Final Project

National health insurance and single-payer health systems are very complex and complicated things to many people.  A single-payer healthcare system involves the government paying for medical costs instead of private insurance companies.  The government would collect all medical fees and then pay for the services through one government source.  In many nations, this type of insurance is given to all citizens and residents.  The term “single payer” refers only to the single financing of the insurance, but not delivery.  The delivery of healthcare would remain in private hands.  The medical services included in a single-payer system are doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, preventive, prescription drugs, and medical supplies.  Several countries that use a single-payer system are Australia, Canada, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.  Many of these countries report positive reviews to the way the system is run and deals with medical problems. 

So what is the difference between a single-payer health system and the United States healthcare system?  The United States uses private insurance companies, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.  The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, makes it a goal to expand coverage to American people by requiring them to buy insurance policies through a number of private companies.  The policies are partially subsidized by government payments to the private insurers.  Obamacare also aims to expand Medicaid benefits to more people.  However, there are still flaws to this system.  Millions of people still remain uninsured, and many can be under insured.  Another problem involves the private insurers and their decisions to strip policies, limit care, increase co-pays, and increase other costs.  Many people see Obamacare as steps towards a more nationalized health care system.  The United States and Mexico are the two main nations that do not have a nationalized health care system. 

A debate over establishing a single-payer healthcare system has been going on for over 10 years.  Large groups of people love the idea, but also, large groups of people hate the idea.  Every year since 2002, John Conyers, a democratic U.S. Representative for Michigan, proposes the United States National Health Care Act in the House of Representatives.  This act would establish a single-payer system in the United States, equal to Canada’s or the United Kingdom’s.  In 2009, during a series of health care debates, this act was expected to be debated and voted upon, but it never was.  In addition to the proposals in congress, many states have attempted to pass single-payer state bills; however, all have been shot down. 

In terms of adopting a single-payer healthcare system, there are both pros and cons.  The most obvious benefit of a nationalized system is that every citizen of the country can and will receive health care.  Every person can receive the insurance that they need no matter what physical or economic state they are in.  According to the Physicians for a National Health Program, adopting a nationalized healthcare system would immediately save the country $350 billion.  To many, the savings from $350-570 billion is enough to adopt the system.  On the other side of the spectrum, switching to this system would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, which according to many, is a big enough reason to not approve the switch.  With a single-payer system, private health insurance companies would mostly be nonexistent, which means that all of the workers for those companies will be without a job.  Another negative side of the argument is the longer waiting period that will occur.  If every person is able to receive the same healthcare, anyone can go to the hospital or doctor’s office without worrying about insurance costs.  Wait times for normal hospital visits can triple.  There are many supporting details to each argument, so the debate over a single-payer system has been going on for years and seems to be running in circles.   

Sources: 

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 14 Jan. 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare>

"What Is Single Payer?" What Is Single Payer? Web. 14 Jan. 2016. <http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer>

"Apecsec.org." Apecsecorg. Web. 14 Jan. 2016. <http://apecsec.org/single-payer-system-health-care-pros-and-cons/>

"List of Pros and Cons of Single Payer Health Care." OccupyTheory. 2 Jan. 2015. Web. 14 Jan. 2016. <http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-single-payer-health-care/>

The Chernobyl Disaster

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster was the worst nuclear power plant accident in recorded history. The disaster occurred on April 26, 1986 in Pripyat, Ukraine. The isolation that occurred after the Cold War resulted in a lack in safety culture. This lack of safety culture led to employees lacking in training and improper management in regards to the power plant itself. People were unprepared to deal with a wrong doing on this scale.

Workers were preparing to start a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps. The test was supposed to shed light on the loss of main electrical power supply. Workers had previously carried out similar tests; however, power from the turbine decreased significant, so new voltage regulator designs needed to be tested before use. The Chernobyl plant directed that the test needed to be postponed, which was a result of the lack of available power during the peak evening demand. However, operations not affecting power were still carried out. The workers disabled the emergency core cooling system intended to provide water to the core in case there was a loss of coolant. Once the test on reactor 4 started to begin, the operator went to shut down the reactor because of emergency.  

By this point, the reactor was already in an extremely unstable condition. A strange control rod design then led to a dramatic power surge as they were inserted into the reactor. Hot fuel reacted with cooling water and formed fuel fragmentation along with steam production and a large increase in pressure. The design of the reactor led to damage to multiple fuel assemblies, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the reactor. Over pressure within the reactor ruptured the fuel channels and jammed all the control rods. Steam generation filled the core, which was caused from water dumped into the core when the cooling system was shut off. The steam caused an explosion and released fission products into the atmosphere. Very shortly after, another explosion occurred and sent fragments from the fuel channels and hot graphite.

