Plastic bag ban: A gateway to greater environmental protection

Response to The Bluebonnet State: Think outside the plastic bag

In the blog post from The Bluebonnet State on August 8^th, the blogger explains her criticism of Austin’s plastic bag ban. She argues that the plastic bag ban does not eliminate the use of plastic bags by customers but rather causes customers to seek out grocery stores that do still offer plastic bags. Additionally, she is concerned for the future of businesses and employees working for plastic bag manufacturers.

I understand that the plastic bag ban can be inconvenient and sometimes just very annoying. However, I think it makes a small step towards creating and sustaining a more environmentally friendly city. There are so many environmental issues facing our state and world right now. Many of these issues have seriously harmful consequences such as climate change, ozone layer depletion, deforestation… the list goes on and on. However, issues such as ozone layer depletion are very intangible to the average citizen. It can be hard to feel responsible for something that you may not ever “see” the impact of.  Additionally, issues concerning the environment are so much larger than one person’s contributions. It takes large numbers of people to both pollute AND “save” the environment. Because of this, many people feel less obliged to pay attention to environmental issues and therefore continue to contribute to environmental damage.

I think that The Bluebonnet State’s argument is a perfect demonstration of why environmental issues are so difficult for people to address:

“Discussing the topic of a greener city or state seems just perfect doesn’t it? Why stop at plastic bags then? Why not ban plastic bottles or milk cartons or everything else that harms the society. I find it difficult to understand that in a world where cigarettes can’t be banned even though they are a health hazard, there is banning of something as small as a plastic bag.” 

Yes, I too find it difficult to understand why so many other dangerous things are not banned while plastic bags are. But, even with as much opposition as it has caused, I think the plastic bag ban is sadly one of the few things that can pass as a citywide ordinance. Even if the plastic bag ban only has a minor impact on the overall pollution and environment of the City of Austin, at least it is something. I think we have to start small to start building support behind the environmental movement. We have to start with the little things like plastic bags that may pose an annoying inconvenience but they do not substantially change a person’s day-to-day life.

It’s important to remember how precious of a resource our environment is. It is much more difficult to “undo” damage to the environment than it is to prevent this damage. So, I hope that people like The Bluebonnet State will soon be able to support these preventive efforts so we can gain the support necessary to make more substantial laws that protect our environment.

Same-Sex Marriage.. Not a "Political" Issue

I believe that the authority and power that governments are entitled to is necessary to prevent societies from chaos. Due to their complexity and potential impact on our state and/or nation, I believe the government should be responsible for issues such as immigration and taxes. However, the “issue” of same-sex marriage does not need to be a government issue. It blows my mind how much time and energy is spent debating this at the political level.

Considering that time is a limited resource, I would prefer for elected officials to dedicate their time to dealing with issues that significantly impact the majority of citizens. I simply cannot understand how same-sex marriage needs to involve anybody besides the individuals. Sure, employer benefits and other government benefits would have to expand to cover these marriages, but I think we have much bigger (and more expensive) issues that we should be worried about.

Our country has changed greatly over the past decades and I think that our involvement in social issues, such as same-sex marriage, should be adjusted to consider these changes rather than trying to hold on to certain traditional beliefs or practices.

For example, the argument that marriage should be used as a means of procreation should be reevaluated because of the current state of overpopulation. I strongly believe that population growth needs to be addressed and recognized on a statewide and national level. A lot of the issues we experience, including financial, social, and environmental, are deeply rooted in the fact that we simply have too many people!!! So, in a way, same-sex marriages provide one way to address this issue. Because same-sex couples cannot procreate themselves, they often turn to means such as adoption if they want children. Therefore… they are not adding to the issue of overpopulation and they are providing loving homes for children who otherwise might not have one.  

I am hopeful that Texas leaders will eventually accept the fact that gay people are not causing any societal damage to our state. It is no more harmful to our state to allow two men or two women to wed than it is to allow a man and a woman to wed.  Overall, I think it is most important to create a state that supports love and provides opportunities for couples to grow together and benefit from the opportunities that our state has worked so hard to achieve.

