Tuesday, May 10, 2011

People Come First, Everything Else Is Second

I was watching TV the other day and saw a commercial for Allstate, in that commercial they talked about helping the people first.  They gave examples of providing coffee for parents of a tragedy and handing out over 12,000 teddy bears for children, the commercial ends with the line "people come first, everything else is second."  I'm certainly not plugging Allstate but I found that to be a very touching commercial and hope that Allstate truly feels and acts that way.  Then it got me to thinking, isn't that the very principal our government should be operating on?

We have a government of the people, by the people, for the people; or at least that's what President Lincoln believed when giving the Gettysburg Address.  But is that truly the desire of those who hold office in our government?

Healthcare

Unless you were sequestered last year you probably watched some coverage on the debate of the Affordable Care Act (or as the right endearingly refers to as "Obamacare").  The philosophy of one side is that healthcare is a privilege, for the other side it's a right.  The conservatives feel that anybody who cannot afford insurance is not worthy of having it and should be relegated to dying on the streets, or at least that is what I'm left to suppose as they don't offer an alternative.  The adage we often repeat that was penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" apparently doesn't apply.  I suppose some will ignore the definition of "unalienable" or the fact that the right to life would include the healthcare necessary to sustain that life.  Fortunately the Left was able to pass the Affordable Care Act that will provide healthcare to millions who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for insurance, putting people first.  It had to be done with the health insurance mandate instead of the public option which is a Republican initiative.  Don't believe me?  Just look back to 1994 when Clinton was dealing with healthcare and see which party proposed the mandate or what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts.

Unemployment Insurance

If you work you pay into unemployment insurance through taxes, this provides you up to a 99 week safety net (depending on what state you live in) to help keep you sheltered, clothed, and fed if you are dismissed from your job through no fault of your own.  This is not a "hand out" as you pay into this plan, just the same way your car insurance isn't a "hand out" if you need repairs to your vehicle after a car accident.  But Republican legislators in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Florida, among others are looking to reduce these benefits in the name of balancing the budget (without actually balancing their respective budgets).  The conservatives from these states choose to ignore the fact that it will cost more to house, clothe, and feed these individuals if they didn't have unemployment insurance to make their house payments and avoid foreclosure and instead become a burden on the state, but that's just splitting hairs I suppose.  I guess children being able to live in their house while a parent, or both parents, look for a job is a luxury the state can't afford.  Democrats are putting people first and fighting against these benefit reductions.

Medicare/Medicaid

The GOP members of the US House recently voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare as we know it and reduce federal payments to Medicaid.  As I've written about before these changes will shift the burden of healthcare costs to seniors (27% of out-of-pocket costs now compared to 68% under the GOP plan according to the CBO) and funnel that money private insurance.  The primary recipients of Medicaid are the disabled, older citizens who require nursing home care, and children of poor families; people who cannot work to earn their own insurance nor have representation in Washington.  This was done because the deficit weighs more importantly than the needs of the vulnerable; and the millions spent lobbying  for privatization of Medicare by the insurance industry probably had something to do with it as well.  Democrats in the House and Senate are standing up against this plan, putting people first.

Education

We've all seen the attack on teachers in states like Wisconsin and the attack on federal spending for education.  Apparently the Right feels that ranking 21st in science and 25th in mathematics must be good enough because Republicans on the federal and state levels have been working to reduce funding for education with wild abandon.  Even though our children are falling behind those in other nations we find ourselves competing with economically, we must sacrifice our children's success in the effort to save the government money.  Obama and liberals in congress are standing up for our children and teachers to ensure America returns to number 1 in education, they are putting people first.

Regulation

Let us cut through the BS, regulations are put in place to protect people and not so incidentally they also help businesses.  Take the BP oil spill for example, had we had effective regulation and regulators in place perhaps 11 rig workers would still be alive today, fisherman would not have lost thousands by not being able to fish, and (my conservative friends may want to sit down for this) BP would actually have benefited by not having to have spent billions in clean-up costs and compensation to victims (yes regulation does benefit businesses, whether they wish to believe it or not).  But conservatives are always advocating against regulation because they falsely believe that it hurts business, ignoring that these regulations are put in place to help people.  Liberals think otherwise and put the safety of Americans over the interests of profit margins.

