In the new health care bill released in the Senate, among other provisions, two are that insurance companies can no longer discriminate based on preexisting conditions (guaranteed issue), and individuals will be required to buy insurance (individual mandate). If they don’t, they will be subject to a $95 penalty in 2014 and it goes up to a $750 penalty in 2016. To understand why this penalty is insufficient, we first need to understand why these two principles don’t work unless both are in place…
Most other states aren’t envious of Oregon’s tax structure which relies heavily on an unstable income tax. Recently it’s weaknesses have been underscored by a weak economy. While income taxes are progressive (taxing the wealthy instead of the poor) they have one major drawback, when the economy suffers the taxable income decreases, making our State legislature struggle to find funding sources for our most needed social programs. Facing an $852 million dollar cut in the state budget, Democrats worked diligently last year to pass Tax Fairness legislation. The increase in taxes will only affect those who can afford it; wealthy Oregonians sharing the burden while our poor economy recovers. According to Defend Oregon 97.5% of Oregonians won’t see their taxes increase.
Without hesitation conservative ideologues quickly responded by creating the maligned group Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes. Acting under their deceptive name, they gathered enough signatures to put the tax increases on the ballot.
So here’s the facts:
- A “no” vote will cut 3 million dollars from the University of Oregon’s budget. Making another tuition increase imminent.
- A “Yes” vote will preserve public services we need most including education, health, and safety.
- A “Yes” vote will tax those who can afford it, wealthy Oregonians making over $250,000 a year.
- The Oregon Corporate Minimum tax has not been increased since 1931. A “no” vote will keep it at $10. Fact: Adjusted for inflation $10 in 1931 would be equal to $140 in 2008.
- A “Yes” vote will raise the Corporate Minimum tax to $150, preserving funds for social programs.
Sometimes the boundaries of the University give us the perception of being in a protected square unaltered by the difficult times around us, but this recession has already hit our campus hard. Students, including myself, have seen a 7.9% increase in our tuition and the threat of another hike is very real. Classified staff that we rely on are being forced to take furlough days equal to pay cuts and our professors are underpaid compared to universities of equal size, seriously threatening our schools ability to hire and retain the best teachers.
A “no” vote will only exacerbate the problems we as students already face; increasing our tuition, and cutting programs and services we need most.
In January vote “Yes” on measure 66 and 67. Your vote will count.
Sign the pledge:
Your Vote Counts!
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Today House Democrats unveiled their Health Care bill which includes a “robust” public option. Fueled by ressurging confidence from progressives on the left, House Democrats are moving forward with what is clearly the most comprehensive health care plan to date. Unlike the Baucus bill which leaves millions without insurance, the House bill will cover 96% of Americans extending coverage to nearly 45 million uninsured. Forcing private for-profit insurance companies to compete with a public option will reduce costs without sacrificing quality – a win-win scenario. New regulations and requirements will make insurance companies cover those with pre-existing conditions, cap out-of-pocket expenses, and protect people from being dropped when they need it most. The bill will also allow parents to keep their children on their plans until they are 26, giving us young folk time to find a job with benefits.
At first glance the price tag seems daunting coming in at an estimated $896 billion dollars, however Democratic leadership has made it clear that it won’t add to the deficit. To cover its costs the bill will raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (those earning $500k individually, or $1 million combined), instead of taxing what have become known as “cadillac plans.” Increased tax revenue led the congressional budgeting office to predict that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $30 million over the next 10 years.
Loading ...In an effort at transparency, Democrats have agreed to publish the 2000 page bill online for a period of 72 hours starting Monday. This means we can expect floor debate on the bill as early as next week.
The “no party” is already attempting to frame the bill as a government takeover of the health care industry, which worked early on when we were just becoming educated on the issue, but now with over 60% of Americans in full support of a public option it seems like a losing strategy. Hopefully some Republicans will have a change of heart when it comes time to vote, if not for bipartisanship, than just to prove that they’re empathetic human beings. Given the saliency of the issue if the “no party” chooses not support the bill and it’s successful, than we can expect several years of Democratic leadership on the Hill and in the White House.
