US_Ch14_Homework-1

=**U.S. History Chapter 14 Homework #1**= Answer the following on notebook paper:

1. Based on the following scenario, which is based on a topic we'll be discussing in the section on the 2010s, explain your position. A community or neighborhood was experiencing crime...an increase in the crime rate, mostly burglaries. There weren't too many eye witness accounts. One witness reported that they saw a black teenager with a hooded sweatshirt. The police were notified, but by the time they arrived, the suspect had gone. The community formed a neighborhood watch program. One of those on the watch, who would be in charge of the watch, was allowed to carry a gun (state law allowed this). One evening, when this watchman was on watch, he saw a teenage African-American male with a hoodie walking along. He didn't recognize the boy as being part of the community. He called 911. The 911 operator said to wait in his car for the police to get there. The watchman feared that this suspect would get away. Therefore, the watchman pursued the boy. He asked him to stop but the boy didn't. Then, the boy stopped. He might have been a teenage boy, but was big and muscular while the watchman may have been older, but was a lot smaller and weaker. The teenage boy started to punch the watchman to the point that the watchman was on the ground with the boy on top of him slamming his head into the ground. At this point neighbors started to look to see what was happening. The watchman worried he was going to be killed so used his gun to get the boy off of him. The boy ended up being killed by the gun shot wound. Forensic evidence shows that this is how the gun shot would have been done...from the victim on top of the shooter in a struggle. The watchman claimed self-defense. Police photos show the watchman had been badly beaten and he had to go to the hospital. However, this turned into a race issue. Many claimed that it was racially motivated since the victim was black (the shooter was Hispanic, but got portrayed as white vs. black). You're on a jury. You know self-defense is legal in terms of deadly force. **What do you think?**

2. One of the major issues that President Obama ran on was health care reform. There had long been debates on health care. Health care reform was attempted under President Clinton with Hillary Clinton heading the task force on reform. In the end, the Clintons failed to deliver a health care plan since it was seen as too much government power, too expensive, and would ultimately hurt small businesses (since businesses would've been required to cover), and more people would be hurt than helped. President Obama had favored a single payer system, which would have a single pool of money from all citizens to pay for health care. Debates would go into whether or not the government should be in charge of the health care system or the government should encourage the free market system to do so. During the debates in the bill, the Democrat Party had control of the House and a super majority in the Senate, that is 60 (or more, but in this case 60) senators. This is significant because the Democrats (the Barack Obama being president) would be able to pass any legislation and the Republicans would be powerless to filibuster in the Senate in order to delay the bill (it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, which is continuously talking and holding the floor to stop the passage of a bill - the Democrats had the vote to stop this). The House of Representatives passed a different version of the bill than the Senate. In order to get the the president to sign, the bill would have to be the same from both chambers. Republicans were overwhelming against the reform since none of their ideas were being put into the bill. Democrats favored more of a government solution to problems in the health care arena by the individual mandate (requiring citizens to purchase health care, forcing the states to add to their Medicaid rolls, and a mandate forcing businesses to provide for their employees). The Republicans wanted measures that the free market was involved with such as allowing health care to be purchased across state lines. This could create more competition and therefore lower the costs. The Republicans also favored tort reform - or handling frivilous lawsuits. One of the drivers of health costs is that doctors pay an enormous amount of money for malpractice insurance (in case they're sued for malpractice - messing up). People can sue for anything and many times insurance companies will pay a settlement instead of going to court. As this increases, so does malpractice costs and therefore doctors have to increase prices in order to compensate. Tort reform would mean if a person sued and it wasn't a good lawsuit (if it's evident that the person is just trying to get money) then that person has to pay all court costs. This would limit frivilous lawsuits.
 * What was the major difference between the Democrat and Republican position on how to solve the health care reform issue? Democrats favored g- control approach whereas the Republicans favored the f m-.**


