The Health Care Summit and Representative Democracy

The recent health care summit struck me as a vital step toward completing the very necessary overhaul of our nation’s healthcare system. The issue that I found most compelling was whether our elected officials should follow the whimsical mood of the nation, which often has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, and base their decisions on the polls and other similar metrics, or trust in representative democracy and represent the US by doing what they perceive to be the best thing for our nation, despite a looming election in November.

This issue is the subject of an ongoing debate that may never end. Should the US be closer to a pure representative democracy, or should it be closer to a direct democracy, where the real-time sentiment of the citizens drives each and every public policy decision? The US currently finds itself somewhere in between, a dangerous place that makes it difficult for our representatives to govern; they cannot decide whether they should base their decisions on their knowledge of how Congress works and what is feasible for the nation, or the sentiment of the people, which is tied to the state of the economy more than anything else.

Both sides have valid points. True democracy allows all citizens to voice their opinions and to be directly involved in the decision-making process. It functions through processes like referenda and jury duty, whereby the citizens directly make policy. This removes the need for polls, town hall meetings, or even representatives, because rather than having to indirectly voice their opinions through representatives or polls, the citizenry are the lawmakers. Though less direct, a representative democracy is simpler and more efficient. Rather than all citizens collectively deciding every public policy issue that may arise, society elects representatives, in whom it places its trust to decide these issues. We assume that they are the most qualified to make these decisions, based on their own knowledge of our law and institutions, and the recommendations of their staff and specialists in the field. The citizenry voice their opinions by electing representatives who share their view of the direction in which the country should go.

However, representative democracy is the more effective and feasible means of accomplishing the goals of the citizenry. It is the system that we have and most people agree that it is the better system. First, it is impractical to hold a referendum for every bill that is under consideration, or more to the point, to have all citizens involved in the process of developing each and every piece of legislation. Second, not all citizens have the knowledge, expertise or even the time to be involved in all levels of lawmaking. Third, it is inefficient to have so many persons involved in these processes. Creating legislation that will pass is already difficult enough. The Senate is constantly described as being in gridlock, and gridlock would certainly increase with direct democracy. Though these are extreme examples, they illustrate why representative democracy is the more effective and realistic system. Representation was the intention of the founding fathers, and it is the most effective and feasible means of reflecting the will of the people. Their intention was clearly portrayed by their creation of Congress and the Electoral College, showing their hesitation to create a system of direct democracy. Rather than striving to control our representatives like marionettes, we should instead work to restore trust in the system.

In regards to the current healthcare debate, or any issue on the Obama administration’s agenda, we should trust in our representatives to do what is necessary to improve public policy. The country overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party, giving them large majorities on both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House. This support signaled a mandate to take the country in a different direction, as elections are the primary means of showing the will of the people. We must allow the administration and Congress to do their job and not allow the day to day polls, the upcoming election or the threats of the other party to affect their decisions. Moreover, just because some voters may have changed their minds since voting for those who hold office, our representatives are there for the time being and must do what is necessary to improve public policy. The current debate has shown that the longer an issue is worked on, the more unpopular it can become. The current health care bills that have passed in Congress are the outcome of debate and compromise. They are the outcome of a representative democracy. Not everyone will agree with what passes, nor will anyone be completely satisfied, but that is the nature of democracy, where the majority rules. With this in mind, we must support what has been produced and trust our representatives to do what is in our best interest. If we disagree with the outcome, we can elect someone else to office. That is how the system should work.

In short, we must trust in representative democracy and not expect unanimous agreement on the issues. When sixty percent of the senate votes for something, it translates to sixty percent of the country supporting it. We have elected our members of Congress and our Senators to represent our interests and to make the right decisions, and we must place our trust in them to do what is best and necessary for the nation.

Health Care: the absurdity of our system and the current debate

The US is 37th in the world in terms of best health care systems. And yet the free market approach to health care is still the dominant topic of debate. This is despite recent studies that show overwhelming support for a single-payer, government funded system by both consumers and physicians alike.

In 2003 Barack Obama, then a member of Chicago's state legislature, clearly voiced his support for a single-payer system as the most efficient, cost effective and effective way to ensure all Americans and cut costs. Yet despite this clear opinion in his speech, since taking office Obama has clearly changed his views, giving in to lobbyists and political pressure. He now refuses to consider a single-payer system as a viable alternative to the current system.