Two workers immediately died from the explosion. Emergency crews responded to the accident and dropped boron, dolomite, sand, clay, and lead to extinguish the fire and limit the release of radioactive particles. Twenty-eight workers died within the first four months following the explosions, a result of severe radiation. The town of Pripyat was evacuated one day later. Approximately 100,000 square kilometers of land were significantly contaminated. The Soviet government evacuated about 115,000 people from the contaminated areas.

Shortly after the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, several hundred contracted thyroid cancer, and hundreds of thousands have contracted radiation poisoning. The disaster left radiation as a huge problem for many years following the explosion. The power plant was shut down, and it is now a popular tourist destination in Ukraine.

After the accident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized the importance of several concepts. The NRC emphasized designing reactor systems properly on the drawing board and implementing them correctly during construction/maintenance, maintaining proper procedures and controls for normal operations and emergencies, having competent and motivated plant management and operating staff, and ensuring the availability of backup safety systems to deal with potential accidents. The emphasis on these aspects helps to ensure that disasters like this will not happen anywhere else. The estimated cost of direct loss following the disaster was fifteen billion.

  

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Chernobyl-Accident/

The Right to Die

The debate over the right to die has been an ongoing debate for many many years.  The right to die is a moral principle that allows terminally ill patients to undergo voluntary euthanasia to stop life-prolonging treatments, where continuing with the disease would pro-long suffering.  As of now, only a few European countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, and Switzerland), Colombia, and five U.S. states allow some form of assisted suicide.  The two most popular forms of the right to die are assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The two forms do not seem to be different; however, the key difference is the doctor’s role.  Assisted suicide is when the lethal drug is given to the patient, and the patient himself must do the act.  On the other hand, Euthanasia is when the doctor does the act and euthanizes the patient using the lethal injection. 

The right to die debate has been an ethical and moral dilemma among societies for hundreds of years.  There have been many cases involving removal of life support throughout the 1950s-1980s that started the modern concerns over the right to die.  However, in 2006, the case of Gonzales v. Oregon upheld the Oregon’s “right to die” law constitutional and was a monumental case in the movement of legalizing the right to die through euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act in 1994.  This state law was the first to authorize physicians to prescribe legal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients.  However, in 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that the Death with Dignity Act violated the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, and he made a comment that he would revoke physician’s licenses if they practiced physician-assisted suicide.  Oregon sued Ashcroft, and the court ruled that Ashcroft’s accusations and directive was illegal.  The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the CSA only prevented doctors from dealing illicit drugs, not to define standards of medical practices.  The court also ruled that Ashcroft was not authorized to declare a practice illegitimate.  As of now, Washington, Oregon, California, and Vermont have all enacted the Death with Dignity Act.  The Death with Dignity Act is legal in Montana by court decision; however, it is not a law.   

Supporters of the right to die say that tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved, health care costs can be reduced, reasonable laws can be made that protect the value of human life, and organs can be saved.  However, people who oppose the right to die claim that it violates a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath (First, do no harm), demeans the value of human-life, opens the gates to non-critical patient suicides, and gives doctors too much power. 

I believe that the right to die through either assisted suicide or euthanasia should be legalized nationwide.  People with terminal illnesses or patients with dementia should be allowed to make the decision on whether or not they want to end their life.  It is morally right to let these people die with dignity because their quality of life is so low, that it is hurting them more being alive.  More states have started to consider the Death with Dignity Act.  I also believe that the proper way to nationally legalize the Act would be to include provisions that require multiple doctors to approve, have families approve, and specify what illnesses are protected under the act.    

Articles: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21656182-doctors-should-be-allowed-help-suffering-and-terminally-ill-die-when-they-choose

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/assisted_suicide.htm

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/advocates/national

Wind Energy

Wind turbines can be found across the country in a multitude of states.  Obtaining energy from wind turbines is environmentally friendly and does not release gases that contribute to global warming.  The wind turbines use wind to make electricity or mechanical energy.  The turbines turn in the air and power a generator that eventually creates an electric current.  Areas that contain a large amount of wind turbines in a specific area are called wind farms.  While wind energy is a renewable resource and produces no pollutants or greenhouse gases, there are still a few environmental concerns.  There is concern regarding the sound produced by the rotors, and that birds fly into the rotors and die.  Wind power is a much larger initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.  The initial investment costs around one million dollars per megawatt to install.  Around 80% of the initial investment is for the machinery necessary to run the turbines.  Once the turbines and the energy source begins to work, electricity powered by wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy to maintain.  There have been recent improvements in wind turbines that helps to reduce the costs.   

