Traffic and Congestion Discussion: 4/17
I personally think that the traffic problem in the LA area is a huge
problem but I don’t know if there is anything that we can do about it now.
The freeway system is already set up and so complex that people have
gotten used to it. They complain about traffic and congestion but they
have almost accepted it and the long commutes that come along with it. I
would like there to be a better public transportation system in the area,
but I don’t know if it’s possible to have a metro any better than the one
that exists now, which has one line and five or six stops. I think the
best bet would be an expansion and possibly a privatization of the bus
system so that it can serve more people.
I do not agree with the article that was pro-high speed rail in
California. The author argued, before the current bill passed to allot 800
million dollars of tax money to a high speed rail in 2008, that it would
be a solution to transportation problems. One person that he talked to
said how her life would be much easier if there was a train from Los
Angeles to San Francisco. Yet realistically, how many people would this be
helping? How many people really travel that distance on a regular enough
basis that 800 million dollars worth of taxpayers’ money would benefit the
most people? In reality, it seems like it would be a much more expensive
system than an airplane, at least in the first several years of its
service. It does not seem like the best investment.
I do not agree either with some of the odd ways of getting revenue to help
pay for road repairs, like raising the amount of money in parking meters
or just installing even more meters. That and taxing cars coming into
large cities seems to be punishing people for something that isn’t their
fault. However, optional toll lanes would be helpful, or converting some
car pool lanes into toll lanes would work.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Samantha Frank's blog post
The healthcare situation in California is, at the very least, disturbing.
With the skyrocketing costs of seeking medical attention and no means to
pay for it the people of California are in jeopardy of not being able to
stay healthy. There seems to be a trend among people who “can’t afford to
get sick” to ignore illness until the last minute so that they can attend
work for as long as possible, and then rush to a hospital when they become
so ill that there is no other choice. In the mean time they have possibly
infected their coworkers and family members, spreading whatever it is that
the person is sick with. In the end the sick person ends up spending more
at the hospital then they would have at the doctor, and depending on how
sick they get, could possibly loose more money at work then they might
have if they took the time off initially in order to quickly recover. At
the same time the person is losing money, so is their employer because
part of their company isn’t functioning when people are out sick, and if a
sick person spread their illness around the company then large sections of
it may go down at a time. Yet employers are slowly shying away from
offering health insurance to their employees. This is clearly not a wise
idea. If, purely from a business perspective, a company wishes to
function they should strive to have all of their employees healthy and the
easiest way to do that is to offer cheep health insurance.
The underwriting process in California also hinders people from being
able to obtain health insurance. If an insurance company refuses to
cover a person because they have a prior history of cancer or other
illness that is determined to be a risk to the health insurance company
then they can deny the applicant or charge them such an astronomical rate
that the person can not afford the coverage. Health insurance is clearly
a business, but there has to be some form of regulation in this state so
that the business aspect of healthcare isn’t keeping people from
obtaining the insurance. Some have suggested socializing healthcare to
fix the problem, but is this really the answer? If we were to completely
socialize health care in our state would we all be subjected to long
clinic lines, with all of the best doctors taking private practice to the
wealthy who can afford the prices that they will charge with out the
health care assistance? The State hasn’t shown the ability to
effectively run their Medical program, so what makes people think that
they would be able to handle everyone’s health care? I also wonder if
there will be stipulations placed on the care that people receive, and
the quality that they get. It is hard to find doctors who are willing to
give up the money they earn in private practice to go to work at a county
clinic, and few private practices will accept medi cal because they pay
far less than private insurance does for medical care. Also, getting
ride of private health insurance companies would hurt the economy because
thousands would be out of jobs. What then is the answer? Do we adopt a
dualistic state such as Germany has, where both private and universal
health are offered? If this were the case I wonder what the gap would be
between the private health insurance costs now, and when the government
picks up the slack for those who can’t afford it. There is the
possibility that premiums would jump through the roof in order for these
companies to make up for the business that they will lose from those who
decided to go with universal care. It may also force people, again, into
care that is substandard if the government care continues to pay less for
care than private insurance would.
With the skyrocketing costs of seeking medical attention and no means to
pay for it the people of California are in jeopardy of not being able to
stay healthy. There seems to be a trend among people who “can’t afford to
get sick” to ignore illness until the last minute so that they can attend
work for as long as possible, and then rush to a hospital when they become
so ill that there is no other choice. In the mean time they have possibly
infected their coworkers and family members, spreading whatever it is that
the person is sick with. In the end the sick person ends up spending more
at the hospital then they would have at the doctor, and depending on how
sick they get, could possibly loose more money at work then they might
have if they took the time off initially in order to quickly recover. At
the same time the person is losing money, so is their employer because
part of their company isn’t functioning when people are out sick, and if a
sick person spread their illness around the company then large sections of
it may go down at a time. Yet employers are slowly shying away from
offering health insurance to their employees. This is clearly not a wise
idea. If, purely from a business perspective, a company wishes to
function they should strive to have all of their employees healthy and the
easiest way to do that is to offer cheep health insurance.