Loading ... 
Right now, Congress is considering cap-and-trade, which would limit the amount a pollutant can be used, in this case, carbon. Companies would need to have carbon credits to pollute, and the credits represent one ton of carbon dioxide. If companies wish to increase their pollution, they would need to buy credits from those who pollute less than their credits allow. All these policies might be better than nothing, but that says very little. A carbon tax is the better solution, due to its incentives and the fact that it treats the disease, not the symptoms.”
Some thought electing a comedian would make a joke out of congress, they were wrong. As it turns out Al Franken, the Freshman Senator out of Minnesota, is handling his new position with the professionalism and respect it deserves. That’s more than we can say about some of his Republican colleagues, thirty of which voted against his Rape Amendment. The bill would end any government contract with companies that force women to sign agreements preventing them from fairly suing their employer after being sexually assaulted. Jon Stewart did a good bit pointing out the moral deficiencies of the Republican members who voted against the bill.
Today, Senator Franken’s hard at work again, trying to make sure this country gets adequate health insurance.
It’s nice to have at least one Democratic Senator that asks serious questions, even if he’s a comedian.
College Democrats of America executive board member explains why substantive Health Care is especially important for women in America.
As the health care reform debate continues, there is one issue that cannot be ignored: The current health-care system takes a particular toll on women.
Women pay more for coverage because they require more preventative care, and as such are forced to pay higher deductibles. This price gap is especially high for women in the age group most likely to bear children. Indeed, women aged 15 to 44 spend 68 percent more on health care than their male counterparts in the same age group.
Under the current system, pregnant mothers can be denied health-care coverage altogether, potentially causing not only adverse health outcomes for the mother but also for the child.
However, the health-care bills moving through Congress would fix these disparities between men and women. Insurance rates could no longer be based on sex, which is a common practice today in most states. Additionally, co-pays would be eliminated for necessary preventative care, and all states would need to provide some affordable coverage to pregnant women.
So although a shared sacrifice might be necessary for health-care reform to finally pass, it seems a little price to pay to ensure that all women receive the equality in health care they so desperately need. After all, the health of our next generation is dependent upon the health of its mothers.
-Jen Johns
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09287/1005210-110.stm#ixzz0Tvpy1CRC
Ryan McCarrel
Editors note: Ryan McCarrel is the current president of the College Democrats at the University of Oregon. His opinion is not necessarily a reflection of the College Democrats.
A year ago Republicans championed the so called “troop surge,” in Iraq, and they were right to do so. The surge was by all accounts hugely successful. The added troop presence quickly provided Iraqi’s with a visible commitment from the United States that we intended to stay long enough for them to build their own defense forces and elect a stable regime. Combined with a new strategy focused on forging alliances with previously determined insurgents, the troop surge ultimately proved to make Iraq a more secure country and paved the way for some of the least devastating months of the war. Clearly it was a grave mistake going to war with Iraq. An invasion based on false pretenses, a deceived public, and now a country in ruin. History will not let us forget this mistake, however it will also be written that the surge was a successful tactic in an ill-conceived war of aggression.
Stanley McChrystal
Now, almost a year and a half after the surge in Iraq, Obama and his top advisors including General Stanley McChrystal are debating the future of Afghanistan; a country and war often overlooked during the Bush years. After nine long years our armed forces are still under-armed and overstretched. If our objective in Afghanistan is to provide the support and security necessary for the Afghani people to develop a stable country rid of extremists than we must honor McChrystal’s request for more troops. To do otherwise is to renege on a promise we made to ourselves and to the Afghanis when the first U.S. soldiers were deployed in the area as a response to the horrific attack on September 11th 2001. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), chairwoman of the U.S. Intelligence Committee, has suggested that the mission would be in “serious jeopardy,” if Obama rejects the troop proposal. If we choose not to follow the advice of our generals and Senate Intelligence Committee we will be leaving our troops vulnerable to an increasing number of Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists.