Complexities of E-Cigarette Regulation

Response to Balancing on One Spur: TX Politics: E-Cigs: To Regulate or Not?

I think Amanda gives a good overview of the arguments for and against the regulation of E-cigarettes. As she addresses in her post, e-cigarettes provide a good alternative for people trying to quit smoking. I agree that it is in our best interest to support e-cigarettes as a means of tobacco cessation or at least reduce the smoking rates of traditional cigarettes. However, I think it is important to discuss the different types of potential FDA regulations on e-cigarettes.

The FDA has the authority to regulate products derived from tobacco except for those that are marketed for therapeutic purposes (Above the Law). Under this regulation, e-cigarette manufacturers would be unable to claim that their products are a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes. In my opinion, this type of regulation should be avoided because it would be minimizing the exposure of what I feel is the real appeal of e-cigarettes (the health benefits and tobacco cessation). 

Alternatively, if e-cigarettes were regulated under the FDA’s therapeutic drug/device provision, manufacturers would be able to make the claims that it is a healthier alternative. With more research into this issue, regulating e-cigarettes as a therapeutic drug makes the most sense. I think that if the research was able to support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation then that is what they should be used for.  I believe it is very worthwhile to put funding towards the research of using e-cigarettes as a healthy alternative to smoking. Because tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death, we should be supporting efforts to help people quit.

At the same time, we should be supporting the prevention of nicotine consumption for non-smokers, especially children. We don’t know all of the risks associated with e-cigarettes yet but we do know that nicotine is an addictive drug so we should be taking measures to avoid the use of these products for reasons other than tobacco cessation. The current marketing of e-cigarettes can be appealing to children and even non-smoking adults. The promotion of a “healthy” alternative with tasty flavors makes it seem like there is no harm associated with its’ use. I feel like people are more likely to try e-cigarettes is they are being labeled as healthy because they will see no reason not to. However, I think marketing e-cigarettes as a tobacco cessation device would be a much better approach if the research was able to support this.

Grouping e-cigarettes with other smoking cessation methods, like nicotine gum or patches, would eliminate some of the appeal for others to use these devices. How many non-smokers do you know that chew nicotine gum? I’m guessing not very many. In the end, we should be addressing e-cigarettes as an option for tobacco cessation but not encouraging its’ use among other populations.

Texas Medicaid Expansion- An Issue of Democrats vs Republicans, not healthcare

Rick Perry is doing a huge disservice to Texans by refusing to accept Medicaid expansion offered by the Affordable Care Act. Texas should have implemented Medicaid expansion at the very beginning considering that we have one of the largest overall populations and we have the largest uninsured population of any state.  The economic and social benefits we would see with Medicaid expansion are incredible considering the need and current situation in Texas.

Let’s take a high-level overview of the current healthcare costs in Texas…

We may not be implementing Medicaid expansion but that doesn’t mean our money isn’t being used to fund it. Taxes paid to the federal government, including income, corporate, and estate taxes, will ultimately be used to fund other states implementing Medicaid expansion. In fact, Texas will end up losing $9.2 billions by not expanding Medicaid. Conclusion: we are paying for other states to implement Medicaid expansion.

Being uninsured doesn’t mean people don’t need healthcare. So, what do these people do when they do need healthcare services? Often times they utilize emergency services and are treated in hospitals. Sometimes these are the only options they have because it is against federal law for hospitals who receive Medicare payments to refuse treatment to any person. Uncompensated care is care provided to uninsured and underinsured patients at no cost. In 2010, uncompensated care provided by Texas hospitals was more than $5 billion. So, who covered these costs? Local taxpayers do.  Conclusion: Texans are already paying for uncompensated care provided to uninsured people.

In 2012, 24% of Texas population were uninsured, a total of 6,252,600 individuals. Medicaid expansion would allow more than 1 million Texans to receive coverage.

