Party Realignment

Wednesday November 30, 2011 – Period 7
Thursday December 1, 2011 – Period 2

Today we began class with a vocab quiz over chapters 7, 8, and 10. Next we peer edited our health care paper’s frame and examine components. Finally we took notes on party realignments.

   Party competition is the mechanism that enables voting majorities to have a substantial influence on the direction of government. This competition peaks during periods of realignment but at all times is a vital aspect of democratic government. A realignment occurs when new and powerful issues emerge and disrupt the normal pattern of party politics. Realigning elections offer voters the opportunity to have a large and lasting impact on national policy. In responding to these issues and then by endorsing the action of the party that takes power, the electorate helps to establish a new governing philosophy and its associated policies. A realignment is maintained in part through the development of loyalties among first-time voters to the new governing party and its policies. Realignments have occurred around the time of the Civil War, during the 1890s, and during the Great Depression of the 1930s (FDR and the New Deal). Some argued that the GOP sweep of Congress and many state governorships in the 1994 midterm elections represented a new realignment, yet the Republicans suffered a setback in the 1996 election.

News Media

Monday November 28, 2011 – Period 7
Tuesday November 29, 2011 – Period 2

  Today we began with a review of the news media’s historical development and the current trends in reporting. The American partisan press was initially tied to the nation’s political party system but gradually developed an independent position or objective press. During this process, the news shifted from a political orientation, which emphasizes political values and ideas, to a journalistic orientation, which stresses newsworthy information and events. Currently, traditional news organizations face increased competition for people’s attention from cable and the Internet, which has contributed to an increase in opinionated and entertainment-laced journalism. The news media have served several functions: signaler which the press brings relevant events and problems into public view, common-carrier which the press serves as a channel through which leaders and citizens can communicate, watchdog which the press scrutinizes official behavior for evidence of deceitful, careless, or corrupt acts, and partisan which the press promotes particular interests and values. The traditional media contribute mainly to the first three functions while the newer news media contribute mainly to the last one. Unfortunately news audiences have been shrinking and fragmenting, partly as a result of new technology and partly because young adults are less likely to pay attention to news. One consequence has been a widening gap in the information levels of America’s more-attentive and less-attentive citizens.

We then watched Gerry-Rigged: Why Your Vote For Congress Might Not Matter. In this video, CNN correspondent Drew Griffin describes how political parties engage in gerrymandering, the drawing of odd-shaped districts essentially designed to retain incumbents. Redistricting happens once every 10 years. In the last decade, almost 4 out of every 5 seats in Congress remained in the same party’s hands. The consequence is gridlock with little reason for compromise on either side as long as voters have no realistic say on who stays in office. If this system does not change, voters lose.

Political Parties

Wednesday November 23, 2011 – Period 2

  Today we studied political parties. A political party is a group of people with broad common interests who organize to win elections, control government, and thereby influence government policies. Most nations have one or more political parties. In a one-party system, that party is the government, and party leaders set government policy. One-party systems are usually found in nations with authoritarian governments or in countries where religious leaders dominate. In nations with multiparty systems, voters have a wide range of choices on Election Day, and one party rarely gets enough support to control the government. Several parties often combine forces to obtain a majority and form a coalition government. Disputes often arise, and many nations with multiparty systems are politically unstable. The United  States has two major parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Minor or third parties rarely win major elections. They often form over a single issue, such as right-to-life. Others form over an ideology, such as the Communist Party USA. A third type is a splinter party that often forms over a political figure, such as Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Progressive Party. Third parties often influence politics by promoting new ideas.

SSA Frame Edit and Political Parties

Tuesday November 22, 2011 – Period 7

Today we peer edited our social science analysis frame and research components of our research paper on health care reform.

   Next we studied political parties. A political party is a group of people with broad common interests who organize to win elections, control government, and thereby influence government policies. Most nations have one or more political parties. In a one-party system, that party is the government, and party leaders set government policy. One-party systems are usually found in nations with authoritarian governments or in countries where religious leaders dominate. In nations with multiparty systems, voters have a wide range of choices on Election Day, and one party rarely gets enough support to control the government. Several parties often combine forces to obtain a majority and form a coalition government. Disputes often arise, and many nations with multiparty systems are politically unstable. The United  States has two major parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Minor or third parties rarely win major elections. They often form over a single issue, such as right-to-life. Others form over an ideology, such as the Communist Party USA. A third type is a splinter party that often forms over a political figure, such as Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Progressive Party. Third parties often influence politics by promoting new ideas.

SSA Health Care

Thursday November 17, 2011 – Period 2
Friday November 18, 2011 – Period 7

  Today we began our social science analysis research paper. Paper expectations and guidelines were handed out and we spent the period in the school library gathering data and information on the health care system in the United States.

Voter Participation

Wednesday November 16, 2011 – Period 7
Monday November 21, 2011 – Period 2

  The history of voting rights in the United States before the American Revolution was that eligible voters in the colonies included only a small percent of the adult population. By 1840, the nation had granted all white males voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment gave African American males the right to vote in 1870. The Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920. With the passing of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971, citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 also could vote.  Voter turnout in U.S.elections is low in comparison with that of other Western democracies. The reasons include the nature of U.S.election laws, particularly those pertaining to registration requirements and the scheduling of elections. Most Americans make a distinction between their personal lives and public life. This outlook reduces their incentive to participate and contributes to a pattern of participation dominated by citizens of higher income and education.

Health Care: Taiwan, Switzerland, and U.S.

Monday November 14, 2011 – Period 7
Tuesday November 15, 2011 – Period 2

  In the 1990s, Taiwan researched many health care systems before settling on one where the government collects the money and pays providers. But the delivery of health care is left to the market.

