Reply to Rejecting Medicaid

Lauren does a good job at organizing her argument. She begins by stating the issue at hand, which is that “the Supreme Court decided last month that under the Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid should be optional.” However, this wording is slightly off in saying that “Medicaid should be optional.” The Supreme Court actually made the decision allowing states to block Medicaid growth without a penalty.

Next, Lauren focuses on Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. She explains that Rick Perry finds that expanding Medicaid is a direct violation of the Constitution and Texas’ “founding principles of limited government.” After research, I found this statement to be true; however, Lauren does not provide an embedded link to her quote, and I was unable to accept it as being credible unless I researched the statement for myself.

Lauren then elaborates that according to Rick Perry, the program would not result in neither more affordable care nor better “patient protection.” However, Lauren failed to provide an embedded link for this quote as well.

Lauren then states that Perry’s “confident and defiant decision is good,” but she does not elaborate on how it is good. Instead, she states, “We can’t help but notice some major flaws in it.” I found this to be rather confusing. I wish she would have provided some examples as to how Perry’s decision is good, and then, pointed out that there are, however, some flaws.   

Lauren’s next paragraph states, “Another question is that would it end up costing less if the uninsured Texans were relying on emergency rooms every time with something as minor as the common cold?” I found this sentence hard to decipher. I do not understand where the information came from or how it comes to that conclusion. Again, an embedded link would have been helpful.

Finally, Lauren points out that Perry needs to “suggest ways in which he is going to deal with the negative effects of his decisions.” I agree that Perry does not do a good job of addressing how he will deal with the negative effects. However, explaining what the negative effects are would be beneficial in Lauren’s article. For example, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal, “rejection of Medicaid expansion in Texas will shift costs to the privately insured, increase uncompensated care expenses and raise mortality rates, all while more uninsured patients crowd North Texas emergency rooms.”

Overall, Lauren makes solid points; however, she lacks making her article credible. Citing her sources would have made this blog more beneficial for the reader. 

Planned Parenthood's Invalid Defunding for Texans

The decision to continue or cease to federally fund Planned Parenthood has been an ongoing struggle. It is an issue that directly affects Texas as well as all of the United States. Planned Parenthood was created in 1916 to provide women, men, and teens access to federally funded health services, including cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and other women’s health services. The organization also provides non-federally funded abortion services. However, those that are more conservative believe that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, because although it doesn’t use federal money for abortions, it still provides the service.

According to Stephen Dinan, a writer for The Washington Times, Planned Parenthood’s “clinics account for about a quarter of abortions in the United States.” Furthermore, Robert Pear, a writer for The New York Times, states that the organization provides more than 300,000 abortions per year.

Also, there is one major financial gain from defunding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives a substantial amount of federal funding. According to Suzanne Sataline, author for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, about one-third of Planned Parenthood’s money is federally funded. Planned Parenthood receives $1 million a day from taxpayer funds. If Planned Parenthood were to cut federal funding, then the national debt would decrease. In one year, defunding Planned Parenthood would save $365 million, a small dent in the national debt.

However, alleviating national debt leaves poorer people without access to healthcare. For example, according to Sataline, Texas would “lose $20 million statewide through cuts being proposed by some lawmakers.” Some proponents’ main goal is to defund Planned Parenthood in order to decrease availability to abortions. However, the organization’s health centers in Texas that enable care for 122,000 women do not provide abortion services. Therefore, in Texas, defunding Planned Parenthood would put an end to helping many underprivileged men, women, and teens to health services, not abortions.

Texas legislature needs to make their voice be heard in this debate, and it needs to explain how Texas does not partake in the abortion services through Planned Parenthood. Therefore, it should remain federally funded in order to benefit all of the 122,000 women as well as men that go there for health services. Defunding Planned Parenthood based on the debate’s reasoning does not apply to Texans.

RE: Why Planned Parenthood Is Good For Texas

            In reading Robert's post, I found myself agreeing with Robert’s overall choice that Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded, but I did not find all of his facts to be correct. For example, I agree that taxpayers were not really paying for abortions through Planned Parenthood. However, I did more research on how abortions were handled through Planned Parenthood, and I did not find that abortions were “subsidized” by the organization as Robert explained. According to The Washington Times writer Stephen Dinan, Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use any of the taxpayers’ money for abortions. It would have been beneficial if Robert had provided an embedded link to an article that stated that Planned Parenthood does in fact subsidize abortions. This would have provided more credibility.

            Furthermore, Robert states that “Hell, even Texas law requires that groups receiving any government funding be both legally and financially separate from abortion clinics—requirements which Planned Parenthood obliges by.” Again, I found this statement to be false. Dinan wrote that Planned Parenthood’s “clinics account for about a quarter of abortions in the United States.” Furthermore, Robert Pear, a writer for The New York Times, states that the organization provides more than 300,000 abortions per year.

            Robert also explains that continuing to fund Planned Parenthood is “arguably cheaper,” because “ceasing to can only lead to a spike in unplanned pregnancies among poor women--who will in turn, become reliant on the still in place Medicaid.” There could be some truth to this statement, but I highly doubt it after discovering how much money Planned Parenthood receives from government funding. According to Suzanne Sataline, an author for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Planned Parenthood receives a million dollars a day from taxpayer funds.

            Overall, the only two arguments that Robert makes that I found true after my research was that conservatives do want to defund Planned Parenthood based on financial concern and pro-life beliefs as well as that many people at Planned Parenthood receive multiple health services, such as contraceptives, cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

            Robert does make a lot of valid points, and if I had not researched more, then his writing would have easily persuaded me. However, his lack of providing sources where he found his facts that support his argument leaves the article as a whole non-credible, and I am unable to see if maybe his facts are correct according to the sources he found.

