Get Up and Move!

      The United States Government should mandate Physical Education in schools. At the current time, physical education in schools is controlled at a local and state level, and they are failing our children. Without intervention, childhood obesity will continue to rise as well as healthcare costs. Our future is suffering as government focuses more on saving money instead of saving lives.

      Remember gym class in the olden days? I do and I absolutely hated it! Walking around the basketball court on the rainy days, and those dreaded dodge ball games. Most adults have memories, good or bad, of gym class. And how could one forget the movies references of gym locker rooms where so much drama occurred. As much as I despised gym, I admit that was where most of my physical activity took place during my middle school and high school days. With video games, talking on the phone with girlfriends, and homework, I did not find time for physical activity outside of school- like most adolescents.

      I found a shocking statistic as I was working on a different Government assignment- that only six states require physical activity in grades K-12. I was flabbergasted! With Mayor Bloomburg using propaganda to support his “Fat Tax,” he should have been fighting the battle to mandate New York Schools' physical activity time, as well as increasing funding in support of supplies and gymnasiums for children to use. Due to government cutbacks in the education system, the first class to go is gym. I found it surprising that many schools no longer have recess, gymnasiums, or P.E. instructors for the students. Most of our society is unaware these shocking statistics because states classify exercise as Physical Education instead of physical activity. Yes, many schools have a P.E. course- which does not require actual activity, but more as a health class with lecture. At the current time, only 12 states require physical activity in elementary schools, 7 states require physical activity in middle schools, and 3 states require physical activity in high schools! However, Physical Education online is allowed in 30 states!

     So, why does government not mandate physical activity in schools? Government argues that there's just not enough funding. With this lack of funding, the adolescent obesity is on the rise, and so are healthcare costs. The CDC states: “overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors... The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2010. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to 18% over the same period...In 2010, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.” The AHA states:“The total excess cost related to the current prevalence of adolescent overweight and obesity is estimated to be $254 billion ($208 billion in lost productivity secondary to premature morbidity and mortality and $46 billion in direct medical costs). If current trends in the growth of obesity continue, total healthcare costs attributable to obesity could reach $861 to $957 billion by 2030, which would account for 16% to 18% of US health expenditures.” All I can remark is, do the math!

     The federal government should mandate physical activity in schools. Physical Education is very important, but the activity is crucial. Forget numbers, statistics, and even dollars. Focus on the children. These children are our future and our lifeline. They will be making laws and setting precedents. They will cure cancer and move this country forward. They are our hope, and we are failing them. If we fail them, then we are failing ourselves.

 

Cites:

AAHPERD. “State Standards for Physical Education.”National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association. Web. 24 April 2013.

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/2012-Shape-of-the-Nation-supplemental-data-tables.pdf
 

AAHPERD. “Shape of the Nation: 2012 Report” National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association. Web. 24 April 2013.

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/Shapeofthenation.cfm?cid=00007

AHA. “Overweight & Obesity: Statistical Fact Sheet 2013 Update.” American Heart Association. Web. 24 April 2013. http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_319588.pdf

CDC. “Childhood Obesity Facts.” CDC: Center of Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 24 April 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

LiveScience. “Up to 40 Percent of U.S. Schools Cutting Back on Recess.” MNN: Mother Nature Network. Web. 24 April 2013.

http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/stories/up-to-40-percent-of-us-schools-cutting-back-on-recess

Take Down that Sign

 

     Brandon is absolutely correct. Prior to reading this blog, I had little knowledge about Gun Free Zones. Yes, I knew they existed. I have seen the signs on hospitals, schools, and such, but gave it little thought on what it represented. I never correlated that the anti-gun sign meant anti-Second Amendment rights on the premise.

     I am not pro gun or anti gun. I do believe people kill people, and guns are a mere weapon. Like Brandon stated, people choose to break the law. Some as minute as speeding or playing loud music after hours, and some are more severe as in drunk driving or murder, where another is harmed or has the potential to be harmed. The point is having the Gun Free Zone will not stop those who intend to harm, but stop those who intend to defend or protect.

      Do not get me wrong, I do not prefer people walking around town carrying handguns. However, I do believe it is their right to do so. If the proper measures were taken to register the weapon, like Brandon stated, then the state agreed that they were knowledgeable enough to carry that weapon. I must ask out of curiosity, by having Gun Free Zones, how does that change a person's competency level? Oh, I was qualified enough to carry a concealed weapon in the park, but somehow I am no longer competent when I enter a school building? How can I be competent in one area and not another? It is like obtaining a driver's license. After passing a written exam and proving that they are able to safely drive a motor vehicle, the state issues you a driver's license. But the state does not regulate where you are allowed to drive. They do not place the stipulations that you are qualified to drive, but only in certain areas. It is like having a driver's license provision that states you are only capable of driving in parking lots or residential areas and no where else. People would argue that would be absurd, but that is what the state is doing with the Gun Free Zones.