As one of many campaign promises that he has kept, Obama has already increased presence by 20,000 troops bringing the total ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) count to 67,700.
Legitimate concerns have been raised over sending 40,000 more armed forces to the region. Some of these concerns are derived from a fear of escalation policies dating back to the Vietnam war. Others look to the Soviet Unions inability to win in Afghanistan with a similar sized army during the 1980’s. Still more are worried, that after 9 long years, we simply don’t have the resolve or resources to continue fighting 6,000 miles from home.
So why do I believe that this time will be different? That America ought to send 40,000 more of their young men and women into harms way?
Similar to Iraq, fighting insurgents is only half the battle. Fighting to gain the trust of the Afghani people is ultimately what will decide the outcome of the war. This distinction is paramount in an often confusing and tumultuous debate that decides nothing less than the lives of our own men and women in uniform and the lives of millions of Afghani’s that have endured almost thirty continuous years of conflict. Winning confidence in the region will require a strong signal from Washington that we are committed to providing the security and resources that were absent during the Bush years. Currently our soldiers simply cannot defend Afghani civilians while simultaneously engaging Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces crossing the Pakistan border. Furthermore, local leaders are unwilling to support the United States until their security interests are protected by a strong military presence. It is with great respect to Obama and the advisors he appointed, that I believe they will develop a strategy that wins this support, even if they can’t find it at home.
Jordan Stein is a freshman and a Pre-Journalism major at the University of Oregon.
The situation in Afghanistan has been turbulent, to say the least. The appearance of insurgents has decreased and increased over time, re-commitments have been established, and the debate around of active soldiers has been argued over time.
Recently, the war has reached a significant crossroad where a decision to be made may have a major ramification attached to it. General Stanley McChrystal has been quoted as desiring to release an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. This judgment is partially based on a statistic from the International Council on Security and Development, noting that the Taliban continued to be prevalent in more than 80% of the country. In addition, the Taliban has sabotaged attempts of democracy in elections that supposedly caused widespread corruption and violence against voters. American forces would be sent to Afghanistan to try and turn the tide and sway the conditions towards ISAF stability.
Although the Iraqi and Afghani conflicts are separate battles, it seems as though their conclusions might end up distinct as well. The war in Iraq has witnessed moments of triumph, yet the combat operations are expected to change their objections next summer; at that point, American forces are to assist with stabilizing a government in Iraq and allow for a smooth “transition” of having full responsibility with their country. A surge in Afghanistan may see more success, but it is after that climax in American presence that raises questions. Should there be a troop increase, how much longer are we going to remain in Afghanistan? If it has taken eight years to come this far, would the United States need to be a permanent presence in Afghanistan for the coming decades in order to reach it’s ideal goals? Would the United States be able to conquer the Taliban and construct a stable government that delivers what the population wants?
This can of worms that has spilled on President Obama’s lap puts him into a conflict; the options are either to appreciate the requests of his military and defense associates (which would have a polarizing effect on congressional Democrats) or to set up a strategy that may call for a lessening of troop levels. Either choice will end up being controversial, either with anti-war liberals or tenacious and optimistic conservatives.
To some Americans, it is the belief that America’s first priority needs to involve domestic needs. There are millions suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, but likewise for people who live in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen. Our military bases abroad, which inflate the defense budget, can be reduced to spend on living Americans; why shouldn’t funding for war be looked at differently? Instead of maintaining an overreaching empire, and fighting in a region that has been volatile for the last 30 years, there could be a larger emphasis on costly controversies such as education and healthcare. A greater standing in Afghanistan does have the potential to be a positive game-changer in a tedious and uneasy war. However, it can also be capable of setting up America to vastly expand the budget on Afghanistan for many years to come.
