Push for a health Care debate

One of the major issues facing the US is our Health Care system. Recently a bill for a single-player universal Health has been a focal topic of the House and the Senate. The bill has passed the house of representatives by a 220-215 vote. Now, it is being processed by the senate. The conflict now is whether the debate for the health care bill should happen sooner, specifically the saturday preceding Thanksgiving. It would need to have 60 senate votes to approve this debate, which will eliminate filibusters who want to delay the historic health care bill, most of whom are Republican.

Two final holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor they would vote to clear the way for what is expected to be a bruising, conflicting debate.
"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who noted the legislation includes $100 million to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor."

"This bill would require most Americans to carry insurance, and large firms would be liable for large costs if they did not provide it to their workforce and employees. Moreover, Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population."

"Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "Americans know that a vote to proceed on this bill is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes and massive cuts to Medicare. That's a pretty hard thing to justify supporting."

Filibusters, mostly republicans in the senate, are delaying this health care bill, believing that time will solve their problems. In my opinion, they are running away from a conflict that they could express in the debate for this bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=Aguc0BHYgIG9Mtnpj7EuZGayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJvdWoxNzl0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTIxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmdWxsbmJzcHN0b3I-

US Supreme Court: Should minors get life sentences?

Supreme Court Judges are torn on the issue of sentencing minors (people under the age of 18) to life without parole. Some argue that life sentencing is almost to the same degree of the Death penalty on minors, which is "cruel and unsual punishment." The two judges who favor life sentencing without the possibility of parole are Justice Alito and Justice Roberts, claiming that "death is different." Thus it cannot be compared to the degree of life sentencing. “The worst case you can possibly imagine, that person must at some point be made eligible for parole, that’s your argument?”argues Alito.

However some judges like Justices Kennedy are opposed to giving minors such a harsh degree of life sentencing. “What is the state’s interest in keeping the defendant in custody for the rest of his life if he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a real danger?” said Justice Kennedy. He believes that minors, who are more susceptible to peer pressure and immature choices, are not the worst offenders.

On the contrary, the court is considering appeals by Joe Harris Sullivan, who was convicted of raping an elderly woman when he was 13, and Terrance Jamar Graham, who was found to have violated his probation by taking part in an armed robbery at the age of 17.

Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, on the case of life sentencing with the possibility of parole, suggest to compromise with the concept of case-by-case basis.

In my perspective, people are different; some criminals may change and some may not. If the death penalty and life sentences were abolished, more criminals would be encouraged to commit more crimes. However, sentencing a minor, a person who has yet to learn from the reality of the world, should not be given life sentences without parole. It's a whole life wasted, just like the concept of the death penalty.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azXT0bzvWHWU&pos=9

Congress expands FBI power in Patriot Act

Congress approved the bill that will allow the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge. The FBI, under this bill that expands the Patriot Act, will be allowed to get bank records and Internet or phone logs just by issuing a letter that doesn't even need to be consulted by a judge. Basically, the the balance of power will be altered as power will shift more to the FBI, and will take some away from the judicial court.

Some officials believe that this bill will strenghten US's national security. "This provision brings the definition of 'financial institution' up to date with the reality of the financial industry," Goss said on the House floor. "This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and spies to 'follow the money' more effectively and thereby protect the people of the United States more effectively(Wired.com © 2009 Condé Nast Digital)."

Nonetheless, some people believe that the expansion of power in a certain group, like the FBI, will create an imbalance of power in the government, and therefore, creating more corruption or abuse of power in the nation.

In my perspective, there should be a line between national security and invasion of Privacy. Giving the FBI the power to search and acquire anyone's personal records, without even a warrant, or consent of other higher officials, will put the the privacy and identity of everyone at risk.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/11/61341