Obamacare & the GOP

The Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act is repealing Obamacare coverage expansion in 2020 and hopefully the expectation that this new act has, that the GOP will come up with a replacement, in the meantime, gets followed through, with amendments, such as a no-enlargement policy towards dependency on Medicaid

Republicans tried very very hard to replace the Democrats-pioneered health care plan ‘Obamacare’ with a GOP-devised plan called the ‘Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)’, which the party had put forward, but that idea came crashing down completely, when two GOP senators, Mike Lee (Utah) and Jerry Moran (Kansas) expressed grave dissatisfaction with the party’s new bill.

From President Donald Trump to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican figureheads pushing for a replacement of the 2010-introduced health care bill with an entirely new health care bill, with the GOP stamp on it, have been one-too-many. But there is no reason to fix something that largely hasn’t really been a broken concept for the past seven years and that is just what’s happening as the Senate prepares to vote on an Obamacare repeal sans the replacement.

Republican opposition to the Republican bill, which passed the House of Representatives in May, isn’t too much of a rarity – Senators Susan Collins (Maine) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) have also expressed antipathy with the GOP bill. There would be a two-year-delay in repealing Obamacare now and the situation looks very similar to the repeal of the act in 2015, which at the time both Lee and Moran had supported but Barack Obama, who was the President at the time, had vetoed.

The Republican Party doesn’t seem to have any populist inclination whatsoever, when it comes to taking decisions over what to do with Obamacare because most Americans are interested in keeping Obamacare, although with an injection of a few amendments. This is theoretically a great idea because the act certainly needs to be revised over time but there are really some grave problems with what the Republicans have in mind for healthcare: firstly, the GOP wants to propose a very point-blank senseless bare-bones insurance plan, which is low-cost in nature, pioneered by Senator Ted Cruz and it should very much be dropped from the BCRA.

Secondly, the GOP wants to offer tax credits to middle-class Americans and raise the costs for people in an old age bracket and also people who are not so well-off. This might increase the burden on the pre-existing structure of available refundable tax credits for Americans with a low-income, who bought their insurance from government markets, and also received support for extra medical costs. And finally, Medicaid health insurance, which under Obamacare aimed to provide coverage for both the poor and Americans with a low-income, is now, horrifically, being threatened by low funding over the next twenty years.

Australia’s Grand Ambitions

Cricketers aren’t really the people to turn to when desiring to learn more about a nation’s culture or history but sometimes it so happens that a cricketer forgets that and his place in life and decides to pike a very illiterate opinion about a western country, presumably for its national cricket team.

Australia has been my favourite country to support in cricket from my school days – I have always felt that the country can never be rivaled in cricket by any country in the world. It’s a perfectly placed belief because the Australian national cricket team has won more world cups than any other cricket team. 

Shane Warne, an Australian cricket player, is one of the finest cricketers in the world and he’s often recognized as one of the best bowlers in the history of cricket. He has often been the subject of crude criticism by a former captain of the Sri Lankan national cricket team, which barbarically poured into the Sri Lankan cricketer mocking Australia’s convict settlement history and talking about Sri Lanka’s culture, as a possible contrast instead.

It was a very illiterate demonstration of Australian history (by the Sri Lankan cricket player) because no matter what Australia’s history is like, it’s still a first world country unlike Sri Lanka, which is a third world country. So, to have these countries compared, where Sri Lanka is apparently made out to be a better country than Australia, despite Australia having done so much in the world to exist as a developed country, unlike Sri Lanka, which is just a developing country, was a very wrong thing to do.

Australia’s winning track record in cricket can never be matched by Sri Lanka. And I think this gives rise to bitter homegrown resentment from the Sri Lankan national cricket team sometimes. Since 1987, and throughout the nineties and this millennium, Australia has been the country to win most world cups and it looks like a practical impossibility that this is about to change anytime because Australia is naturally good in playing cricket.

The only surprising thing about Australia’s constant winning streak is that it’s a former British colony. Cricket is a British game and British colonizing history is something to be proud of. So, to have a former colony, which unlike many of the UK’s former colonies, is a developed country, as the country which dominates in cricket on a global scale is really a very interesting turn of events. It makes cricket a sport to look forward to, as a diverse range of nations, from the West Indies to India, battle it out on a global scale to constantly prove their country’s worth, in the British sport.

Food and its relationship with Hunger

Hunger is still a cause for concern in South Asia, despite numerous countries in the region already meeting its MDG target of halving, by 2015, the number of people, who suffer from hunger

It was the most unfortunate of circumstances when sub-Saharan Africa could not overwhelmingly meet its MDG goals by 2015. It had appeared during the time frame of the launch of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that sub-Saharan Africa would perhaps meet its targets because a lot of the focus was on the impoverished conditions of the region. Furthermore, G8 leaders, from developed countries, such as the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom had also committed to increasing aid to Africa by 2010 but what followed was that sub-Saharan Africa has largely fallen behind to address the causes for concern, as outlined by the MDGs, instead.