It is disturbing to see how the clear and respectable views of the candidate for whom the country voted have been corrupted by the pressure of lobbyists and campaign contributors.

It is clear from data conserning the health care systems of other countries, specifically the 36 countries who outrank the US in terms of quality systems, that a single-payer or similar governmnet funded system is the best possible way to cover all Americans and to lower the costs of health care.

It is absurd to believe that allowing the market, which is run by the greed of those who participate in it, to control something as crucial as health care is a good idea. Look what would have happened to social security if it had been privatized: it would have gone down with the stock market.

And the opponents of a single-payer system, who cite the need for choice that the current system apparently allows, need to stop lying. In fact, the current system restricts choice and keeps people from going to certain doctors due to how the current system is constructed. I know from personal experience. Because of the network system that is currently used, I may only go to a doctor within my network. What kind of CHOICE is that? It is the opposite of choice. Contrastingly, a single-payer system would allow every person to go to ANY doctor anywhere in the country without having to worry about networks or whether or not their visit will be covered.

Opponents also love to say that the government would be making choices for patients. This is a complete lie. The government's only role in a single-payer system is funding. The choices are left up to patients and doctors: more than in the current system.

The problem is simple- the insurance companies. These companies are the main illness of healthcare in the United States. They are out for profit and nothing else. Instead we must have a system whose goal is to benefit the people. That is what a single-payer system would do and that is what the US needs.

Experience: Is it as big of a deal as people believe?

So what is all this talk about experience? Watching the mainstream media, it appears to be one of the most important qualities that a person can have when running for public office, especially for the presidency. But is experience actually the safety net that people make it out to be?

First of all, if we are to believe that experience is the key to a successful president, wouldn't George W. Bush be the best man for the job? He has seen this country through war, economic hardship, and many other difficulties during his tenure. However, I doubt that many voters would be willing to vote for him, were he able to run for a third term.

So then experience is seemingly not what it is cracked up to be. It seems that maybe the issues are more important than experience. For our current president has all the experience that anyone could ever ask for, but his stances on the issues and the way in which he governs are what truly matter.

Therefore, I would ask that this ongoing conversation about experience, vis-a-vis the upcoming presidential election, stop. Instead I would ask that the questions and conversations revolve around each candidates view of the issues and how he or she would govern, rather than attacking Senator Obama or Governor Palin for lack of experience. Because as we know, experience cannot guarantee that a candidate will do well. Case in point, our current president.

The Beginning of the Conversation, Part Deux

This project was birthed out of a desire to see people engage in meaningful discussion about important issues that affect the way we think about what it means to be "American" in this period in history. In the interests of seeing that goal come to fruition, the good news is that there seems to be no shortage of things to talk about! There is no doubt that we are all witnesses to an extraordinary and volatile time in the life of our nation.

Like the inaugural entry to this blog states, the overall purpose of this project is not to push a particular political agenda, or to add to the noise of partisan squabbling. I think we are here primarily because we are interested in the defining issues of our generation, and we feel a measure of responsibility as informed individuals to contemplate and engage those issues.

Represented here are some of the finest young minds of our time. The hope is that each of us, drawing on our respective fields of expertise, will be able to contribute to a rich and balanced body of work that engages the fundamental issues and crucial challenges we face as a nation today.

More than assuming a pedagogic stance, we are here to raise questions. There is an abundance of information already out there from which to draw upon. We are here to focus the scope of inquiry. In doing so, my hope is that you will draw your own conclusions and join us in the conversation.

“Yonder sits the Fourth Estate…”

“…and they are more important than them all.” It’s true. The members of the Fourth Estate – journalists – play an incredibly important role in the American political process. Politics wouldn’t be as engaging, as divisive, as relevant, or as defiant without the help and hindrance of the press, who chronicle and catalog the goings-on in political centers across the world. They are the key holders to elite, sometimes locked, and oftentimes blockaded, fortresses. They possess the power to spring open those doors and shine light into dark quarters. The citizens of this country place arguably more trust in the work of a journalist than they do their own representatives, senators, executives and judges. The role that the press takes in the political process will be the focus of my posts; as a student of journalism and a teacher of broadcast journalism, I have a keen interest in the behavior of the press and its role in current American society. I shall try dutifully to bring to light certain acts of journalism that are worthy of discussion and I hope that you, dear reader, will contribute your thoughts as well.