On 10.08.09, In Health Care, Opinion, By Erik Erlandson
Erik Erlandson
As Barack Obama began his presidency, high hopes for him extended towards the heavens. Though facing a daunting set of challenges, ranging from climate change to financial regulation reform to wars in the Middle East, many Americans were confident that relatively inexperienced Obama, casting himself as a “new kind of politician,” could help our country turn the page on what had been a disastrous four years. The powers and abuses of the executive branch had ballooned under the Bush Administration. America squandered a myriad of opportunities presenting themselves post 9/11, and instead waged a costly war on false pretenses. Obama lit up America on the campaign trail, empowering voters under the banner of a new tomorrow, and a new hope as the Bush Administration began its exit.
Progressives, centrists, and even some republicans, across the United States rejoiced as Obama entered office, and the erected hopes of the campaign trail held firmly in January 2009. In more recent months, after tackling a laundry list of the nation’s pressing problems, Obama’s governing legitimacy faces considerable threat because of a revived debate surrounding health care reform – an issue which crippled the last democratic president Bill Clinton. The failure to pass the Clinton health care plan of 1993 was a significant blow to his presidency, as evidenced by the election results of the following year. Led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican Revolution swept through both legislative houses in 1994, as the Right gained control of both Senate and House for the first time since the 1950s. From then on, Clinton would be forced to make concessions to a new congressional majority, and would be forced to spend ample time personally battling with Gingrich. The realigning election of 1994, cast as a referendum on big government, forever hindered the Clinton presidency.
Anti-government ideologues? Sound familiar?
Descending upon Obama just as they did to Clinton proclaiming that any new-look health care system would be socialist, fascist, and unequivocally anti-American, these market fundamentalists are obscuring the present health care debate with falsities such as death panels and other irrelevant information like Obama’s citizenship. Liberals like myself are becoming more and more concerned that the 2009 attempt at health care reform might hold the same fate as the last try.
Though it would be the death of the public option, a provision deemed necessary by many progressives, the newly introduced Baucus plan might be our country’s last hope for health care reform for a while. While the public option is seen by many as a prerequisite for universal coverage, this doesn’t change the fact that the Baucus plan would be an improvement on the status quo. Our representatives need to realize this. Not only would this kind of a bill challenge the insurance company dynasty that characterizes our current health care infrastructure, but it would ensure a smoother term for Obama, and an easier fought election in 2012 if Mitt Romney, who could claim a health care legislative victory as former Massachusetts governor, was on the Republican ticket.
If Obama and his team learned anything from the “Hillary-care” debacle of the 1990s like they said they did on the campaign trail, I hope it is that something is better than nothing, particularly when it comes to this kind of legislative fight. A flop on health care reform could take the air out of Obama’s sails, as it did to Clinton, potentially resulting in a similar republican turnaround. Such a realignment would be devastating to the progressive agenda, especially after such a triumphant victory in 2008. But what does this all mean? It means the need for compromise in our legislative bodies increases as the days do, and, as Obama said, while the costs of action are great, the costs of inaction are even greater (both financially and politically).
On 10.04.09, In Opinion, By benrudin
Editors note: Ben Rudin is an active member of the College Democrats at the University of Oregon. He describes himself as a libertarian Democrat and supporter of the Democratic Freedom Caucus.
I have trouble figuring out how to start with this answer. I used to be a run-of-the-mill Democrat, but over time my views have evolved, as they should. As has been said, knowledge without experience is philosophy, but experience without knowledge is ignorance. Many people, have questioned whether I am really a Democrat, and to their credit, I have been wondering that myself recently. Many have seen a libertarian and capitalist streak from me, which seem to contradict being a Democrat. I’m fundamentally against rent control and single-payer health insurance, for example. I’m not like Zell (out) Miller, who simply considers being a Democrat a birthmark and will never change it. I have always fallen back on the idea that if I have to swallow the entire platform of one side, I’ll take the Democratic platform, and that still holds true today. But, I even began to wonder if that was true, as I have become more adamant about economic liberty than before. My social views, with a few exceptions, line up with the Democratic Party, but do my economic views? And if they don’t, do I still have a place in the Democratic Party? I was pondering both of these questions myself, and I have found an answer.