"People first" is a philosophy that us bleeding-heart liberals live by and lead by.  There is a distinct divide in our political prerogatives, conservatives govern for the almighty dollar, placing its importance above that of the people.  Liberals believe that when people do well the country does well.  People come first, everything else is second.  This is the creed we should govern by, liberals already are.

6 comments:

  1. You are wrong the republicans are the ones who are for the people. The Democrats try to take away our freedoms. Thank god for the republicans and Fox news they are the only ones who tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please research your anologies before you make a foolish blog titled after one. FYI around 10 yrs ago Allstate Ins. began training its agents to deny all legitimate claims-even to their own insured-and the actual training manual since then has taught that if a person wants what they are entitled- say, if their house burned down-their stance goes from "Good Hands to Boxing Gloves." The training manual actually states that! People are impediments to more money, thats Allstates stance. You, as the fistshaking liberal, should be uproarious about that, not embracing the practice and endorsing the deceit in ignorance. Learn your shit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As stated in my post I was not "plugging" Allstate, meaning that I don't endorse them and I went on to say that I "hoped" they really felt that way, not they "did" feel that way. My post had nothing to do with Allstate other than my borrowing their slogan from that ad campaign and I felt it would be inappropriate to use their slogan without mentioning where it originated. I still feel that the broader idea of putting people first is a concept that those working in DC should use as their guidepost and am confident that is what the majority of readers will take away from this post. As far your assessment on how Allstate actually operates, I'm sure you're correct and it wouldn't surprise me. But again I wasn't endorsing Allstate, just borrowing their slogan to apply to what I think should be our government's philosophy. I'm sorry you didn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with those individuals who pay into unemployment insurance should get benefits if they lose their job. It is not saying that the individuals company also pays into this program.

    What gets me is there should be a limit on what you receive. Should you get $100k in benefits if you only paid $5k? Talking about going broke .....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually unemployment insurance is limited, the goal is to get you to 50% of your income, but it's almost always much less than this ( http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/can-you-live-on-330-a-week-mainstreet.aspx ). I found a good calculator online for figuring your potential unemployment check. It's not exact and there are different things to take into consideration based on which state you live it. Let's say you're making $75,000 a year, your normal weekly pay is roughly $1442. If you become unemployed your weekly pay based on that income is $750 (it will actually be less than that because there are deductions that need to be made). The goal is to provide you with enough income for you to just get by, the average annual unemployment amount for an individual is $15,340 and you can only collect for up to 99 weeks (or less depending on what state you live in). I think people tend to forget that unemployment is insurance. I doubt there are many getting $100,000 in benefits while only paying in $5,000 but I get your point. Look at health insurance, let's say I pay in $5,000 this year in premiums and my employer pays in another $10,000 but I get sick or injured and am in the hospital for a couple of weeks costing insurance $25,000. Does that mean my insurance company should demand the $10,000 they lost from me? No, insurance is an at-risk industry and unemployment insurance is no different. The government hopes that someone collecting unemployment is able to find a job quickly so that the government remains "ahead." But what we shouldn't do is change the terms of insurance in the middle of the worst economic disaster since the great depression and that's what states like Missouri are trying to do. Health insurance companies used to (will no longer be able to do so under the Affordable Care Act) drop a customer as soon as they developed a serious condition such as cancer even though that person made their premium payments over several years. We can't allow the government to "drop" or reduce coverage for unemployment now that so many people are in need of it through no fault of their own. That's not America. Here's a link to unemployment calculation: http://www.ehow.com/how_4464449_calculate-unemployment.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. I understand your comment about health insurance and the Obama plan did some good things but not all was good. How can you say we must pass it before we know what's included? What type of reality is this where social agendas is promoted by putting the fear in God in people like is being done today?

    ReplyDelete