Alyssa's post

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.

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.