Medicare Crisis

     Tell Congress to address Medicare funding now, is a commentary written by Dr. Peter Carmel and Dr. Bruce Malone in the Austin American Statesman.  Dr. Carmel is the president of the American Medical Association and Dr. Malone is the president of the Texas Medical Association.  The goal of the American Medical Association is to unit physicians nationwide and to promote the betterment of public health.  The goal of the Texas Medical Association is much like the American Medical Association just on a state level (i.e. Texas).
     In this commentary both Doctors seek to Address Medicare the Funding crisis.  Dr. Carmel and Dr. Malone believe that the Congress's procrastination on addressing a long term solution to the medicare problem has cost the country more than $300 billion.  They believe that if the procrastination continues in five years the cost will reach at least $600 billion.  Congress has developed what Dr. Carmel and Dr. Malone call the "faulty formula", in which Congress plans to cut medicare payments to doctors by 27%.  While it doesn't state the crisis it would bring on a national level, they do state that when this cut takes place on March 1st, that it will affect 2.9 million seniors in Texas and about 900,000 veterans and their families in Texas.  
     Dr. Carmel and Dr. Malone's solution for the crisis is rather simple.  They would like for Congress to use the projected savings from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to eliminate the "faulty formula" that the Congress has set into place.  What the Doctors do not produce is the monetary amount the savings from the wars is estimated.  Thus, their is no way to draw a conclusion on whether or not the projected solution would actually work, or if their would be enough savings to cover the Medicare expenses.

Does the Right to Choose a Roommate Include a Right to Advertise Discriminatory Preferences?

      David Bernstein introduces a dilemma brought about after a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court, in California, due to the court case of Fair Housing Council V. Roommate.com. In his article (Does the Right to Choose a Roommate Include a Right to Advertise Discriminatory Preferences?).  They found that the law does not apply to advertising for a roommate.  This law is the Fair Housing Act (1968) which prohibits "discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin" (US Dept of Housing).  This law was amended in 1988 to be more inclusive and is further expanded upon.  Back to the point, this ruling found that in the selection of roommates it is acceptable to discriminate and post preferences about political, racial, and sexual orientations.  Bernstein and I as well, agree with the ruling made by the Judge.  

     The ruling attempts to be fair but has to account for both the Fair Housing Act and the rights of the First Amendment.  More specifically the "freedom of speech" right guaranteed in this Amendment.  Although the posting of specifications for a roommate is a type of discrimination, I do not believe it is discrimination targeted towards any one sex, race, or political group/individual.  It is too broad of a service and many people look for different things in the people they would like as roommates.  Which would mean that every race, sex, and political group/individual is being discriminated against on this web site.  

     Because it is so broad of a discrimination or all inclusive, I would instead refer to it as personal preferences and not discrimination.  Every person is allowed to pick and choose what they prefer in another person, whether as a roommate or as a significant other, this is not unconstitutional.  An example of personal preferences; can be seen on dating websites.  It is my belief that roommate.com is almost exactly the same as a dating site.  They are both web pages that state what one is looking for in another person.  I think there is no viable reason that this case was taken to court over what they thought to be discrimination.  And although I understand the other point of view and how it could possibly be seen as a violation of the Fair Housing Act, I do not believe the advertisements are or were meant to be prejudice or discriminatory in any way to any one particular group/individual.  This is a very well put together article and Bernstein  does a good job of stating the facts and defending his views as well as providing details for better understanding of the other side of the argument, and how it can seem unjust.  I however maintain that it is not preventing anyone from fair housing.