Blog Stage 8

   On August 3, 2017, Kelly La posted an article titled "Nothing Trumps Obamacare," where she argued that the government should not put in place any reformations to Obamacare because it would be taking away healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions. I completely agree with this. It is insane to think that our government wants to take away something that helps so many people in need. La states, "1.7 million Americans are cancer patients. 3 kids a day are diagnosed with cancer. 5.4 million live with Alzheimer's. And 24 million will be uninsured if the ACA is repealed. Who will insurance companies serve if not for the sick?"  24 million people, uninsured just because Republicans are not happy with something the past president (who was a Democrat) helped establish. 
   Repealing the ACA/reforming Obamacare would cause so much more harm than good. Who will help people who relied solely on Obamacare with their illnesses if it is taken away? Isn't healthcare there to help the sick? Are they saying that those suffering from something as terrible as cancer don't deserve the right to affordable healthcare? This is a prime example of politicians thinking about what's in it for them rather than what will help the citizens of this country. La's article is a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how the ACA/ Obamacare helps those in need. 

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 7

   As I stated in Blog Stage 5, the government should continue funding Planned Parenthood. Now the question is, how do we convince the other side? If you don't support what Planned Parenthood does, this is for you. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates provide about 10 million services a year: 4.4 million tests and treatments related to sexually transmitted diseases, 3.5 million birth-control services, 1 million pregnancy tests, 500,000 breast exams, 378,000 pap tests, and 327,000 abortions. This makes abortion roughly 3% of their services. Without PP, that would be 4.4 million people not able to get treated for diseases, 3.5 million people not able to get the protection they need, and 878,000 women not getting the annual health exams they need. Most people who rely on PP are lower-income women. 
   This in turn would lead to a huge increase in unhealthy people and unprepared mothers in need, likely needing the help of welfare. The federal government spends $668 billion dollars per year on 126 different welfare programs. The Federal Government relies mainly on income taxes for its revenue (that's right-your money). If you believe that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, you likely don't realize the chain reaction happening. This goes way deeper than most realize. This isn't just about abortion, this is about the health of our citizens and the stability of our taxes. You might not want to pay for PP, but in the end, it's better than paying more to support the more people that would end up relying on government money. 

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 6

  On July 25th, 2017 US Government-Studying the System posted an article called "Global Warming Commentary" where the author states that American citizens must work to improve the environment, because the government is not currently doing anything about the major issue known as Global Warming.
  I completely agree that Global Warming is alarming and that we must take action to save our world. The author uses great use of evidence and statistics to back his claim, and does an excellent job of conveying just how significant Global Warming is. He goes into detail about how the government (and more importantly) Trump are being ignorant to what is happening to our environment. He states how Trump is an "avid denier of man made climate change" and how Trump claims Global Warming to be a hoax. This shows how, said plainly, stupid our government is being when it comes to our surroundings and is all the more reason why we should be doing our best as inhabitants of this country to keep the environment clean and safe for many generations to come.

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 5

  Many believe Planned Parenthood to be an "evil place that only helps evil women abort their babies." This is flat out false. The government should continue funding Planned Parenthood because of the numerous services it provides to lower income people. Planned Parenthood is a women's health clinic. Their sole purpose is not only to give abortions. They provide affordable health care for those who are in need. Their services include STD treatments, pap smears, mammograms, birth control prescriptions, and much more. Abortions may be provided there, but are not even paid for by the government. 
  If Planned Parenthood is defunded, it will do nothing but hurt the many people who rely on it. If anything, it will cause many to lose their access to birth control, leading to more accidental pregnancies, which in turn will lead to more abortions. And isn't that what this whole thing is about? "Ending" abortion? Newsflash, abortion can't just be "ended." Defunding PP won't make abortion disappear. And if anyone who thought all PP did was give abortions did a little research,  they'd find out how incorrect they are. Only 3% of PP's services are abortions. But when a woman has decided to get an abortion, PP provides a safe environment to help. People need to get over whatever views they might have of abortion and look at all of the ways PP provides for many. The government needs to continue funding Planned Parenthood, because without it, it would only be causing more harm and preventing more women from getting access to healthcare.

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 4

  On July 18th, the opinions page on The New York Times posted an editorial called The Trumpcare Bonfire. This article argues how Trump and Republican lawmakers are making healthcare companies created by the ACA (and more importantly, citizens) suffer in their effort to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.
  "So far, Mr. Trump is viewing healthcare policy through the same narrow lens he uses for everything: his political standing." I agree with this completely. He has shown that he cannot accept anything done by anyone who does not support or agree with him. Instead of looking at what's best for the people, he thinks about what he can do to promote himself and his party. He recently said that Republicans should let Obamacare fail just so that they could have a chance at replacing it. Wow. Really? President for all, or president for people who support him? This shows how incredibly arrogant he is. He is willing to let millions go without healthcare just so he can have his own "name-brand healthcare". 
  The article then shows the effects of their efforts. "Nearly 40 counties in Indiana, Nevada, and Ohio are at risk of having no insurers participating in the marketplace next year". That's absurd.  Everyone should have easy access to affordable healthcare. We are all equal humans in this country, and all have rights. Our political views should not change this. 
  This article is an awesome read because it does an incredible job of incorporating opinions and backing them up with facts. This would be a good article for anyone who wants to see and learn about what's currently going on with the state of our healthcare.

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 3

  On July 20, 2017, Bret Stephens from the New York Times posted an article titled "Is the News Media an Existential Threat?". In this article, Stephens, neoconservative American political commentator 
 (pictured to the left) is criticizing radio host Dennis Prager (pictured to the right) for tweeting and saying that "The news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does." Prager is a well known conservative, and by "the West", he of course means the liberals.            
  Stephens argues that although he believes that Prager is a wise conservative, that this tweet is not at all practical. I believe that his intended audience is not only to Mr. Prager, but other public icons who need to learn how to see things without so much bias. "To suggest that Vladimir Putin is a distant nuisance but Maggie Haberman or David Sanger is an existential threat to our civilization isn't seeing things plain, to put it mildly." And he is absolutely right. No matter whose "side" you are on, conservative or liberal, to say that our different opinions are a bigger threat than Russia is ridiculous. A wise individual should be able to see the threat that Putin is. Instead, Prager's more concerned with American people that he doesn't agree with. By doing this, not only is Prager seeming very childish, but he is further dividing our nation. Sure, we have different opinions. Does that mean we should go around saying that those opinions made by fellow citizens are more concerning than the power of a very crucial, intimidating country? Of course not. 

Until next time.
-Mandi

Blog Stage 2

  On July 17, 2017, The Huffington Post posted an article called "Nearly 6 Months Into Trump’s Presidency, His Approval Ratings Are Stuck At Historic Lows". The article describes how Trump's approval rate is the lowest of any president in the last 70 years. One poll found Trump at a 40% approval rate, and most polls have stayed at or below 40% for the last few months. The article also goes into detail how Trump (being Trump of course) fired back on Twitter, saying how 40% "is not bad at this time." Newsflash, it is.To put in perspective, Obama and Bush had rates of around 59% when they were 6 months into their presidency.  And the fact that he feels the needs to defend himself by calling the polls "inaccurate" shows how immature and insecure he really is.

  I recommend this article to my readers because it shows how little people actually agree with Trump's views. It also encapsulates how much Trump struggles in the "professionalism department". 

Until next time.
-Mandi