Should Insurance be Insured to All?

Insurance is one of our biggest concerns as a citizen because it is our safety net. It applies to many things in life today, ranging from over 150 types of insurance, but there are few we are primarily concerned with. Some examples are: auto insurance, car insurance, dental insurance, or health insurance.

It sounds great, that a company or somebody out there will be able to support us if we ever have an issue, but insurance is not free. We make steady payments overtime to provide the insurers money if we ever need their support. To the average citizen who has and pays their insurance without struggling to maintain stability economic-wise, they can sleep easier at night because they have a wall to lean on. If their car gets broken into or they get into a car accident, their car and/or auto insurance will help them restore their car. That is why our government strives for each of us to acquire insurance, so that we all have assistance in our payments if we ever need to.

But a fault in this theory are those who do not have insurance. A portion of drivers today have no insurance. When they get into an accident, they have to make the full payment in cash, but what if they can't? They might have the brilliant idea to go make a loan to repay what they owe. Or, we all pay more for our insurance to spot for those who do not have insurance. We wonder why some people don't have insurance for their own sake, but that is where their problems begin. Maybe they can't afford to make the payments, they lost their job and all their benefits, they're illegal citizens, or they are just flat-out lazy bums who seep through our laws. The fact is that most of us need insurance to help us pay off all our fees. Should the government be involved in insuring each citizen, at the risk of our economy today, or should they corrupt us even further?

Sarah Palin, SHUT UP

For some odd reason, Sarah Palin just flares a temper within me every time she talks. In this article, Peter Hamby is trying support Palin's exposition of Senator Barack Obama for his connections to ACORN because there is a conspiracy within their voter registration processes, and her confidence within her campaign to win the White House. Hamby is trying to help push the McCain campaign by using this article to leverage the media coverage in McCain's favor, but this article is easily countered. ACORN was formerly involved in McCain's campaign as well, so this entire article has lost all credibility in any attempt to attack the Obama campaign.

I find this entertaining when Palin speaks, especially when she is contradicted. Her words are demolishing the McCain campaign. It gave me a chuckle when she was excited about getting her office on November 4th. She completely ignored the basis of the question being asked, exactly like her interview with Katie Couric. The campaigns are coming to extremely crucial times, and each candidate is under careful inspection. Besides, state governors transitioning straight into the White House have not performed well so far, like our current president, who sadly came from this state.

Government to the rescue?

After reading this article from the New York Times, the current bailout plan might have a chance of survival. But if it was denied once already by the House, what will make them reconsider? David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear wrote this article to persuade and inform people about the difference the bailout plan can make in our future. The bailout plan was drafted due to the recent chaos within the economic industry; the intent is to stabilize the American economy to its original state. There were several revisions the Senate made to the proposed bill before sending it back to the House of Representatives for a further review. Some members from the House have publicly announced their decision to approve of the bill, such as, Zach Wamp, Jim Ramstad, Emmanuel Cleaver II, and John Lewis. Alterations have been made to the bill, but we still do not have an exact idea on the impact it will have upon the nation.

Herszenhorn and Pear wrote this article to everyone within the nation. I believe their intent was to gain the approval of the nation, and try to convince some politicians. They throw information on this paper, giving us details into some specifics of the bill, which sounds like it would benefit the nation. It would take some inside information to receive current and factual data from the White House, so their article is standing upon solid ground. I agree with Herszenhorn and Pear because there aren't any other solutions yet, and all we can do is hope for the best. This bill didn't beat the PATRIOT Act's approval record, but it might be one of Bush's last strikes before leaving office.