Juvenile Life Sentencing Without Parole: Never the Answer.

When does one decide that regardless of age, a child deserves to die in prison? Two cases outline different situations that cost two juveniles to serve time without parole.

Cole Cannon, a 52-year-old man, was drinking and doing drugs with two boys, 14-year-old Evan Miller and his 16-year-old friend, prior to attacking the two boys for trying to steal from him.  Miller beat Cannon with a bat, and then, with the help of his friend, they set Cannon’s house on fire.

Miller has always had a troubling lifestyle. He has been in and out of foster homes, his stepfather is physically abusive, and his mother is an alcoholic and drug-addicted mess. Not to mention that starting at the age of 6, Miller has tried to kill himself 4 times.

On the other hand, 14-year-old Kuntrell Jackson and his two friends attempted to rob a video store when the store clerk was killed. Although Jackson didn’t shoot the clerk, he already had a bad record including multiple counts of car theft and shoplifting, so he was sentenced to life without parole.

“In 2010, the court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide crimes violated the Eighth Amendment.” This should be upheld in court. Although a juvenile receives life with parole, that does not necessarily mean that he or she will ever be released. Parole boards decide if and when someone leaves prison.

For the most part, children are less mature, irrational, and process things without weighing the consequences. Also, those that have had a rough upbringing may be unaware of the positives in life. Children should have the chance to redeem their character.

However, psychological treatment needs to be implemented in order to determine if the child will no longer be a threat to society. Although it would be nice to think that everyone should be given a chance, that is not always true. There are certain psychological illnesses that may not be reversible; in which case, the child should be institutionalized, not imprisoned.

Furthermore, Texas jail systems are broke. The more rehabilitated prisoners that can be released and put to work as well as pay taxes, the better our society will be. 

Source: "Juvenile Life Sentence Ruling is Wise." Austin American-Statesman. Austin American-Statesman. 25 June 2012. Web. 27 July 2012.

Are Voter ID Cards a Necessity?

In The Dallas Morning News, an editorial was written on July 13, 2012, entitled Texas Makes a Case Against Voter ID. The author creates a compelling argument by beginning with stating the facts. For five days, Texas presented its best evidence for how enforcing Voter ID cards is not a discrimination against minorities. The author points out that it has become a bigger issue than Texas' alone, but also one of national concern. Also, Texas is not the only Republican state that is facing accusations for discriminating against minorities. However, the author focuses on how Texas will be directly affected if it enforces Voter IDs. For example, 167,724 Texans will be deprived the right to vote, which is "equivalent of denying the vote to every person in Grand Prairie or in Brownsville." The author further explains that those making a case for using Voter IDs in order to prevent voter fraud is unnecessary, because "only five people have been prosecuted for impersonating a vote" and there have been "no cases involving noncitizens who had voted." The author uses valid statistics to persuade his readers, such as myself. He also uses another source, a statistician from the University of Texas at Austin, to create greater credibility. The target audience is every eligible Texas voter, especially those that will be affected by Voter ID cards. With that being said, why not consider the statistics?

Mean Rachel Speaks Loudly

On Friday, July 20, 2012, Mean Rachel really expresses her opinion in her article "Can Romney Bring Sexy Back?" She uses cutting language and a sarcastic tone to get her point across. For instance, she mocks Mitt Romney for his vice presidential pick by asking him, "...Are you still awake?" Also, she further degrades him by stating, "Is there anyone more milquetoast than Mitt Romney?" Romney has decided to most likely pick a woman as his vice presidential partner. Although I find Rachel Farris' use of description and word choice to be more entertaining rather than necessary, I still have to agree with her on the underlying message. I too think that if Romney chooses a woman to be his vice presidential pick, then it will cause an increase in voter turnout. Although maybe not to the degree of  "conservatives [dragging] themselves begrudgingly -- but with the power of the Lord's spirit! -- to the polls in November." Whenever anything controversial is presented, then there is an increase in voter interest, especially amongst those strongly pro or anti the issue. Rachel Farris does make her articles entertaining, and she is excellent at not holding back anything when saying what she really feels. Her target audience is people that have a strong connection with the Democratic party. Also, she is a credible source that has been on KVUE News, quoted in several books, and writes for the Huffington Post. Rachel Farris' writing is wonderful for her target audience. She dares to say things that those that agree with her may not dare to say out loud. However, in doing so, she limits the scope of people that are interested in reading her articles, which is not necessarily a good or bad thing. I do not always agree with what Rachel says, but in this article, I agree with her message.

Current Economic Debate: Bush vs. Obama

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, the New York Times published an article titled "In Texas, a Presidential Duel Over the Economy." The article says that President Obama flew to former President George W. Bush's home state, Texas, to "headline four campaign fundraisers." Obama announced his disdain for the country to return to Bush's policies concerning the economy. However, Bush is also against Obama's plan for the economy. Instead of campaigning, Bush wrote a book outlining his ideas for a better economy. Although both of these events happened during the same time period, it is believed that both men didn't know anything about the other's agenda. Obama also spoke about Mitt Romney's plans for the economy. He explained that Bush's and Romney's policies are not fit for pulling the economy out of its financial crisis. As a whole, this article is worth reading, because it briefly explains a current controversy going on in the election that directly effects not only Texas but also the entire country.