• Freedom
  • Means
  • Nature
    • Climate Change
    • Science General
  • Needs
    • Health Care
  • World
    • Immigration

All Speak Tall

A forum for the respectful exchange of political views

The goal here is to improve our understanding of each other's political views so that we might find some common ground, using language we can all be proud of. The goal is not to "win" people over to our "side," but to see where we might be able to "meet in the middle."
  • Speak Tall, Mr. President
  • About

The Wall

Posted on May 3, 2017 Written by SandyS Leave a Comment

An expensive speed bump. Building a wall along the entirety of our southern border would be a painfully poor investment of taxpayer money. There’s the simple reality that “where there’s a will there’s a way,” and entrepreneurial souls will figure out ways to go under, over, around, or through the wall. It would slow people down, but does that justify the cost? While a wall, by definition, sounds like a substantial barrier, it is very reasonable, from a taxpayer standpoint, to question how effective a border wall would actually be.

Speaking of cost… Cost estimates have varied widely: from $8 billion to $67 billion, as summarized by the Washington Office of Latin America (WOLA). But no question we’re talking about billions of dollars here. That is a large sum of money that would either increase our deficit accordingly and/or displace funding from other programs, assuming there would be no tax increase to cover the cost. As for the proposal that Mexico will pay for the wall, there is no established pathway as to how that would come to pass, considering Mexico is clearly not on board with this idea.

A hostile symbol. I thought Pope Francis’ call “not to create walls, but to build bridges” was very wise. Mexico is our neighbor after all. Much better in the long run to work on developing cooperative ways to stop illegal border crossings than to spend billions of dollars constructing a physical barrier between us.

Diminishing need? Data presented by WOLA shows that the number of undocumented migrants apprehended at the border is at a 45-year low. And in 2016, half the undocumented migrants were families from Central America fleeing violence. Are we building a wall to keep them out? Granted, these statistics could change (in either direction) in the future, but the question remains whether we can justify the cost of a comprehensive wall right now given what we know about current immigration trends.

Where is the need? Unfortunately, illegal drug seizures at the border have not decreased (except for marijuana), according to WOLA. However, most illegal drugs pass through legal ports of entry. Therefore, building hundreds of miles of wall in remote border areas would not be a cost-effective way to substantially decrease the transport of illegal drugs. To address this problem, we should instead channel our funding towards improved screening at legal ports of entry.

No more castles. We all want to be safe, and I agree that we should enforce our existing laws as they pertain to border crossings. So I support the necessary funding to continuously evaluate our border security and to effectively address problems. But I agree with Texas county judge Eddie Trevino, Jr.’s assessment that building a wall along the entire border would be a “14th century solution to address a 21st century problem.” Let’s not build a fortress when modern-day technology, strategically implemented, would be so much more effective, both physically and symbolically.

 

Filed Under: Immigration

The ACA Mandate – Freedom from Dependency (and Financial Ruin)

Posted on April 28, 2017 Written by SandyS Leave a Comment

To me, the individual mandate feature of the Affordable Care Act is all about shared risk. In the pre-ACA world, paying for the uninsured was ultimately a shared venture in the end anyway (e.g., via taxes); this is just a more upfront way of doing that.

OK… guess I’ll choose death. Are there really people who would, having decided to take the personal risk not to buy health insurance, refuse to go to the emergency room, if deathly ill, on the principle that they couldn’t pay for it themselves? Are there really people who would say, upon finding out they have treatable cancer but no insurance, “OK then I guess it’s my time to go.”? I’m thinking that would be a very small crowd of people. Therefore, foregoing health insurance is not a decision that only affects the individual. It affects us all as a taxpaying, premium-paying collective whole.

Heart of the problem. The core problem is that healthcare costs are just so darn high. Paying for costs related to a major illness outright is beyond the capacity of many people.

What, I have to buy car insurance? I’ve often wondered why we don’t hear people complaining about the fact that almost all states require car owners to purchase liability insurance. This requirement is intended to protect those of us who pay for insurance from those who don’t pay for insurance. Again, we could all end up on the hook for an uninsured driver causing an accident, so it makes sense to require everyone to contribute their fair share. Why aren’t people decrying their lack of freedom when being forced to buy car insurance?

What’s the stick in someone’s craw? So, I’m still trying to figure out why this bugs some people so much. I like freedom as much as the next person and don’t like being told what to do. But why doesn’t it make sense for every one of us to take responsibility for covering our own health care costs as we’re able? We all live with the risk that we’ll suddenly need costly medical care at any point in time.

And it matters because… Finding out why some people are against the ACA personal mandate is important because it seems to be a major road block that’s keeping our legislators from truly working together to come up with some good solutions for making quality and affordable healthcare available to all. (As a side note, I know this isn’t everyone’s goal, but that’s for another post.)

 

Filed Under: Freedom, Health Care, Needs

Carbon Dioxide – Friend AND Foe

Posted on April 26, 2017 Written by SandyS Leave a Comment

I have to call out the Princeton professor, William Happer, who implied recently on CNN that carbon dioxide cannot be a pollutant because we exhale it. And yes I feel comfortable calling out a Princeton professor despite my lesser credentials because … [Continue reading]

Filed Under: Climate Change, Nature

“Believing” in Science

Posted on April 26, 2017 Written by SandyS Leave a Comment

When I hear people say “I believe” (or “I don’t believe”) in a scientific theory, I find it kind of odd. Is accepting the overarching explanation for a natural phenomenon tested and developed by a large number of scientists over many years really a … [Continue reading]

Filed Under: Climate Change, Nature, Science General

TABOO!

In the spirit of this site, the following words are not allowed: Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, Right/Left, and any other labels or words that put up walls to a better understanding of each other's views.

Recent Posts

  • The Wall
  • The ACA Mandate – Freedom from Dependency (and Financial Ruin)
  • Carbon Dioxide – Friend AND Foe
  • “Believing” in Science

Contact

sandy@allspeaktall.com

Search

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in