The 12 Days of Christmas Would Now Cost Almost $100,000

If a person was to buy all 364 items listed in the twelve days of Christmas, it would now cost almost $100,00. This is an increase of 10.8% compared to last year, according to the Christmas Price Index. Even if you bought one of everything in the song, it would still cost $23,439, which is 9.2% more than last year. This is according to the 27th annual holiday index, and in the past it has always mirrored the national Consumer Price Index, however, this year it does not. The Christmas Price Index grew about 9.2% this year and there was just a 1.1% increase in Consumer Price Index. This large difference is probably because the Christmas Price Index looks at a relatively small and "whimsical" group of services, compared to the much larger Consumer Price Index. Even in the index, there are goods that have seen small increase and goods that have seen large increases. Gold prices are also high with an increase of 30%, which makes the golden rings about $650 each. The price of food and the availability of birds has also drastically increased-turtle doves by 78.6% and french hens by 233%. Four items didn't see an increase though, those including a pear tree, four calling birds, six geese, and eight maids-a-milkings. Nine ladies dancing was the most expensive at about $6,300 with a 15% increase, and the cheapest was a partridge for $12 with a 20% increase. The good news is that these higher prices are not necessarily a bad thing. They mean the economy is improving.

Personally, I found this whole study a bit frivolous. I mean, who would really buy all those things in the 12 days of Christmas anyway? And almost every object is so absurd, that no one would would buy any of the items, aside from maybe a golden ring. It's funny that they do a study each year to find out how much it would cost to buy everything, that in my opinion are not very good examples of goods in our market, and compare it to other years. I suppose it's a constant 12 random items that they can keep track of and compare easily, so I guess it could be viewed as a controlled scientific study. If the results are truly reliable and predict real trends in society and our economy, then I would view the study as worth it. It will be interesting to see if the dramatic increase in prices from last year to this year will actually show in the statistics that prove the health of our economy. I have my doubts on this, because although I do think the economy is better, I don't think it has drastically improved in 2010, nor will it in 2011. It's suprising to me how the Christmas Price Index has grown over 9%, while the Consumer Price Index has grown only about 1%. I would guess this would mean that although Christmas prices and buying are up, the overall consumer buying and economy has not greatly grown. That would be the only way I could make sense of those numbers. It will be interesting to see if these predictions hold true with all the other statistics that come out at the end of the year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418705/ns/business-us_business/

Could Wild Tigers Be Extinct in 12 Years?

Wild tigers could become extinct in as little as 12 years if countries don't soon take action to protect their habitat and crack down on poaching. The World Wildlife Fund says that fewer than 3,200 tigers remain in the wild, while a century ago there was over 100,000. This huge drop is because their habitat is being destroyed by forest cutting and construction, and their skins and body parts are used in Chinese traditional medicine and therefore fetch a huge prize for poachers. The summit that is going on to bring awareness to this issue is hosted by Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin who has used tigers and other animals to support his image. A wide-ranging program with the goal of doubling the world's tiger population by 2022 was approved by the summit. It's backed by 13 countries that still have wild tiger populations. These nations include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia. Specialized reserves are also being set up for the tigers with the effort to restore and conserve the forests around them to help the tiger population to expand. One way these nations are funding this is by donor commitments. The Global Tiger Recovery Program that was approved at the summit estimates that $350 million is needed in outside funding in the first five years of the 12 year plan in order for it to work. Many supporters of this plan say that saving tigers have a much higher effect the idea of preserving a graceful and majestic animal. In the words of the Global Tiger Initiative, "Wild tigers are not only a symbol of all that is splendid, mystical and powerful about nature. The loss of tigers and degradation of their ecosystems would inevitably result in a historic, cultural, spiritual, and environmental catastrophe for the tiger range countries." The subspecies of the Bali, Javan, and Caspian have already become extinct in the last 70 years. The hope is that these new efforts will be more succesful than the highly diverse efforts of the past.