The answer for the first question is yes, making the second question moot. Many people wonder how, and I will explain since I don’t blame them. I ascribe to Obama’s philosophy, that government doesn’t exist to solve all your problems, but if you work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, etc…you should be able to support yourself. This philosophy has also led me to views that do not line up with the Democratic party on the surface; to be able to support yourself, you have to be able to keep the fruits of your own labor. Such is impossible if anyone has a claim to anyone else’s time, money, or energy. For someone to receive without working, someone has to work without receiving. I have never been one to argue for abolition of social programs, but you will never hear me refer to them as a “right,” for anybody. Our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are rights to action and to the results of our actions, not a duty on others to feed, clothe, house, or entertain us. For example, while I’ve always believed everyone should have access to health care, I disagree with the notion that health care is a right. You have a right to receive any product and service you’ve paid for, no one disputes that (except insurance companies), and that imposes no duty on anyone else except what has been mutually agreed to. So far this sounds a lot like conservative philosophy, but not necessarily.
Equality has long been a principle of both liberalism and the Democratic party, and you will find me behind typical liberal causes such as marriage equality. Along with that, the Declaration of Independence says quite clearly that we are all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. To put 2 and 2 together, this means that we all have equal rights, that cannot be taken away by anyone else, present always in all places. In other words, no one individual is “above,” or has rights to, anybody else. If you have a right to someone else, it means someone else is obligated to serve you, in other words, you are “above” him/her. Rich are not above the poor, poor are not above the rich, employers are not above employees, employees are not above employers, doctors are not above patients, patients are not above doctors, landlords are not above tenants, tenants are not above landlords, the list goes on (sounds counterintuitive with employee and employer, but in reality, they are simply two individuals who agreed to one producing results for the other in exchange for compensation). Equality is a main reason I am a capitalist. Socialism and redistribution of earnings imply that some people are above others. In other words, the notion that some people (the poor or corporations) are entitled to the earnings of someone else (the taxpayer). Or, the idea that people exist not for their own sake, but for society’s sake. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals who deal with one another. The difference between society and individual is quantitative, not qualitative. Socialism’s premise that individuals exist for society therefore means that individuals belong to other individuals. As someone who believes we are all created equal, I cannot agree.
Going back to when I said that health care is not a right, I base that on the principle of equality: patients are not above doctors. Let’s think about what health care is. Health care is a service of prevention, treatment, and management of illness and preservation of well-being offered by medical and health professionals. If we are going to say that health care is a right, we are saying that we have a right to the services of medical and health professionals. If I have a right to another person’s service(s), it follows that I am above that person. To use another example, if I have a right to be fed, clothed, and housed by my neighbors, it follows that I am above my neighbors. For the same reasoning, I am against a military draft: we are all equal, and do not have a right to force others to sacrifice themselves for our benefit. In response, you may ask whether the right to bear arms implies we are above gun dealers and manufacturers. After all, isn’t that the same logic? If the right to bear arms was interpreted in the same way as the right to health care: that others are obligated to give you a gun, it would be the same logic. But, I’ve never heard the right to bear arms interpreted that way, nor should it be. I don’t question the motives of those who argue health care is a right, as I don’t believe they mean to extend it to its logical end.