 * Why did the Democrats have the ability to pass any measure they wanted?**

3. Many in the public were against the overhaul, mostly because it would be extremely costly to a nation already trillions of dollars in debt, would need to see a major increase in taxes, and would see a major expansion of government power. The new TEA Party movement (Taxed Enough Already) protested heavily in 2009 especially at town hall meetings where representatives and senators allow the public to ask questions. Many who were supporting the health care overhaul in Congress were not making convincing points to the public at these town hall meetings. The House had passed its version by a margin of 220-215 (Democrats held a 255-179 majority). The Senate passed its own bill by a vote of 60 to 39. The Democrats with their super majority would have the ability to develop a compromise bill between the House and Senate. However, Ted Kennedy, a staunch Democrat, died in 2009. Massachusetts held an emergency election and a Republican, Scott Brown, was elected mostly because he ran on being against the health care bill. This would give the Republicans the ability to filibuster in the Senate in order to stop the expansive government overhaul of health care. Therefore, the House of Representatives would take a vote on passing the Senate version of the bill with the thinking that it's better to pass the Senate bill rather than no bill at all. The House vote would be quick. The Senate bill was over 2,000 pages long so most representatives would not have enough time to read it. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would hurt the public's perception when she said "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." She believed the public would like the bill when they saw it implemented, but saying this as she did certainly shows that the House wasn't able to explain to the public what the bill would do. Major protests took place outside the capitol building when the House went to vote. The House passed the Senate version by a 219-212 margin. This was a victory for the Democrats, however in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans overwhelming won at the polls and retook the House and gained seats in the Senate. President Obama got his health care law, but at the price of losing Congress (the House and super majority in the Senate) and so lost the ability to get anything he wanted to pass. Now, the Republican controlled House would be a check on the Democrat controlled Senate. "Obamacare," which is officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, would be law. Various parts would begin little by little over the next few years. The law did face a few legal challenges. In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate, or the part of the law that said everyone had to purchase health care, was upheld under the power to tax. Oddly, this was not how the mandate was written. The government tried to justify the mandate under it's power to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, but found a loophole to allow it under the power to tax. This was a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. This means that the Supreme Court allowed the government to force people to make the purchase. The Supreme Court did strike down a provision of the law, specifically the part that forced the states to expand who all was on Medicaid, which is health care for those with low income. States do not have to do this after the Supreme Court ruling. This is good for the states because many states simply would struggle to afford it. Now, states can decided whether or not they'll do it. States that expand Medicaid will pay for more peoples' health care. States that do not will mean the federal government will have to figure out how to pay.
 * Which group would be the major protest group against the bill? (A) Republican Party (B) TEA Party (C) Massachusetts (D) the public (E) all (F) none**


 * How did Scott Brown's election change the overhaul of health care? (A) it stopped it from happening (B) it made it more of a government control approach (C) the Republicans would have the ability to filibuster in the Senate over a final compromise (D) the Democrats would continue its super majority and pass anything (E) all (F) none**


 * Why did Nancy Pelosi's comments cause more to be against the bill?**


 * How was the passage of a bill a victory for President Obama and also how would it become a defeat for him in the midterms?**


 * How did the Supreme Court impact the health care law?**

4. When the implementation of the Affordable Care Act began, there would be positives and negatives. On the one hand, the law would mean that health care companies could not dump a person from their rolls. Also, a person with a pre-existing condition would not be denied coverage. Students in college could stay on their parents' plans until age 26 (instead of 19). Opponents of the law say they agree with these positives, but that these things could have been passed in separate small bills instead of one massive bill that expands the government in a major way. For the law to work, there would need to be a lot of young, healthy Americans register instead of paying the fine for not purchasing. This law doesn't mean free health care (many think that it means that, but it doesn't). Some will get it for free, but many will have to pay. Some negatives have been seen with this law. The individual mandate is a major increase in the power of government over the people. Supporters compare it to car insurance, but this is not a valid comparison cause drivers only have to purchase car insurance if they're going to drive and really drivers only have to purchase liability - insurance on the other drivers, not on oneself. Many also try to claim that the individual mandate was a conservative idea in the 1990s when health care was discussed. This isn't completely true. Republicans came up with an idea to allow tax breaks for those who purchased health care but those who did not would not get the tax breaks. It wasn't forcing anyone to purchase, just encouraging. Once this law started to be implemented, some of the negatives started to appear. For example, part of the law sets up standards that all policies should contain. Americans with a health care plan that didn't meet all of the standards would lose their coverage. How is this possible? An example is that the new standards require policies that pay for maternity care (having a baby) and pediatrics (child doctor care). This sounds good, but what happened was that Americans in their upper 50s or in their 60s had various policies that didn't have maternity or pediatrics (because ages in the 50s and 60s are done having children). Such Americans got notices in 2013 that they were losing their health care plans because their plans didn't meet the new standards. This obviously upset many Americans who liked their policies. This would obviously increase disapproval of the law. President Obama took some heat because when pushing for the passage of the law in 2010 he said that Americans would keep their health care if they liked it. Another negative was in the part of the law that said that businesses with 50 or more full time employees (full time defined by the law as 30+ hours) had to purchase plans for their employees or pay a fine. This sounds like a good law to have employers pay for their employees, but the truth is that this measure would be extremely expensive for some businesses and would force businesses to close their doors. The truth is that businesses that could afford to provide health care already were. The result of this part of the law was layoffs or cuts in hours (to go below 30). This hurt many Americans who didn't necessarily need health care, but needed the hours for more income. There would be a lot less hiring as well since businesses weren't sure what the costs or taxes would be. This is way many were claiming that the health care law was hurting jobs. Millions of Americans would be helped by this law, but there tens of millions would see negatives of the law especially in higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher deductibles. These negatives were not known in the 2012 presidential election, but would be by the time the 2014 midterm elections arrived.
 * What were the several positives of the law?**