Distributed wind turbines produce electricity on the distribution grid for businesses, homes, schools, etc.  The major distribution and movement challenge regarding wind energy is that wind cannot be stored.  Wind does not blow exactly when electricity is needed.  Most of the good wind sites are located in remote areas that are far from cities where the most electricity is needed.  Since these “wind farms” are far away from areas of high population, it becomes difficult to transport the electricity to the places in need.  Wind energy is a decentralized system.  Wind energy is decentralized because the energy is generated and stored by a variety of small, grid-connected devices.  The wind energy is produced close to where it will be used.  

The major obstacles to adopting wind energy are that wind turbines are mostly located in remote locations, and turbines are mostly installed on farming land.  Cities are the areas that need the most energy, and wind farms are located far away from those cities.  Wind turbines are also installed on farming land, which raises concerns that the land should be used for farming because it would be a greater profit and a better use of space.  The turbine installation on these farmlands has to compete with alternative uses for the land.  The federal government offers tax incentives and grants/loans to curb demand for wind energy.  For example, the federal renewable energy Production Tax Credit allows owners of renewable energy facilities to receive tax credits for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by the facility over a ten year period.   

Sources: http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/basics/

http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/WindEnergyFacts.php

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/51452.pdf     

Proposal to Remove Columbian White-Tailed Deer from Endangered Species List

The Columbian white-tailed deer, an endangered species that lives in the United States, has slowly been making a recovery since 1967 when it’s numbers were at 467.  The species joined the endangered species list in the first group of animals that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.  It joined this group in 1967 along with the Bald Eagle and the California condor.  The Columbian white-tailed deer live around the Columbia River area and have been making great progress.  As of 2015, there are now nearly 1,000 deer in this area.  The recovery of this species has been so great that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed that the group of deer move from the endangered list to the threatened list.    

Biologists and government workers added the Columbian white-tailed deer to the endangered species list because of the great reduction of deer.  This reduction was a result of habitat loss and modification by human activities.  Modification of the habitats by human activities was led by issues such as farming, logging, and commercial/residential development.  Habitat loss was due to natural causes such as floods that destroyed the deer habitats.  Since the habitat loss was so rapid and extreme, the deer population did not have a place to live and slowly started to die off.

The greatest political consideration of the problem is being aware of the deer’s struggles and successes.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes care of the endangered species and eventually led the species to be moved to the endangered list.  In terms of social consideration, communities and social groups are helping to reboot the deer population.  Communities throughout the Pacific Northwest are trying to do all they can to rebuild the population through refuges and controlling problems with farmers.  “The more animals in more locations, the better off overall,” stated Jackie Ferrier, a project leader for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex.

The most beneficial solution to save the species is the creation of Columbian white-tailed deer refuges.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relocates deer into the refuges to prohibit them from having too much experience with the outside environment.  The agency has also relocated elk, the animal that competes with the white-tailed deer for food.  Wildlife officials have even gone to the extreme measures of killing off coyotes that prey on deer, specifically to protect the deer.  The workers at the refuges put most of their time into rebuilding habitats and doing everything in their power to remove the species from the Endangered Species list.  Ferrier mentioned, “We do pasture work and riparian plantings because they like both grass and woody species.  We do that and invasive species control.”  Another large solution to the problem has been the completion of a new dike by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  This new dike drastically reduces the risk of the Columbia River flooding the deer refuge. 

The main possible side-effect of the return of the deer population is the new competition.  The other species in the area have been used to living without the Columbian white-tailed deer.  If the species is eventually released back into the wild, the competition for habitat and food will be greater and more difficult than it was before.   

Articles: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/columbian-white-tailed-deer-10-07-2015.html
http://tdn.com/news/local/u-s-fish-and-wildlife-proposes-to-downlist-columbian-white/article_36c772b2-e8a3-5279-b0fa-ab6f82a239d8.html
http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/columbian-white-tailed-deer-reach-recovery-milestone

DDT Use: Then and Now

When asked about pesticides, almost everyone is familiar with DDT.  DDT stands for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane and was the first modern synthetic insecticide.  DDT was first discovered in the 19^th century, however it was not until the 1940s that people started to realize it was extremely effectively in killing off insects.  After WWII, people found that this product was so efficient in killing insects that it quickly spread throughout the United States.  Not only was DDT attractive to citizens of the United States, but it was also attractive to countries struggling with diseases from insects such as Malaria, Yellow Fever, and West Nile Virus.  DDT seemed like the magical product that could kill off all harmful insects that were destroying farmer’s crops etc.  This product spread like wildfire to anyone who wanted it, however it was not all good.  While DDT was killing insects and pests, it was spreading through the air and poisoning the ground.  In 1963, Charles Wurster, a chemist at Dartmouth College, conducted a study on the effects of DDT around the environment.  After conducting his study, he found that more than 150 birds had suffered from convulsions before dying, after being exposed to DDT.  Once people started to notice the environmental changes after excessive DDT use, they started to refrain from using DDT.  