I am hopeful that these new programs to help save the tigers will work. Even though I'm not much of a fan of tigers, I think it's sad whenever any kind of species is in danger of becoming extinct, especially when it's the fault of human civilization. These tigers were here before us, and now we have destroyed their land for our purposes and poachers have killed them for the sake of making money. How much more selfish can we get? Now obviously, we need some land to build buildings and homes on, but I don't think we should do it to the point of causing animals to become extinct. I'm very glad that his new plan sets up some reserves for them and efforts will be made to conserve their forests and new poaching laws will be enforced. Also, when one animal become extinct, it isn't like they're gone and everything else goes back to normal. Living things are all part of a food chain, and when an animal like the tiger goes extinct, it will have a dramatic effect on the rest on the chain. Tigers are at the top, so when they aren't there to prey on other animals, there will be an overpolulation of numerous species. That is never a good thing. Then for those animals that had previously been the tiger's prey, they might run out of their own prey because with an increase in their population there will be more competition to find their own food. Their prey might become extinct. This all becomes one problematic cycle because one link is broken, which in this case would be the tigers. I really hope these efforts work and that tigers will not become extinct in 2022.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298964/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Issue #1-Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Summary: The United States health care system has some of the best doctors in the entire world. The problem is that many Americans can't afford health insurance and therefore can't visit these doctors. Solutions to this problem have been disscussed for over a century and the debate is mostly over if the government should fund insurance programs to help the poorest of Americans, or keep insurance companies privatized. Today there are two health insurance programs for senior citizens. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare users pay a certain amount, and then rest of the medical hospital expenses are paid by medicare and 80% of their doctors' fees, laboratory tests, and other medical expenses are also covered. This is funded by a payroll tax that everyone pays out of their paycheck. Medicaid helps low-income people pay for their health insurance. It continues to drain out more and more of states' budgets as medical costs continue to increase. Both Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt or severely damage the economy if something isn't done about them. The reason for the rapid increase in health care costs has been the expansion of the system where the government and insurance companies pay medical bills instead of patients, expensive new medical technology and drugs being invented, and the rapid growth of America's older generation ("the baby boomers"). Most Americans get their health insurance through employers by paying monthy premiums and deductibles for medical visits and procedures. This system also uses "after the fact" payment results, which means a person isn't able to see the total costs of their medical care and treatment until it's already done. This causes people to not be able to comparison shop and then providers don't have to compete for lower prices. Instead, they can raise their prices because people can't do anything about it. Then starting in 1990 employers began moving their employees from fee-for-service plans to PPO's and HMO's that offer consumers a range of medical services for a set monthly fee. Some people argue this helps keep costs down, while others think it denies patients being able to have important medical tools and specalists. In 2007 there was a consensus that the health care system needed to be reformed. Today the debate continues over if the change should involve universal coverage (comprehensive changes), or using incremental adjustments to expand existing coverage and reduce the number of uninsured people. Universal health care supporters believe the best way to make sure everyone has health care is to completely overhaul the nation's health care system. They believe Medicare and Medicaid have only increased medical costs and have not provided a reliable source of coverage for uninsured people. In their opinion the federal government should be the single purchaser of health care and force health care providers to not charge too much and hold them responsible for how they care for their patients. Another option is that government subsidies should be controlled by the federal government so that the poor get tax credits or money to help them pay for their health care. Others favor a mix of government funding basic health care while still providing elements of competition and choice. Everyone would be able to have basic health care, but people would have the choice to choose from competing plans to purchase more coverage. Then there are those who completely oppose universal health care. They still want health care for all, but they belive that government control over medical programs would create less competition between providers that would eventually lead to a decrease in quality of health care. They also think it will lead to soaring costs, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and unemployment for many people in the health insurance companies. What they support is incremental changes health savings accounts that help people save money tax-free for certain health care expenses. With more people paying for their own health care insurance and medical expenses, the market would naturally cut their medical costs. These are the two sides of the issue.


Opinion: I most agree with the opinion of a mix of the government funding basic health care with the option of people being able to purchase more coverage from competing plans. This provides a sort of "bridge" between both sides and is a good compromise. With this system, everyone will be able to get their basic health needs met. No longer would there be 50 million American uninsured, and 18,000 people would no longer die each year because they can't afford to get the care they need. People wouldn't be turned away because they couldn't pay for a chemo treatment. People wouldn't have to chose between the loss of two fingers which one they wanted to reattach because it's all they could afford. People wouldn't be turned away because they had a "prexisting condition" that may be as minor as headaches or a yeast infection from 15 years previous. (These instances I got from the movie "Sicko.") I don't think anyone could argue that getting rid of these problems wouldn't be a good thing. As to appease the Republicans, though, I think it's important to allow people to purchase more coverage if they desire it. That way competition between companies can still exist, people won't loose their jobs, and the quality of care would not decrease. Hopefully they won't feel like the government is taking too big or a role, it's just trying to help those people in our country who can't afford health insurance or can't set aside money in a health savings account. Against what some people might think, I believe there are many, many, people in our country who work very hard, but just do not make enough to purchase health insurance. Maybe it's a young woman who had to start working at Wal-mart instead of going to college to help a sick or disabled mother who had her as a teenager and therefore herself couldn't go to college or earn enough money to pay for health insurance either. Then when that mother dies, the daughter has no means to go to college or get a higher paying job that would require a college education either. There are numerous instances where people are doing there best to make it in the world, but they can't afford to go to the doctor when they're sick. I don't think this is right and that's why I think that their basic care should be funded by the government. Then for those who can afford it, they can purchase more health care if they desire and don't have to worry about a decrease in their quality of health care. This are also primarily the views of President Obama and I believe are a win-win situation.