     Gun violence has touched me personally. I lost my brother to a gun shot wound. One would assume that I would be anti gun and protest against gun rights, but I am not so ignorant to blame the gun. Guns are mere weapons, it the people who make the decision to harm. The Second Amendment does not place limits on where one can carry a weapon, so why should our government have the right to do so? Consider how much more harm is being done by having these zones. Like Brandon stated, these zones are taking away a person's right to protect. Consider how many lives could have been saved if we were allowed to protect ourselves and each other. If just one life was saved, then it is worth the risk.

Source:

“Just Put Up a Sign.” A Texan's Gov't Blog. March 28, 2013. Web. 9 April 2013. http://firstattempt1.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-stage-5.html



The American Right to Super Size

 

      The government should not implement the Fat Tax. It is argued that the Fat Tax will directly influence society by decreasing the national obesity outbreak, but it will not. Many factors are at play in the obesity epidemic, but the government chooses to fix the problem by taxing the American people instead of fighting the battle face to face.

      The Fat Tax is defined as “a tax or surcharge that is placed upon fattening food, beverages or individuals.” The purpose, according to the government, is to “discourage unhealthy diets and offset the economic costs of obesity”(Wikipedia). A vague, blanket statement covered with the idealization to protect and to help the American people. An unhealthy diet is not defined, but assumed that involves anything that has a surplus of sugar or calories. No consideration given to the individuals, but only to the whole. A “healthy diet” to one, may be impossible to another. A person with Cystic Fibrosis requires a high caloric intake to survive due to their inability to maintain weight. As do many other diseases, a specific diet must be followed to maintain a “healthy life.” So, in essence, the government is discriminating against those who require more calories.

      Instead of government focusing their attention why the people choose “fattening foods,” the solution is to discourage by taxing it. So, why do people choose “fat” over “healthy”? Other than the obvious “it tastes better” notion, the majority of the reason is cost. It is cheaper to eat fat. It is a sad statement, but true. The costs of fruits and vegetables are much higher than that of chips and cookies. Let us compare by making a healthy burger at home to a fast food burger option. At your local Sprouts Farm Market, who's slogan is “Healthy Living for Less,” 8 ounces of ground chicken breast cost $1.50 (a pound is $2.99). The bread to put that on cost approximately $0.66 (assuming you eat 4 oz of the 18 oz Sprouts all grain bread costing $2.99). Do not forget the lettuce ($0.88 each for green leaf) and tomato ($1.29 a pound for a Roma tomato)! So when made (assuming you use 20 cents worth lettuce and and 60 cents worth of tomato) the cost is approximately $3. And at your local Wendy's or McDonald's there are several options for $1! This shows how healthy eating costs three times more than eating unhealthy. The government's solution to this: increase the fat prices to equal the cost of eating healthy! But, how about this, decrease the cost of healthy foods. Economically wise, let us take a lesson from Henry Ford, decrease the cost to increase the demand.

      While government focuses on raising the prices on unhealthy foods, let us as society focus on a glaring obvious cause. The cut in exercise and gyms in schools. In 2012, The New York Times brought to light the leading causes of childhood obesity, the lack of exercise. There is a connection of sedentary lifestyle with weight gain. With all the fancy game systems out there, it is now more common to take a “virtual walk” in your living room than outside. Both Wii and Xbox created games using an avatar to represent you exercising in a virtual world in attempt to get people off the couch and in motion. So, gaming manufactures have stepped up, but has the school system? According to the NY Times, no. Some schools do not met the twenty minute exercise requirement, where other schools no longer have gyms or gym teachers! What is government's stance? Well, with all the budget cuts required by schools caused by the lack of government aid, it is only natural to cut the unnecessary programs (like gym). Educators, students, and parents are fighting this battle, hoping that the government will provide compensation to those schools who encourage physical activity, but the reality is grim due to the federal budget.

      What are the school requirements for exercise in Texas? According to the Texas Education Agency, “Texas mandates at least 135 minutes of moderate or vigorous structured physical activity per week in elementary school (grades K-5, or K-6, depending on the district), but it does not required daily recess. Full day kindergarten students, and to the extent practicable, PK students in half day programs, are to participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity for 30 minutes each day. The state also mandates at least 30 minutes per day of structured moderate-to-vigorous structured physical activity in junior high (grades 6-8 or 7-8, depending on the district). With the exception of kindergarten, physical activity may or may not be included in the physical education curriculum. However, starting in 2010, school districts are required to ensure that at least 50% of the physical education class includes actual physical activity. High School Graduation Requirements: The state requires students to earn 1.0 physical education credit for graduation.” Are these requirements working in Texas? According to The Dallas Morning News, it is! Even though Texas schools are facing the same budget cuts as the rest of the nation, the article states “ a 2009 report by Cooper Institute of Dallas found that Texas' physically fit students scored better on state tests, had higher attendance rates and got into less trouble.” Currently only five states are requiring physical education. Imagine the impact on obesity if all states required physical exercise in schools.