The underwriting process in California also hinders people from being
able to obtain health insurance. If an insurance company refuses to
cover a person because they have a prior history of cancer or other
illness that is determined to be a risk to the health insurance company
then they can deny the applicant or charge them such an astronomical rate
that the person can not afford the coverage. Health insurance is clearly
a business, but there has to be some form of regulation in this state so
that the business aspect of healthcare isn’t keeping people from
obtaining the insurance. Some have suggested socializing healthcare to
fix the problem, but is this really the answer? If we were to completely
socialize health care in our state would we all be subjected to long
clinic lines, with all of the best doctors taking private practice to the
wealthy who can afford the prices that they will charge with out the
health care assistance? The State hasn’t shown the ability to
effectively run their Medical program, so what makes people think that
they would be able to handle everyone’s health care? I also wonder if
there will be stipulations placed on the care that people receive, and
the quality that they get. It is hard to find doctors who are willing to
give up the money they earn in private practice to go to work at a county
clinic, and few private practices will accept medi cal because they pay
far less than private insurance does for medical care. Also, getting
ride of private health insurance companies would hurt the economy because
thousands would be out of jobs. What then is the answer? Do we adopt a
dualistic state such as Germany has, where both private and universal
health are offered? If this were the case I wonder what the gap would be
between the private health insurance costs now, and when the government
picks up the slack for those who can’t afford it. There is the
possibility that premiums would jump through the roof in order for these
companies to make up for the business that they will lose from those who
decided to go with universal care. It may also force people, again, into
care that is substandard if the government care continues to pay less for
care than private insurance would.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Corey P on Health Care
There has been a big influx in the controversy of universal healthcare. Especially, when the numbers came out about how many people were not insured. More than one in five nonelderly Californians lacked some form of health insurance coverage for all or part of the year in 2003—nearly 6.6 million children and adults under age 65, which is more people than the entire population of the state of Massachusetts. That is a crazy amount of people that are not insured. More than 3.7 million of these Californians lacked health insurance coverage for at least the entire year. If one thing happened that put someone in the hospital they would talk to you while you are in the hospital about how you are going to pay. They put a price on health, a price on living. Some of the arguments is that we have a right to Life, yet that right we heavily have to pay for. What is the price to pay for life and wellness? What is life? Is it just being alive or is it being ALIVE? Some other countries have a healthcare system as well as a private sector where people can choose their own doctors. Right now I don’t think that general healthcare would be a good idea. In a prosperous time period, sure, I think it could work and I am sure it would work. Many nations have it now and they are doing fine and even better than us but that is another matter and because of many reasons. Who gets healthcare is also another matter. Many people think that everyone should get healthcare and many others think that only citizens should. The question of who gets what where and how is one that
applies here. Even immigrants, legal or illegal, would get healthcare. The United States of America has a massive population and it would be very expensive to finance a general healthcare system. It would not work now and would only when we had a stable tax base and a stable economy.
applies here. Even immigrants, legal or illegal, would get healthcare. The United States of America has a massive population and it would be very expensive to finance a general healthcare system. It would not work now and would only when we had a stable tax base and a stable economy.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Corey P's Questions
1)Should everyone have health care no matter if a citizen or not? Should only citizens get health care? Is it the government's responsibility? How would you work this out?
2)In other parts of the world there is universal health care as well as private health care companies. Should we take up this method? What should be counted as part of the health care? Transplants, face lifts, what should be counted as health care?
2)In other parts of the world there is universal health care as well as private health care companies. Should we take up this method? What should be counted as part of the health care? Transplants, face lifts, what should be counted as health care?
Samantha Frank's Questions
Do you think that the removal of the underwriting process would allow more people to recieve health insurance (like they do in Washington State)? Do you think that it's fair that our State is allowed to turn people away for pre existing conditions, especially when they can't help having them? (For example someone who has been diagnosed with Cancer will never be accepted by any insurance company for any reason, because they do not wish to pay for a condition that was there before the person applied)
Do you think that government assistance programs such as Medical allow people who can't receive health insurance reasonable coverage and medical care so that they can have their problems taken care of? Do you think a different type of program would allow easier access to medical care at a cost that the uninsured could afford?
Do you think that government assistance programs such as Medical allow people who can't receive health insurance reasonable coverage and medical care so that they can have their problems taken care of? Do you think a different type of program would allow easier access to medical care at a cost that the uninsured could afford?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Ashlee Williams blog post
Education is one of the most important areas that the government needs to fund. It is important to plan for the future and to make sure that everyone is going to receive a similar education to their peers throughout the nation.
Bilingual education in California is completely necessary and I believe beneficial even for children whose primary language is English. If children learn 2 languages before middle school, it will be easier for them to learn a third language in high school, rather than ‘learning’ a second language in high school and intending to study a third language later. Once bilingual education becomes the norm for schools, the negative stigma that is currently associated with it will fade. I am now disappointed that I did not learn Spanish when I lived in a mainly Hispanic neighborhood and again when I enrolled in French in high school and later became a French minor in college. Though I can learn the language later in life, I feel that it would have been a definite advantage in my life and probably my French language skills to have been taught Spanish in elementary school.