  Taiwan adopted a National Health Insurance model in 1995 after studying other countries’ systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada’s and the U.S. Medicare program. Taiwan’s new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen in Taiwan has a smart card, which is used to store his or her relevant health information, medical history and bills the national insurer automatically. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country’s single insurer, Taiwan’s health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world. But the Taiwanese are spending too little to sustain their health care system and the government is borrowing from banks to pay what there isn’t enough to pay the providers. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan’s parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

  T.R. Reid’s last stop is Switzerland, a country which, like Taiwan, set out to reform a system that did not cover all its citizens. In 1994, a national referendum approved a law called LAMal or the sickness, which set up a universal health care system. Switzerland didn’t have far to go to achieve universal coverage as 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. Today, Swiss politicians from the right and left enthusiastically support universal health care. The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany. All citizens are required to have coverage and those not covered are automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who cannot afford the premiums. The Swiss shows health care reform is possible, even in a highly capitalist country with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. However, they can make money on supplemental insurance. Like Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government. The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world, but it is still cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are higher than in other European nations and are subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. The Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

  American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a preexisting condition, precisely the people most likely to need the insurers’ service. Insurance companies employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer’s rescission department digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this to survive in a tough business. Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can’t cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital, usually within tight time limits. The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people’s medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage. Foreign health care models are not really foreign to America, because our health care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we are like Britain or Cuba. The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we are like Japan or Germany. Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we are like Taiwan or Canada. Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we are like Cambodia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Burma, or rural India. In the world’s poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care and those who cannot pay stay sick or die. This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance. The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people. We have blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess. Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has “the finest health care” in the world. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero. Given our remarkable medical assets, the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, and world-class research; the United States could be and should be the best in the world.

Health Care: United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany

Wednesday November 9, 2011 – Period 7
Thursday November 10, 2011 – Period 2

  Today we had a quiz over chapters 9 and 11. After the quiz, we recorded our statistical data on the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. We proceeded to watch the Frontline video Sick Around the World. In Sick Around the World, T.R. Reid finds out how five other capitalist democracies: the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland deliver health care.

  Reid’s first stop is the United Kingdom. The British system is socialized medicine because the government both provides and pays for health care. The British pay taxes for health care, and the government run National Health Service or NHS distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries while General Practitioners are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private pay patients. Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low. There are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a medical home with their General Practitioners, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system. Patients must see their General Practitioners before going to a specialist. General Practitioners are paid a bonus for keeping their patients healthy and are instrumental in preventive care. Preventive care is an area in which Britain is a world leader.

  Reid reports next from Japan. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRI scans, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital. Japan spends about half as much on health care per capita as the United States. Japan uses a social insurance system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance. The Japanese receive insurance either through their work or purchased from a community based plan. Those individuals who cannot afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private and cannot turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit. Doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. In Japan there are no gatekeepers. Having no gatekeepers means there’s no check on how often the Japanese use health care. The Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.  Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care. The result is half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red.

  T.R. Reid’s journey takes him to Germany, the birthplace of the national health care system, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 240 private, nonprofit sickness funds. For its 80 million people, Germany offers universal health care, including medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy and spa treatment. As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums. Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they pay higher co-pay if they do. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system and medical providers must charge standard prices, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. This keeps costs down, but it also means physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts. This system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. However, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free. Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Health Statistics

Monday November 7, 2011 – Period 7
Tuesday November 8, 2011 – Period 2

Today we compared health statistics for the United States and Canada. Then we finished watching Sick In America.

  Who is to blame for America’s healthcare mess, and how can we fix it? John Stossel examines the insurance industry the need for competition to create better care and innovative experiments aimed at combining lower costs with better medicine. He also argues with Michael Moore whose documentary Sicko is a scathing criticism of America’s healthcare system. Stossel and Moore agree that healthcare in America is sick but they have opposite prescriptions for the cure. Health costs are rising faster than inflation but a few experiments show that there is a different way that reduces costs but still makes medicine good for patients. First, Stossel talks to doctors who deal directly with patients without insurance and therefore have a different relationship with their patients. These doctors answer patients’ emails give out their own cell phone numbers and work hard to cater to their patients. He also looks at new kind of medical  clinic walk-in clinics in places like drugstores and grocery stores. Stossel also talks to John Mackey CEO of Whole Foods about his company’s new healthcare plan which puts employees more in control of their healthcare dollars.

Health Care Programs

Thursday November 3, 2011- Period 7
Friday November 4, 2011 – Period 2

Today we did a quick review on chapter 9 vocabulary. We completed our notes on health care reform under presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. After taking notes we watched

  Sick In America: Whose Body Is It, Anyway? John Stossel reports on socialized health care from a pro-freedom point of view. Stossel examines the insurance industry, the need for competition to create better care and innovative experiments aimed at combining lower costs with better medicine. He also argues with Michael Moore whose documentary Sicko is a scathing criticism of America’s healthcare system. To Michael Moore the insurance companies are crooks and we’d be better off in places like Cuba, Canada, France, or England – any country that offers socialized medicine. Stossel interviews Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, who takes aim at the legislative process as well as insurers and hospitals. Herzlinger tells Stossel: Healthcare is vibrant and living. It’s full of great doctors and great  hospitals and great scientists and great medicines and great technologies and it’s been killed…It’s the insurers. They have our money…It’s the hospitals. You go to a hospital you have no idea what it costs. And it’s the U.S. Congress. In countries where healthcare is free, governments deal with that increased demand for it by limiting what’s available. Government rationing healthcare in Canada is why when Karen J. went into labor with her identical quadruplets — no neonatal unit in Canada had room for her. She flew to Montana to have the babies.