Jun 28, 2012
The Supreme Court ruled that individuals foregoing insurance coverage still actively participate in the healthcare marketplace because they will eventually require medical attention. The decision not to get healthcare coverage affects everyone else because the cost of their free or subsidized care is passed on to the rest via higher insurance premiums and healthcare provider costs. In addition, it leave the existing risk pool of insured Americans smaller and sicker, thus increasing premiums even more.
The justices also upheld the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program and declared that a penalty applied to individuals who don't obtain health insurance coverage beginning in 2014 does not prohibit consideration of the case beforehand. This addresses the Anti-Injunction Act which prohibits anyone from challenging a tax in court until it has been paid.
Chalk another one up for Obama!!!
Jun 27, 2012
In Lee's last post regarding "Political Unrest in Panama", he danced around the issue of an increasingly apparent political animosity toward current Panamanian president, Ricardo Martinelli. What Lee basically said about the political unrest was that there are pros and cons to the activities of the current administration, and there are allegations of corruption, but the most glaring problem is the national cost for the numerous infrastructure projects the Martinelli administration has implemented, and that “someone” has to pay for it.
Vice President Varela commented on the union of the three opposition parties to form the Front for Democracy, stating that "Democracy belongs to three million Panamanians, not to political parties…. the Fifth Chamber is the beginning of disrespect for democracy." Other criticisms by other party leaders expressed that the President and his government "is destroying the country's institutions, acting against the law; they are trying to give continuity to his government to continue in a dance of millions and extract [the state] resources for their own interest. “ The opinion was that Ricardo Martinelli wants to build the Fifth Chamber as a structure of constitutional interpretation and analysis and do it in his own way for his party’s future electoral intentions. Other comments included the belief that in addition to destroying institutions the government is auctioning off the national heritage, by selling the shares of the telephone and electricity companies, and the lands of the Colon Free Zone. "What is happening is that it seems they want to buy the goods of the Panamanian state cheaply.” On the issue of appointment of judges of the Fifth Chamber, the leader of the Popular Party said the president is making an institution as he sees fit because he wants to open a path in his project to remain in power. "What is at stake is whether there will be elections, if there will be democracy, if there will be freedom of expression.” The Panamanian people were urged “to defend our liberties from a person who was elected democratically but does not govern democratically."
I'm getting off subject, but thought the background info might be helpful….In any event, I impulsively posted my comment re: Varela on Lee's blog to see what others would think or say about this particular politician who I sort of favor.
Below is a link to a Wall Street Journal article regarding the current situation in Panama. A local expat, who is well-informed regarding Panama politics and very sympathetic to the current President and his administration, criticized the article as biased and misleading. But despite his knowledge base, I frequently find myself at odds with his opinions. I thought the Wall Street Journal article was informative. There is also a video interview with the author on the same web page. Ms. O'Grady's comments during the interview do seem a bit alarmist, though.
Below is a link to Don Winner's rebuttal of Ms. O'Grady's article. His bias is apparent. He strongly leans to the right in almost all his opinions, and I'm told has a background in Air Force Intelligence. This man is a strong proponent of open pit mining in Panama, which I have a rough time accepting. But he does give a strong argument in favor of the current administration and feels the Wall Street Journal author didn't do adequate research before writing the article. He presents a different perspective.
Since I’ve been coming to Panama, I’ve seen the cost of living jump exponentially, and the public be taxed more and more to pay for infrastructure projects that are of questionable need. I’ve seen little compassion for the environment. I've been told of blatant attempts to seize control of lands and resources for sale to foreign corporate interests with little recompense to the Panamanian people. Whether this is true and /or characteristic only of the current administration is something I have no way of knowing. I only know the change has been very dramatic. And interestingly enough, the President renegged on the establishment of the Fifth Chamber. The sale of government lands and shares of public utilities has also been halted. The President reportedly has decided to cancel government subsidies for electricity, and Panamanians are being warned their bills will increase and probably double in the coming months.
Truth be told, it’s really hard to determine truth from political propaganda in Panama, and I’m honestly glad I don’t have the added responsibility of voting in this country’s next election. I just hope all ends well for this country that I have grown to love.
Jun 19, 2012
Jun 11, 2012
Jun 4, 2012