Proposition 13 led to California’s disadvantage in funding and led their ratings to fall from the top schools in the nation to the bottom with 60% the amount of funding that other states’ schools receive. If California’s schools had the population that most other states’ schools have this would be able to be adapted for and schools would be able to function at the high rates of the past. With overcrowding and lack of books, the students that would normally just barely pass end up failing and it shows up as poor ratings for the schools. I think if schools in California were adjusted to fit the same characteristics as schools in other states, including class sizes and fluency of students and the same amount of money per student, the education would be approximately the same but due to three negative factors all at the same time public schools are forced to do the best they can with what they can fundraise or cutting corners.
At this point, even if public school funding was increased to the highest in the nation, it would take close to a full generation for students to catch up with the nation, with the poor preparation that many children receive in elementary school that leads to students struggling in regular classes in high school. While it is a worthwhile pursuit, with Prop.13 and the current economy it is not looking hopeful for schools to improve any time soon.
For me, while public education in California, is a problem I feel that some of the responsibility that we place on the districts should be laced on the students. I graduated from a lower-middle class high school that while it was fairly new, it was severely overcrowded with my graduating class having over 900 students. While our school didn’t have nearly as much money as other schools I still managed to learn enough that I felt prepared for my college classes. Many other students did the same and even though some students slipped through the cracks, this was due to the fact that they did not want to be there and while they may have thrived in smaller classes that unfortunately was not an option unless you wanted to pay for the one private high school in our city. Of course, many parents could not afford this or did not want to send their children to a private Catholic school and the overcrowded schools in the area were their only options. It would have been nice to go to a small close-knit high school but I feel that I learned many valuable lessons
from the large school environment and that students should try their best to learn from the situation rather than giving up because they are not receiving the same perks as a richer school.
Bilingual education in California is completely necessary and I believe beneficial even for children whose primary language is English. If children learn 2 languages before middle school, it will be easier for them to learn a third language in high school, rather than ‘learning’ a second language in high school and intending to study a third language later. Once bilingual education becomes the norm for schools, the negative stigma that is currently associated with it will fade. I am now disappointed that I did not learn Spanish when I lived in a mainly Hispanic neighborhood and again when I enrolled in French in high school and later became a French minor in college. Though I can learn the language later in life, I feel that it would have been a definite advantage in my life and probably my French language skills to have been taught Spanish in elementary school.
Proposition 13 led to California’s disadvantage in funding and led their ratings to fall from the top schools in the nation to the bottom with 60% the amount of funding that other states’ schools receive. If California’s schools had the population that most other states’ schools have this would be able to be adapted for and schools would be able to function at the high rates of the past. With overcrowding and lack of books, the students that would normally just barely pass end up failing and it shows up as poor ratings for the schools. I think if schools in California were adjusted to fit the same characteristics as schools in other states, including class sizes and fluency of students and the same amount of money per student, the education would be approximately the same but due to three negative factors all at the same time public schools are forced to do the best they can with what they can fundraise or cutting corners.
At this point, even if public school funding was increased to the highest in the nation, it would take close to a full generation for students to catch up with the nation, with the poor preparation that many children receive in elementary school that leads to students struggling in regular classes in high school. While it is a worthwhile pursuit, with Prop.13 and the current economy it is not looking hopeful for schools to improve any time soon.
For me, while public education in California, is a problem I feel that some of the responsibility that we place on the districts should be laced on the students. I graduated from a lower-middle class high school that while it was fairly new, it was severely overcrowded with my graduating class having over 900 students. While our school didn’t have nearly as much money as other schools I still managed to learn enough that I felt prepared for my college classes. Many other students did the same and even though some students slipped through the cracks, this was due to the fact that they did not want to be there and while they may have thrived in smaller classes that unfortunately was not an option unless you wanted to pay for the one private high school in our city. Of course, many parents could not afford this or did not want to send their children to a private Catholic school and the overcrowded schools in the area were their only options. It would have been nice to go to a small close-knit high school but I feel that I learned many valuable lessons
from the large school environment and that students should try their best to learn from the situation rather than giving up because they are not receiving the same perks as a richer school.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Ashee's Questions
In today's society, it is very important for children to be taught
bilingually, including children whose primary language is English. What do
you think the best way is for this to be accomplished?
With Prop. 13, California's education system has lower funding than the
national average. Do you think the problem we now have is from this lack
of funding or from the wrong allocation of resources or a combination of
both? What do you think the best solution would be?
bilingually, including children whose primary language is English. What do
you think the best way is for this to be accomplished?
With Prop. 13, California's education system has lower funding than the
national average. Do you think the problem we now have is from this lack
of funding or from the wrong allocation of resources or a combination of
both? What do you think the best solution would be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