      There are many causes for the national obesity outbreak. A few I have already discussed, but there are many more. Some being convenience- it is quicker and simpler to grab a bag of chips versus making a salad. Another being the addiction of sugar, caffeine, and sodium. Many studies on caffeine addiction have been reported. Instead of government increasing the cost, researching and regulating the addictive additives and preservatives placed in food products could provide a healthier outcome.

      The government believes fattening foods is causing national obesity, but in reality obesity is caused by individuals' choices. A person chooses what they eat and drink. They choose the amount of calories they eat. They choose whether they want a sedentary lifestyle versus an active one. They have the options. Whether it is taxed or not, they will choose to continue with that lifestyle or not. If large soda is banned, two small sodas can be purchased in its place. Super-sized no longer an option- no problem, just purchase an extra side of fries or double the order. It is their Constitutional right to pursue of happiness. If food is their happiness, it is their right.

      The Fat Tax should not be implemented. Though it is meant to encourage a healthy lifestyle and to decrease obesity, taxing sugary and high caloric products is not the answer. Decreasing the cost of healthy foods, like fruits, vegetables, and fresh meat products, as well as making them more convenient and available is a start. In addition, re-instituting physical education in schools has been proven to have an impact. Along with regulation on addictive food additives and preservatives, a healthy lifestyle will begin to emerge and obesity will decline.

Sites:

Baker, Al. “Despite Obesity Concerns, Gym Classes are Cut.” NY Times. July 10, 2012. Web. 27 March 2013.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/education/even-as-schools-battle-obesity-physical-education-is-sidelined.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&

Meyers, Jessica. “PE Struggles to Keep Up in Texas Classrooms.” Dallasnews.com. February 19, 2012. Web. 27 March 2013. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120219-pe-struggles-to-keep-up-in-texas-classrooms.ece

Sprouts Farmer Market: Weekly Circular Advertisement (3/27/13-4/3/13). Web. 27 March 2013. http://specials.sprouts.com/Shop/WeeklyAd.aspx

Texas Education Agency. “Amount of Physical Education Require: Texas,” National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association. Web. 27 March 2013

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Texas-profile.pdfT

Wikipedia. “Fat Tax,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Web. 27 March 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

Obamacare: Cost Vs. Care

      Obamacare was created to provide those without health insurance quality care at a reasonable cost and to revise the healthcare economical system. The question is: will it succeed? According to Scott Gottlieb from Real ClearMarkets, the developers of Obamacare made crucial mistakes causing the consumer to pay expensive costs for mediocre care.

      Scott Gottlieb is a practicing physician who once served on the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He compares Obamacare with late 1990s health insurance schemes, but states Obamacare will be much more expensive. Apparently, the insurers are going to charge the client higher prices for “product,” and instead of reimbursing the client with the profit the insurer will receive, the kickbacks will go to the government. “Health plans are better off aiming high, and owing money back, then getting underwater.” The government only gains and does not take part in the debt. What does this mean for the consumer? They will pay higher costs, even though the “product” cost less than charged. Another point made was physicians have the right to accept or decline Obamacare. It appears that Obamacare will pay less than the standard insurance, thus more likely for physicians to decline clients with Obamacare. This occurred with Medicaid and had a huge effect on patients' health and costs. Scott goes on to discuss how it will effect those with previous illnesses, how business's insurances will coincide with Obamacare, and how the cost of Obamacare prices are higher than initially expected, thus breaking the budget.

      As a professional in the health care system, I have my own conclusions on Obamacare. When reading this blog, I must admit I got loss in the language. For those without a business or economic degree, it is overwhelming to read. Scott Gottlieb is writing essentially to those future Obamacare clients and physicians, even though his style of writing does not reflect his audience. Why did I select the article even though the wording was obscure? Because of its significance and educational value, providing information in comparative form. After reading this article, more concerns were acknowledged about Obamacare. It is alarming that people have only a few options to select insurers, hence allowing the insurers to have premium costs. Our society survives on options and comparative rates, so why are we limited to our insurers? Physicians opting to decline Obamacare clients will drastically effect the health care system. It creates a large wait list for a the physicians who do accept Obamacare or may cause clients to go to the emergency room instead, either way delaying client care. Obamacare was to help the people who could not afford health insurance, but with these limited choices, inflated costs, and delay in care, it appears that the system is already failing. Obamacare was to revolutionize the health care system, but it appears it may be one of its greatest downfalls.

