations; it seems like he thinks marijuana is going to be sold to everyone and everywhere like candy!

When I first read the article, I thought that Joseph A. Califano had some good points, but after reading the links offered and analyzing his statements I realized his argument was lacking in solid support. The overall impression I got from the article is that Mr. Califano wants the reader to envision marijuana decriminalization as chaos, and to not see marijuana as a drug with potential health benefits that is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.