Literacy Blog #10 // Obama blames 'bad apple' insurers for canceled coverage

Article

1) In the major public debate over health care reform, President Obama sought to assure people that the government was not going to take over health care, and that they could keep their old plan if they liked it. Why did he need to do this? Why wouldn't people trust the government to make health care decisions for them?

Well, a lot of people don't trust the government anyway. I doubt they would change their minds over him making decisions for them. Also, not everyone is so "on-board" with the new healthcare plan. They don't like the concept of it, so why would they want to take part in the change.

2) Why does Obama say that insurers not paying for care “limit[s] the care you receive”? To what extent is this true? Is care paid for by insurance the only care you can receive?

I think it means that "you get what you pay for". You can't pay 100 dollars and get the plan that costs 300. You are limited to what you are paying for. If you're getting "free healthcare", you are limited to that which is free. You can't get the premium if you aren't paying for it.

3) If you buy health insurance rather than paying for health care directly, to what extent are you losing your choices in health care spending? What if the government taxes everyone and pays for health care for everyone? How does this affect your level of choice?

You are limited to what your insurance pays for. If your insurance doesn't cover it, you can't get it. (I'm not sure about how to answer the next part.)

4) Is it ever right for a President to be untruthful to get the public to accept something he sincerely believes is for their own good? If so, in what circumstances?

No, not at all. It is the President's job to talk with the people and try to improve America. I understand that he might think that this is a great idea, but it might not be. If he tells the entire truth, every last detail, then other people who would usually have no chance of getting to evaluate his plan, get to. They might see a flaw that he was ignoring because he was blinded by how "great" he thought it was. And then it can be improved or thrown out if it is needed. It could keep things from getting worse than they already are.

Literacy Blog #8 // High School Athlete Suspended for Driving Friend

If I were Erin I would have demanded the police to document, with proof, that I was sober and had no part in the underage drinking. That way, if the school or police was to attempt to charge me, there would be proof that I was not guilty under any of the circumstances pertaining underage drinking or the possession of alcohol.

It's possible that the school's decision can affect her chances of getting a scholarship from some schools. It could even affect her chances of getting into certain schools. They'll see that the charges are on her record and then judge her accordingly.

The school is obviously standing for the principal against underage drinking. But I still think they need more proof before punishing someone. Let's say, for example, I was charged with assisting in murder because I was seen with the murderer 3 hours before the murder occurred. Although there was no evidence of me at the scene, and I had witnesses stating that I was somewhere else AND I had a police officer saying I wasn't there (referring to the statement saying that officer Brian Neely vouched for her sobriety). There is enough evidence to prove that I'm innocent, but I was still charged? Doesn't make much sense in my mind.

I think schools are involved in efforts to prevent teens from drinking for less of a meaningful reason, and more of a chance to make them look good. Honestly, I think if they wanted to look like their students didn't drink, they would just turn their heads while they hid the evidence. BUT because the cops showed up, they had to look like they were far more strict than they actually might be.

I don't know why the school suspended Erin. It doesn't make sense in my mind. She was doing her friend a favor, she wasn't drinking, "officer Brian Neeley [was] vouching for Erin's sobriety", I don't know what more they needed to see that she did nothing wrong.

Literacy Blog #7 // We Are Teaching High School Students To Write Terribly

Even though the main idea of this passage is the writing portion of the SAT, I couldn't help but focus on the fact that students only have 25 minutes to complete this section. In my opinion tests shouldn't be timed anyway. In the sense of a timed test, the test is measuring your ability of how fast you can recall information, and not on what you actually know. If someone works slower, or takes longer to recall information, they will be perceived as less intelligent than someone who works faster or is like a human form of Google. I know some people that can answer almost any question you give them in a matter of seconds; and other people can supply the same answer, just not as quickly. Does that make them any less capable of using the information? No. It doesn't. Also, more so on the subject of the passage, some people take longer to write things than others, as well. Someone who reads all the time and loves coming up with short stories might be faster with the writing portion than someone who is a math whiz.