Monday Matters: Columnist .2

Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-obamacare-failing-ahead-of-schedule.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Claim:
Obamacare has gotten off to a rough start.
The issue is none of the one's predicted, but rather that the medium, the website, doesn't work well (odd, considering, the internet is supposed to be Obama's administration's domain).
If this doesn't get fixed, the system will collapse.

Support:
The system will collapse because "The system’s sustainability depends on getting enough healthy people to sign up" if not enough people sign up insurers “will have to raise everyone’s premiums"   and then "the Rising premiums prompt people to drop out, causing premiums to increase even more.” This has been deemed a "death spiral".
The issue is on both ends of the system: the front, where people are supposed to shop for plans, and the back, where insurers are supposed to process applications.
The white house can't work too slow to fix the problem, otherwise it will collapse.

Question:
How likely is it to actually be a disaster?

Monday matters: Columnist

I decided to follow Ross Douthat from the New York Times.


http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/could-a-republican-health-care-reform-ever-happen/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Could a Republican Health Care Reform Ever Happen?

Claim:

There is no good reason to oppose health care.
The Congressional republicans oppose it, because they don't want to pay, nor do they want their voters to pay, and they find comfort in the illusion of this 'free-market' that would be brought to shambles health care was introduced.

Support:

No, because only chance is February 2017, because Obama care needs to be implemented for a few years, so that the right-of-center alternatives will no longer look "risky and disruptive".

By then Obama Care will have already proved itself and things won't be as unclear.

This may be optimistic, because problems could arise, but unlikely.

Question:
What are the proposals better than the current Obama-care?

Monday Matters III.

http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/2011/11/03/syria-and-protesters/

This image is a political cartoon, concerning Syria. While the picture's initial purpose is to be humorous, as most political cartoons are, the real purpose of it is to send a message. The message of this cartoon, in a pretty basic explanation, is to make the viewer feel that what the Syrian president Assad is doing is wrong. This is done through a basic appeal to logos. The cartoon depicts the how the president pledged to relax his policy on protesters, and did essentially nothing. Because before he had a giant iron fist, and after, well, he has a still pretty giant iron fist. The cartoon makes the viewer feel that this is obviously not right, because Assad effectively did nothing to stop his repressive habits, despite pledging that he would.
The cartoon also appeals to pathos. It's obviously not right for Assad to rule with an iron fist, especially so, when the iron fist is so unproportionally gigantic.

Monday Matters II.

Here is a link to an editorial from The Chicago Tribune, concerning the American intervention in Syria: 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-coalition-20130908,0,109388.story

Summary:
While the bush administration choice go to war was undoubtedly a mistake, certain aspects were
done right, in reference on how to go to war:

- Clear mission stated
- Explained the purpose of the war repeatedly
- Concrete measures to obtain objective undertaken

Obama has not done these, and he has not been decisive enough in his moves:
 - Delayed response to reports of chemical weapons
- Originally said, America would go to war on his own authority, then took it to Congress
- No concrete mission, or gameplan.
Also, Obama's  original "red line" threat was badly thought out and a mistake.

Monday Matters I.

I chose a article on the American intervention in Syria. The piece, which is an opinion piece is from the New York Times, and written by Thomas L. Friedman.

The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Claim: America has to intervene in Syria, however the current planned course of action is the wrong approach. America needs to implement a "Arm and Shame" tactic.

The "Arm and Shame" tactic entails arming the Syrian rebels, and "shaming" the Syrian president Assad and his supporters.

Evidence:

• America will not suffer criticism, nor look weak.
• Bombing would most likely lead to collateral damage, swinging the spotlight from the poison gas killings.
• The rebels will be able to better protect themselves.
• The influence of anti-jihadist and anti-Assad groups will be increased.
• Iran may release a nuclear bomb, in response to the American bombing.
• This tactic will gain following, hopefully garnering a world response

Question:
Why exactly is America the only state capable of undertaking the problem?
Couldn't arming the rebels, create a situation similar to that of the one with Bin-Laden? He too was armed by the Americans and look how that went...