By accepting Medicaid expansion, the federal government will pay for 100% of program costs for the next three years. After the first three years, the state would then contribute 10% with the federal government contributing the rest. It has been estimated that Texas would have to spend $15 billion over the next decade to roll out the program, but we would be drawing down $100 billion in federal funds. The state would see approximately 9 to 1 return on investment.

So…

• We have the opportunity to provide health insurance to over 1 million Texans who are currently costing taxpayers through uncompensated hospital care and other emergency service costs. 
• We have the opportunity to save millions of dollars with a 9 to 1 return on investment.

If a program has the potential to improve the health of Texans as well as provide economic benefit to the state and local governments (as well as hospitals)… what would be the opposition? The opposition can only be explained by politics and downright stubbornness. Medicaid expansion is a result of the Democratic presidency of President Obama. It is more important to Rick Perry to oppose an Obama-created opportunity than to improve the health of Texans.

Sources:

• http://www.tha.org/HealthCareProviders/Advocacy/Hospital%20Facts.pdf
• http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20131204-study-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-is-costing-texas-billions.ece
• http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/14483/refusing-to-expand-medicaid-will-cost-texas-9-billion

Critique: Burkablog on Medicaid Expansion

Earlier this month, Paul Burka wrote a blog post titled Asleep at the Switch discussing how the success of Medicaid expansion in other states could be a very powerful argument for Democrats. Burka explains that the White House predicts an incredible amount of savings in states that adopted Medicaid expansion as well as a dramatic increase in preventive healthcare. If Texas would have adopted expansion, we could have saved $3.1 billion in 2014 and $10.4 billion by 2017. Burka suggests that Republican leaders’ hatred for Obama has caused them to miss out on an opportunity that would have provided great benefit to the state of Texas. He believes that the only legitimate reason to reject the expansion, in spite of the undeniable economic and health benefits, is simply doing it to “stick it to Obama.“

Burka asserts that the negligence and ignorance displayed by the Republicans for rejecting Medicaid expansion provides an easy argument for Democrats to win. He believes that local government, the medical community, and the business community would be on Wendy Davis’ side if she were to use this as a way to gain support. However, neither Wendy Davis nor any other politician seems to want to be the voice that says Texas should do Medicaid expansion.

I found Burka’s argument to be very powerful and indicative of some of the issues we see in Texas politics. Texans often times express an unwavering dedication to conservative beliefs, which results in many lost opportunities for growth and success. When this stubbornness towards change results in the loss of billions of dollars of federal funds, as well as the improved health of citizens, it seems like something should be done.  

Critique: Women's Rights in Texas

Critique of- Phillips: Davis' filibuster shifts abortion debate to women's rights

Phillips provides a very interesting and well thought out opinion piece on Texas’ current political culture surrounding women’s issues. In her introduction, Phillips reminds the reader that Texas has been a leader in supporting women’s leadership roles in Texas in the past but our current male-dominated GOP leadership unfortunately is not as supportive of women’s rights. Throughout her article, she explains how the debate over the Senate Bill 5 regarding abortions has evolved into a much broader discussion on women’s rights.

I believe that Phillips does a good job of presenting the current situation without allowing any bias to weaken her argument. She explains that the male-dominated GOP leadership “are using the political process to advance their anti-abortion agenda.” However, she explains that Democrats, too, would likely advance their ideas if they were the majority. I think this is an important point to make that brings attention to the problems that can be associated with a legislation made up too heavily of of one political party with strong opinions.

Throughout the opinion piece, Philips details a few recent events that show evidence of the hostility towards women. The major issue, that of Senate Bill 5, enacts certain requirements for women seeking abortions and includes restrictions for abortions clinics which ultimately are aimed to drive them out of business. Additionally, Perry vetoed an act earlier this month aimed at ending pay discrimination against women. Both of these events contribute to Phillips argument that Texas is dealing with a broad range of women’s issues.

Wendy Davis continues to be a voice for Texas women, which is proving to be a difficult situation considering the political climate described above. However, Philips believes that Davis’ filibuster of Senate Bill 5 has brought much needed attention to women’s issues and seems to think the debate is beginning to favor the democrats.