Then comes the corollary of Obama’s philosophy and of everybody being equal: equality of opportunity. I believe government has a role in ensuring equality of opportunity. We hear all the time from Republicans, that people who are rich have picked themselves up by the bootstraps, got educated, managed their money well, and became successful. The graduated income tax, according to them, seeks to punish and serve as a disincentive to that. Their point is not entirely without merit; some people have become successful doing just that. I have always been of the view that if people earn their money fairly, honestly, and legally, they should not be punished for doing so. The problem with the Republican notion, is that they are making a hasty generalization. In this case, implying that what’s true of some successful people is true of them all. Many people of the modern liberal view, argue that many of the rich were born with a silver spoon in their mouth (or are members of what I like to call the Lucky Sperm Club), have made their money at the public’s expense, and owe it to society to give back. That viewpoint has merit too, and I think the president of the LSC would be Paris Hilton. This premise is the heart of why I consider myself a Democrat, even economically.
Where I end up differing with the Democrats in practice (and shouldn’t), is that the proposal of a graduated income tax treats all rich people like they are privileged, rich at the public’s expense, Lucky Sperm Club members. I don’t like that idea anymore than I like the Republicans’ idea of treating all rich people like they are disciplined, educated, lifted up by the bootstraps type of people. I favor a tax system that distinguishes the two. No, not going person to person and determining, but a tax system which taxes people for wealth they didn’t create and letting people keep what they earned through their own efforts. A system that taxes privilege, not initiative. In other words, a tax on the value of land “owned.” And not just that, but a tax on the use of all natural resources. As well, some sort of tax on inheritance. Tax those who are blessed with privilege, not who earned their wealth. I consider this view to be consistent with the Democratic view of equality of opportunity, and why I consider myself a Democrat.
As well, the Federal Reserve presents another challenge for the principle of equality. The Federal Reserve allows banks to profit off money they did not earn. The money is given to the banks to lend, and the interest is for the banks to keep. That gives banks unfair privilege. If government wants to print money, it should spend the money directly into circulation, and any money the banks then collect interest on will be off of money they earned. The practicality of the Fed needs to be considered as well, and this ties into another reason why I have some differences with the Democratic party but still call myself a Democrat, and that is practicality. When an idea has been tested and does not produce the intended results, that has to be taken into account. Doing so is not Republican or Democratic, it’s common sense. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which is not perfect, has been shown to happen in practice, and is what is happening right now. In short, without a central bank, interest rates go down when savings go up, indicating people’s time preference has changed. Consumption goes down, while investment in the upper levels (mining, etc…) goes up, naturally. Investments are then able to make their way all the way to being consumed. But, when the central bank artificially lowers the interest rate and subsidizes it, it gives the appearance that people’s time preferences have shifted, when they haven’t. Consumption still continues as it always has, but investments in the upper levels go up. It stretches the line between the highest level of investment and consumption, breaking it. Investments that previously did not make economic sense now do, and malinvestments occur. Such is similar to why I argued against subsidies in Cash for Clunkers and corporate welfare. The recession serves as a time where capital moves into more economical uses. I differ when ABCT proponents say the existence of a central bank is the only way boom and busts occur, but it’s certainly one way. Hyman Minsky talks about other ways malinvestments occur, and he is right. Some people make it a dichotomy, but I think they both Minsky and the ABCT are accurate.
To a final point, I am a Democrat because believe that government can work. Republicans say government can’t work and they get elected and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Government can work, it just isn’t right now. The books Reinventing Government, The Price of Government, and Reinventor’s Fieldbook provide great innovative ideas to make government work again.
In short, the reasons I am a Democrat, in spite of my seeming contradictions, are the principles of equality in personhood and equality of opportunity. When I seem to agree with Republicans or Libertarians, even philosophically, underlying it is the liberal principle of equality. The disagreements I have with the Democrats are over specific solutions, not over recognizing existing problems. We might not agree on the appropriate amount of welfare for the poor, or the right amount and kind of taxation, or the right way to ensure equality of opportunity, but we can agree that the poor should have the same opportunities as the rest of us and that they currently don’t. In short, I may disagree with the proposed frosting to put on a cupcake, but we can both agree that no frosting is currently on it. The Republicans, on the other hand, will act as if frosting is currently on the cupcake when it isn’t.
Flickr Stream
Recent Comments