To see issue #2 visit my classmate's blog at:
 http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-2-ensuring-quality-care-for.html

To see issue #3 visit my classmate's blog at:
http://maxineannec.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-3-safe-to-eat.html

Midterm Elections 2010

The midterm elections today are expected to "shake things up" in the nation politically. President Obama's agenda is then also at risk because predictions are that Republicans will take over the House, and possibly the Senate if they win each tight race. Republicans are talking about a divided government and a change from the last two years. Their goals are to reverse Pres. Obama's tax and spending plans, climate change, trade, arms control, reduce the deficit, make jobs, and repeal the health care law. Races are particularly tight in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, and Washington State. Then if Republicans do take control of both the House and Senate, a political "gridlock" will occur unless President Obama can find common ground with Republicans. President Obama, Michelle Obama, and former President Bill Clinton have been campaigning almost non-stop these past few weeks for democratic supporters to go out and vote to stop the Republicans from taking over Congress. President Obama says, "We need to keep moving forward, that's why I need folks to vote today." Republicans need 40 seats to take over the House and 10 to take over the Senate. One factor that might help out the Democrats is how the Tea Party has been causing a split in Republican votes. On Wednesday at 1 pm President Obama is set to have a news conference to react to the results of the midterm elections and it is then that we can reflect on what has transpired and see where we go from there.

I wish so very badly that I was just a little bit older so that I could vote. This is the last election where I can't. From now on, for the rest of my life, I can and will vote. It makes me very upset when people think their one vote doesn't make any difference, so they never go and vote. One voice can make a difference!!! Back when our founding fathers were voting on what should be our official language, english won over german by one vote. ONE VOTE!! And just looking back at previous races in 2008 between Frankin and Coleman and in 2000 between Bush and Gore, each individual vote had to be recounted-by hand. Now tell me one vote doesn't make a difference! The predicted outcome of this election also make me very angry. I don't understand how only 2 years ago everyone was gung-ho over Obama and his promises for change. It's only been two years and it seems we have already given up on him, and it's not like he hasn't been trying. He's done almost everything he's promised to do, but just because they all haven't worked people are angry. President Obama is a very smart man, but he's not God. Nobody can be God. Nobody can snap their fingers once taking office during a time when we've already slipped deep into a recession and have been involved in two wars for many years and make things all wonderful and fix every problem. That just doesn't happen. But man, President Obama has tried. Almost immediately after taking office he put in place the stimulus plan. Although it didn't turn out to be as succesful as hoped, it was definitely worth a try and I do believe it helped some. I highly doubt the Republicans could of done any better. Their goals of wanting to reduce the deficit so much and get rid of President Obama's health care law also scares me. Yes, we are in a huge debt and it needs to be reduced, but we can't do it by cutting out things that people need. And just because you may not need welfare, or whatever the case might be, doesn't mean other people don't need it. I believe most of those people who rely on government support use it wisely and are NOT lazy. Some people, maybe it's the neighborhood they grew up in and their family's financial status, an illness or disease, or any unforunate circumstance can cause people to find themselves in a bind and need government's help. We can't cut out people's lifelines just so we can reduce our national debt. I strongly disagree also with the Republican view that, "I make more money because I work harder and therefore deserve that extra money. Nobody should make me pay more in taxes." Umm, well, I think many, many, people work extremely hard but have a very difficult time making anything over minimum wage. I believe the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes. It's only fair. And finally, it will really anger me if Republicans take control and they get ride of Obama's health care plan. There's a lot of misinformation out their and manipulation of some fine details that have caused people to believe some crazy things such as that it will cover illegal immigrants and cause you to not be able to chose your doctor or your care. Obama's health care bill is to insure all Americans can have health insurance and won't get turned down for a pre-existing condition or not having enough money. There are literally thousands of people in the United States who die each year because they don't have health insurance. And I really don't understand how someone could not want health insurance because there's no way you can go through life without ever getting sick. So the Republican's health care plan of no change and just, "don't get sick" doesn't work. Obviously, I agree with almost all of Obama's agendas and it will make me very sad tomorrow if Republicans take over both the Senate and the House. Nothing will every get accomplished then because whatever Obama wants, the Republicans won't vote for it. And whatever the Republicans want, President Obama will veto. I don't think that will turn out too well, and if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that I will vote for Obama and the democrats the next election and make my voice count!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39962482/ns/politics-decision_2010/