Issue #2 Medicare

It is saying that we want to reform the Medicare system in the new health care to make sure the doctors worry more about quality than quantity. Before doctors got paid about 5 to 10 percent less for helping a medicare patient and they accually got paid more if they missed diagnosid a patient. So their patient would have to keep coming back and they would get more money that way. So in some places medicare started a "pay-for-preformance." So doctors got paid more if they were better to there patients. If they helped patients and tell them how and what they should do to lower your blood level for example; Medicare would accually pay the doctor about 1.5 percent more than they do with usuall patients. They noticed that when they started this in some hopitals it improve the quality of care, like some had 1,300 less deaths from heart attacks sense they started the program. Though they think you should not have to get paid more to get the quality health care as somebody else.



I think we should reform the medicare program to make sure everybody on Medicare has "pay-for-preformance." If doctors are willing to work better and hard to get the right information and diagnoses why wouldn't you pay them a little bit more! Everything is based on money, of course if you have a opportunity to make more money you will take it and now that they now about you have to give it to them or their work will probally slip alittle bit more towards those patients. Then also to support my reasoning to back the new "pay-for-preformance" the medicare system so far is going in the crapper. It is going to go bank rupt soon if we not change the current way it is run. Becuase of the programs right now it is costing America to much to cover the current plan. We need to look back out bushs plan that cut about &70 million dollars. We need to try to have some thign more drastic than that to help recover this system! But the Medicare should be reformed to help keep the program going and to be in proved in a overall aspect.


Those opposed to this idea think that federal officials "do not have the capability, the understanding, the knowledge or the training" to be able to set standards for the quality of medical care. They think it will become "cookbook medicine." They don't want the government to undermine legitimate doctors' autonomy and judgement. Another argument they use is that doctors are supposed to provide "quality care" at all times, and it's not something that should be a bonus.
I agree with the opposing side. It's great to reward doctors for good work, but if my life is in someone's hands, I'm expecting them to do their best because that's the job they chose, and because it's my health and life. It's not like getting a gold star in first grade because you wrote something in cursive, it's someone's life and they should be expected to do their absolute best all the time. If doctors are doing something above and beyond, outside their job then yeah, they should have some kind of compensation, but for just doing their job they should get their usual.
John McCain's view on healthcare: http://www.johnmccain.com/issues/post/reforming-health-care-in-america/

Issue # 1

http://kellimontbriand.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-1-comprehensive-vs-incremental.html

Issue # 3

http://emilyewblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-3-safe-to-eat.html

To much money is going to this endless war

One of the biggest contributors to the National Deficit of the United States comes from war. When the nation is at war with another country, the President is in command of the U.S. armed forces and the war fund. For this reason, the blame for creating a larger national deficit is often associated with the President. But, Congress has the power to approve funding of the war through the Federal Government. This is known as "the Power of the Purse". However, when Congress introduces higher taxes to fund war efforts, they might find it harder to get rid of them when they may seem unnecessary. For example, former President Bush was in favor of funding the war efforts, but many of the people did, and still, believe that the war in Iraq was dragging on for far too long. If Congress tries to make changes in the war policy to reduce war funds, but the President is in favor of the war, the President could veto the policy and allow the war fund to continue. Then, does this make the President responsible for the national deficit or Congress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_deficithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse

War has always been a drain in the wallet ever since the existence of war. I think that too much money that we do not have has been spent on war, creating a greater national deficit. Joe Weisenthal, a writer for Business Insider, writes: "We have spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits." To keep our economy from crumbling, we must understand why the U.S. is descending into debt. Where does the money come from? It comes from the people who channel their money to the Federal Government through taxes laid by Congress. Then, it is used by the President to fund the war. During wartime, there is a balance of power between Congress and the President. The President can claim war against another nation, but only by having a reasonable war fund, created by Congress, would doing so be rational. So, when a greater national deficit begins to build up, who is responsible? Because the President could veto a decision to end a war fund, some people would probably say that the President is responsible. But, if Congress creates a war fund policy with an set expiration date on it, this would prevent the President from perpetuating the policy to fund the war and, ultimately, creating a greater national deficit. Does this make Congress responsible then? Members of Congress, as well as the President, are always at the mercy of the people during re-election. Therefore, everyone: Congress, the President, and the people, are all responsible for the national deficit.