Rachel Carson, a marine biologist and conservationist, wrote a ground-breaking book called Silent Spring in 1962.  Carson was aware of the terrible effects of pesticides such as DDT and wrote the book to explain the entire story and enlighten people with what was really going on.  Her book became so popular that it prompted the development of the Environmental Protection Agency.  In 1972, the EPA issued a cancellation for DDT and a ban of its use because of the environmental effects.  Currently, the EPA deals with international negotiations to control DDT use among countries. 

While DDT is banned in the United States, many countries that have problems with malaria still use the product.  The major countries that still use DDT are India, China, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Malaysia.  These countries remain using DDT because the discovered benefits outweigh the negatives for these societies.  Malaria and Yellow Fever are huge problems for the countries mentioned above. 

Even though DDT is still used in these countries, regulations are still present.  For example, in several African countries, DDT use is only allowed inside to rid of insects living in houses or buildings.  The World Health Organization (WHO) major anti-malaria campaign in 2008 relied heavily on pushing for DDT usage indoors.  Even though DDT is allowed in several countries, many people living in those countries still protest against the use.  As a result of these protests, successful malaria control programs have controlled DDT use to ensure that DDT use is healthy and safe for people to use in the present conditions.       

Source 1: http://www.panna.org/resources/ddt-story
Source 2: http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pest1.html
Source 3: http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status
Source 4: http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/ddt-wars-the-long-battle-to-ban-a-bird-killing-pesticide/

Abortion and Planned Parenthood Protests

Abortion has been a heated controversial topic among American politics and personal belief for many many years.  Pro-life advocates and pro-choice supporters have been battling it out and no clear median seems to be coming into view.  However, this summer an anti-abortion group released up to eight videos of Planned Parenthood representatives meeting to discuss selling fetal organs including hearts and brains to make money from them.  The release of these videos fueled the protests of thousands of pro-life supporters while also sparking a concern in people who originally felt indifferent towards the issue of abortion.

Pro-life protests have increased in numbers dramatically following the release of the Planned Parenthood videos.  These protests have been occurring in major towns and cities such as Denver, a D.C. suburb, St. Paul, and many more.  The pro-life protests can range in size to a few hundred to thousands of people.  The supporters who attend these events view the Planned Parenthood actions illegal and cruel.  Even though they once already supported pro-life, after the videos these supporters decided to attack Planned Parenthood and do everything in their power to stop the funding for the institution.  The main argument behind the protests is that any time someone decides to abort a baby, it is considered murder no matter the circumstances.  They also see the selling of fetal organs as illegal.  "Anytime you kill a child it's evil.  It's called murder,  We know that life begins at conception" stated Greg Watkins, the mayor of Shasta Lake.  Many people who attended the pro-life protests were first time attendees.  At one rally, the participants were asked to raise their hand if they were a first timer and an alarming number of people raised their hand.  Even Mike Huckabee added onto the comments mentioning that there are two victims, one being the mother who will suffer from guilt years later and then the fetus being aborted.

On the other side of the argument, Planned Parenthood stepped forward at these anti-abortion protests and started to hand out pink t-shirts with the message "I stand with Planned Parenthood" printed across them.  Obviously the leading argument in support of abortion is the fact that it is a woman's choice to decide whether or not she wants to carry a child.  This argument has been the leading argument for years.  While the anti-abortion protests claim their main goal is to shut down Planned Parenthood institutions, the pro abortion groups claim that the only motivation of the protests is to make abortion illegal entirely.  Behind the pro-choice arguments stands the argument that Planned Parenthood does so much more for women than most people think.  Planned Parenthood provides services such as cancer screening, family planning and free birth control for the ones who cannot afford it.  A pro-choice supporter Julieta Slater commented "Many women come here not for abortions.  Abortion is the minimum of services they are giving here.  Planned Parenthood support is not about being a mother, it is a health care necessity."

In my opinion, I side with the pro-choice supporters.  I believe that it is up to a woman to decide whether or not she wants the child that she will be carrying.  While most people call it murder, I just think that a fetus that is under developed and has not even formed a conscious yet is not considered murder.  In terms of Planned Parenthood, I completely support funding for the institution and I think without funding, it would hurt more than it would help.  Planned Parenthood is an essential part of some women's lives and only 2% of women than go into Planned Parenthood get an abortion.  I am also indifferent in regards to the selling of the organs.  I am not necessarily for or against the issue of the videos.

Articles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/planned-parenthood-videos-energize-pro-life-moveme/?page=1
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/prolife-and-prochoice-advocates-speak-out/34865728
http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/Planned-Parenthood-debate-heats-up-in-Augusta-322598861.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/16/politics/mike-huckabee-abortion-paraguay/index.html