Site:

Gottlieb, Scott.“Obamacare Insurance Plan Will Be Bare Bones-- And Expensive.” Real Clear Markets.Web.5 March 2013.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/03/05/obamacare_insurance_plans_will_be_bare_bones_--_and_expensive_100176.html

To Arm or Not to Arm?

     David Persons, a host on radio's WEUPTalk in Huntsville, Alabama and a member on USA Today's Board of Contributors, shares his opinion on arming teachers in the classroom. Persons has no political background professionally, but does have a political agenda: not to place guns in the hands of teachers, but instead place police officers in the classrooms. Is this a realistic solution to preventing school massacres? President Obama and the National Rifle Association believes it may the best compromise available. Persons writes to the voting American, the mothers and fathers. He wants to gather support against arming teachers, and uses the risk of a child dying to vividly make his argument.

      Persons interviews Alabama Senator Bill Holtzclaw, a conservative Republican and a military trained marksman, to provide a credible political opinion to support his agenda. Holtzclaw, who has extensive training in weaponry and military combat, is strongly against arming teacher in the classroom. Even though he is pro-gun, Holtzclaw states there are too many variables to placing a gun in a teacher's hand rather than placing a trained officer into the classrooms. Teachers are untrained, unsure when to draw, and when to shoot. Not to mention the bystanders (the children) and the possible collateral damage that could occur. And where is the support for the teachers? Are they immune to if an innocent bystander is hurt or if the cause of the shooting is claimed unjust? Teachers are trained to handle children and to educate them, but not to draw a gun and make the decision of firing a weapon.

     Person's agenda is further supported by the Atlanta shooting at Price Middle School. Last month, a student shot another child in the neck. A trained officer, who was located at the school, disarmed the student and swiftly ended the shooting. Even though multiple shots were fired, no other injury occurred and a possible massacre was prevented. This incident showed how a trained professional handled the situation and how injuries were prevented.

      Wonder how the children feel about police officers' presence in the schools? Well, Persons addresses that as well by following Officer McDuffie around Butler High School. Only positive things were mentioned- like how the officer knew children by name and had a good rapport with several students. Persons also uses a poll, stating “slightly more than 60% of Americans oppose arming teachers,” to support his cause.

     Initially, I agreed that arming teachers was not the solution to preventing school massacres. Having untrained personnel making life or death decisions did not appeal to me. Also thinking in context of the teachers, they choose their profession to teach, not to shoot. How just is arming a teacher and expecting them to decide what many trained professionals find difficult to do- to shoot or not to shoot? Persons provided an excellent information to support his cause: interviewing a pro-gun Republican Senator from one of the states considering arming teachers, providing actual incident of a police officer disarming a student, following an officer around a school to get a real life account, and providing an American opinion poll. Many would consider this argument in support of his agenda successful; however, I believe both sides should be represented. A one sided argument is not much of an argument. Persons' editorial reinforced my current beliefs, but I consider it unsuccessful due to lack of a bipartisan consideration. Arming vs. not arming: I know now why not to arm, but why would one want to arm? If he provided views on why people would want to arm, the article would have been well-rounded and a solid argument, thus people making an educated decision, and not a one-sided one.

Site:

Person, David. “Instead of Arming Teachers, Hire Police: Column.” USATODAY. February 17^th, 2013. Web. 18 February 2013.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/17/armed-teachers-guns-schools/1926373/

Will Citizenship Ever Happen for Illegal Immigrants?

     The Washington Post gives an inside look on the heated immigration debate facing the Senate. It appears that a possible compromise could be on the horizon. Obama won reelection partly based his promise to the Hispanic community on rewarding citizenship to illegal immigrants. ObamaCare has already changed the nation, will Obama do it again with immigration?

     Democrats want to grant full citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants in the country. The Republicans feel they have already compromised on the issue by allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and feel that granting full citizenship is not an option. However, there are rumors of a possible negotiations in place. In the Senate, they are trying to work out an agreement requiring the “U.S.- Mexico border be secure, and that strict enforcement measure be enacted before those here illegally could become citizens.” The Democratic party states this needs clarification, and the Republicans feel this is too vague and permissive. Who would define the border as secure? The Senate clarified that Homeland Security, with their use of objective data, would be the ones judging the safety of the nation's borders.

     Representatives from both political parties are playing an active role in the debate. Many political figures feel this is the last chance for negotiations since both parties are close to a compromise. Some from each party feel that they are either compromising or sacrificing too much in the negotiations. Even if an agreement is developed and passed in the Senate, many fear the House of Representatives will not pass the proposal.

     No matter your stance on immigration, the outcome of this compromise is pivotal. If negotiations are met, and Obama achieves another monumental change to our society, it will affect every citizen, good or bad. If the proposal is defeated, the immigration debacle with continue to spiral out of control. The problem has been ongoing, with promises of solutions fading to the wayside, and damages becoming unimaginable to citizens and illegal immigrants. Will a solution ever come?