31 December 2013
Article found here
Due to Congress' failure to renew long-term federal aid benefits for the long-term unemployed, approximately 1.3 million Americans will lose the benefits they have been receiving with the start of the new year. Though there was legislation put forward concerning the matter, the compromise did not include any kind of temporary fix.
For many, these benefits are what keeps them going through the difficulties of unemployment. One lady, in response to arguments that benefits for the long-term unemployed after 28 weeks are a disservice to the recipients, said that "[her] job search is [her] full time job," and that she is "sick and tired of people insinuating that folks in [her] position are not really trying to find jobs and are content to remain on unemployment."
The Democrats blame the Republicans for the problem. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "In the past, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to extend unemployment insurance for those still looking for work. Sadly, Republicans have now decided that they would rather let this program expire than cooperate with Democrats."
President Obama has asked Congress to pass temporary legislation after the holidays.
I think that this is an excellent example of why we need federal welfare programs. Yes, they are a mess, and yes, we have horrible things like this happen, but ultimately we see the side of our country that needs help. Though there were arguments in the article that said that these long-term unemployment benefits are too costly and are a disservice to those receiving them after a certain period of time, I wish to politely disagree. I understand that there are times when people do take advantage of the government, but I don't think that is usually the case; most people want more money than what they would receive from this unemployment program.
Also, there was a statement from a lady receiving the benefits of this program where she said that people sometimes look at the long-term unemployed and say that they should just get a job working fast food. The woman's response was that she has tried that and couldn't get a job. However, even if she could get a job working fast food or something similar, would she have been able to survive off of just that income? I would like to argue that no, she could not, especially if she has children. We have talked many times in class about the need to raise the minimum wage, and I strongly agree. If we wish to make those on welfare independent, we must provide them with higher-paying jobs.
Finally, though I don't think the blame should be placed on the Republicans for the issue, I do agree that the members of Congress from both parties need to learn to compromise a little more, especially on issues as serious as this one.
Here is an article about raising the minimum wage.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
Court Blocks Hospital from Disconnecting Jahi McMath from Life Support
30 December 2013
Article found here
13-year-old Jahi McMath went in for tonsil surgery earlier this month in an effort to fix some breathing issues. Though things seemed fine immediately after the procedure, everything began to go south when she began "bleeding profusely" and then went into cardiac arrest. A few days after, McMath was declared brain dead by doctors.
Now McMath's family is fighting for what is left of her life. In response to an offer from New York to keep Jahi on life support, the family is raising money to transport their daughter. They say that Jahi is not dead, and that she has responded to her mother's touch and voice.
Although several doctors have proclaimed her irreversibly brain dead and the hospital wishes to cut her from life support, Jahi's family continues to fight in court and pray for a miracle. They believe that "a parent has the right to make decisions concerning the existence of their child," and accuse the hospital of pressuring them into ending Jahi's life forever.
Currently, the "unplug" date for Jahi is set for January 7th.
Even though this doesn't directly relate to the kind of healthcare we've been talking about, I do think that it is worth discussing in the context of our individual rights in the medical world. I agree that parents should hold the power of life and death in this instance, but also think that, after so many negative results from numerous doctors, this family should reconsider whether or not they should continue to put their daughter on life support. If her condition is, in fact, irreversible, wouldn't the facilities being used to keep her "alive" be better used to save a life that could be brought back?
I believe that the parents do have the right to decide whether or not their daughter is taken off life support; perhaps all they need is time to accept their daughter's passing without being bombarded by hospitals and court trials. I see the hospital's point, but I think that a little more compassion on their part is due.
The way that this case is handled could and most likely will be a model for future cases, and I hope that the judge will keep this in mind when they decide whether or not to take Jahi off of life support on the 7th.
What this all boils down to, and what does apply to what we've been talking about, is who will ultimately make the decisions for our healthcare as US citizens? Will it be us or our government, and who will pay for it?
Article found here
13-year-old Jahi McMath went in for tonsil surgery earlier this month in an effort to fix some breathing issues. Though things seemed fine immediately after the procedure, everything began to go south when she began "bleeding profusely" and then went into cardiac arrest. A few days after, McMath was declared brain dead by doctors.
Now McMath's family is fighting for what is left of her life. In response to an offer from New York to keep Jahi on life support, the family is raising money to transport their daughter. They say that Jahi is not dead, and that she has responded to her mother's touch and voice.
Although several doctors have proclaimed her irreversibly brain dead and the hospital wishes to cut her from life support, Jahi's family continues to fight in court and pray for a miracle. They believe that "a parent has the right to make decisions concerning the existence of their child," and accuse the hospital of pressuring them into ending Jahi's life forever.
Currently, the "unplug" date for Jahi is set for January 7th.
Even though this doesn't directly relate to the kind of healthcare we've been talking about, I do think that it is worth discussing in the context of our individual rights in the medical world. I agree that parents should hold the power of life and death in this instance, but also think that, after so many negative results from numerous doctors, this family should reconsider whether or not they should continue to put their daughter on life support. If her condition is, in fact, irreversible, wouldn't the facilities being used to keep her "alive" be better used to save a life that could be brought back?
I believe that the parents do have the right to decide whether or not their daughter is taken off life support; perhaps all they need is time to accept their daughter's passing without being bombarded by hospitals and court trials. I see the hospital's point, but I think that a little more compassion on their part is due.
The way that this case is handled could and most likely will be a model for future cases, and I hope that the judge will keep this in mind when they decide whether or not to take Jahi off of life support on the 7th.
What this all boils down to, and what does apply to what we've been talking about, is who will ultimately make the decisions for our healthcare as US citizens? Will it be us or our government, and who will pay for it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)