 * What were the several negatives of the law?**


 * Give the law your P or P and why.**

5. Guns have often been topic of political debates. Typically, Democrats favor stronger gun control measures whereas Republicans favor more gun rights with the 2nd amendment protecting self-defense. In December of 2012, a gunman entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and shot elementary students in various classrooms. This led to more debates over guns. [|Click here] to watch this analysis from 2012.
 * Write your reflection.**

6. Illegal immigration became a growing issue in the nation. Some sneak across the border illegally with the hopes of getting work and earning more money than in Mexico to take care of their families, but also a large number sneak drugs across the border. Typically, the Democrats favor more amnesty for illegals (allowing them to stay) while Republicans favor border security (putting the guard at the border to stop illegal immigration). Hispanics tend to vote Democrat more since Democrats claim to favor Latinos since they favor more amnesty policies. One of the debates is whether the government (federal or states individually) should help pay college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. A major immigration bill was passed in 1986 that granted amnesty to the illegals in the country at the time with the promise to secure the border. The securing of the border never did happen. Therefore, many Republicans say they want border security first and then a discussion about what to do to allow the illegals in the nation to stay.
 * What are the competing positions on the issue of illegal immigration?**

7. Poverty has been an issue that many have looked to improve over the decades. It is also something that is divided on politically. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson began the war on poverty. At this time in history the percentage of those living in poverty in America was 19%. The year 2014 marked 50 years of the war on poverty. Since 1964, over $16 trillion has been spent on various social programs to help those living in poverty yet the poverty rate (the percentage of those living in poverty) is 15%. Trillions spent - only 4% improvement. The top chart shows the actually number living in poverty. You'll notice it higher now than in the 1960s because our population is a lot higher. The bottom chart is the poverty RATE - the % of our population living in poverty. You'll notice that there has been slight improvement. Many of the Great Society initiatives (LBJ's "war on poverty" was part of what he called the Great Society) were passed in the late 1960s and wouldn't be in full implementation until the 1970s. You'll notice the rate was already coming down. Since then, trillions of dollars have been spent on "social programs" for the poor, yet...you be the judge!
 * What lesson should be learned by this chart and information - trillions spent, very little improvement in the poverty rate.**

8. Banking reform was a major issue after the 2008 financial collapse and then the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, a major lending firm and the biggest bankruptcy in history to that date. In 2010, the Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act. This would provide a government-based solution to the financial issue. A major problem is that some big banks were considered "too big to fail." This means that some big banks were so big that if they failed, or went bankrupt like Lehman Brothers, many many Americans were be hurt by job losses and problems with mortgages. A major problem has been that for so long the government has helped out the banks (by using tax payer money) to help keep interest rates on borrowers low. This made it easy for people to get loans and pay the loans and also helped out the banks. The problem is that banks were much more willing to make bad loans (loans to those who would difficulty making the payments (subprime mortgages) and knew that they (the banks) could be bailed out by the tax payers. This was especially the problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dodd-Frank Act was intended to stop "too big to fail." However, it would have unintended consequences. Part of the law required that banks no longer make bad loans. However, banks cannot "discriminate." So, what do you do if you're a bank? What is a "bad loan?" The law doesn't define bad loan. If a bank loans money and the person can't pay, is the bank guilty of making the bad loan? What if the bank turns the prospective borrower down because the person might not be able to pay? Is the bank guilty of discriminating? Banks become leery of lending. This is less of a problem in small town banks and a bigger problem for large lending firms. In addition, this law gives a whole lot of power to unelected bureaucrats - those in bureaus and agencies - because the law doesn't make the rules for the banks, the bureaus and agencies do. Many of the new rules banks are going to have to follow haven't been written into the law and are up to the bureaus. The job of the bureaus in the executive branch are to enforce the laws passed by Congress, but the Congress gave these bureaus the rulemaking power. This is yet another example of government growing in power and size.
 * What is the purpose and positives of the Dodd-Frank Act?**


 * What are the negatives of the Dodd-Frank Act?**

Back to the Chapter 14 main page