It’s hard to draw comparisons even though both the regions are very poor, indeed, because South Asia is performing a lot better than sub-Saharan Africa, these years. In 2014, sub-Saharan Africa was found to have high hunger rates, much like South Asia; for South Asia, particularly, India has the highest percentage of the global extreme poor (32.9percent) followed by Bangladesh (5.3percent). However, according to latest figures, prevalence of undernourishment chalks at 15.7percent for South Asia and 23.2 for sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the primary causes for concern in South Asia is hunger, which can really give rise to an undernourishment problem, which is a significantly greater problem in South Asia, than elsewhere. Asian nations, such as Nepal, Bangladesh and Malaysia have already met one of the components of the first MDG target:

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

This is alongside sub-Saharan African states, like Mauritius, Nigeria and Ethiopia, but not Rwanda and Sierra Leone – the two states are expected to reach the target (before 2020) but what is so disconcerting is that the hunger problem still prevails in South Asia. In 2014-2016, hunger percentages from the level in 1990-1992 were slashed by a staggering 69percent for Nepal, a 52percent for Bangladesh and a 37percent for India. In comparison, many states performed very poorly with reduction of hunger, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, food insecurity in South Asia is still a major problem and this is simultaneously also reaping my concerns over consumer affordability because affordability for food is directly proportional to food security. But global prices for foods, such as wheat, vegetable oils, dairy, meat and sugar also recently saw an increase – a rise in prices can mean good profits-wise for agriculture and farming because harvest is managing to rake in such great prices for farmers, which can help them to increase their income bracket and provide the means to afford food more.

Why Theology Fascinates Me

I have never been a religious person. I don’t go to church every Sunday and I don’t fast when it’s Ramadan season. But theology has always fascinated me. Two very important religions are connected with each other: Christianity and Islam. Both the religions believe in the existence of a God, and that there is only one God. Furthermore, the two religions also share a historical and traditional connection: both originated in the Middle East and it is fundamental for Muslims to believe in Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity.

Reasons such as these are sufficient to want religious harmony between the two religions because these similarities are not ordinary similarities: so many religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which are also two major religions differ immensely from Christianity and Islam. It’s very disheartening to see that where there should be religious harmony, there is only differences sometimes because of a backward (and very incorrect) idea of religion itself.

Followers of Hinduism believe in the existence (and worship) of numerous gods and it’s a religion which can be classified as paganism. It’s not too much of a far-fetched theory exactly because in ancient Greek scripture, there are mentions of the Greeks believing in the existence of many gods. Buddhism, meanwhile, preaches that there is no personal god and that nothing is permanent and change is always a possibility.

I find theology interesting because what each religion preaches are sensible statements in today’s world.

Every religion comes with their own sets of ideas. In Islam, fasting is observed by Muslims during the Holy month of Ramadan. In one of the verses of the religious text for Islam, the Qur’an, it is written:

(Fasting) for a fixed number of days; but if any of you is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed number (Should be made up) from days later. For those who can do it (With hardship), is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent. But he that will give more, of his own free will,- it is better for him. And it is better for you that ye fast, if ye only knew.

– Surah Baqarah 2:184

This writing can be interpreted as: a Muslim should fast because it will then help the conditions of the very poor because for 29 to 30 days, for a period during every day, Muslims are abstaining from amongst many things, food and drink, which the poor can ill afford. Furthermore, it is written that it’s good if a Muslim fasts but only if they know how to.

The verses of the Qur’an are the revelations, which Muhammad (the Prophet of Islam) had during his lifetime. After the death of Prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an has often been understood (or interpreted) with the help of hadiths (Arabic word for ‘report’) and this practice is inclusive of the tafsir (Arabic word for ‘critical explanation/interpretation of a religious text’) written in the Qur’an.

Hadiths are subordinate to the Qur’an and numerous branches of Islam follow numerous hadiths. As a result, the general understanding regarding fasting (for Muslims) these days is that it’s mandatory but that’s not a belief, which seems to coincide with the above mentioned verse from the Qur’an – it is written in the verse that a person should really fast if they only know how to. The belief behind why fasting for a Muslim is a noble idea is reflective of the times today because there are many poor (and needy) people in the world and observing fasting during a holy month confines belief that a person can be one with the poor (and the needy) around the globe.

Turkey’s New Vote

New powers and a new reality, following a coup d’etat

Turkey’s new vote on Tuesday on amending constitutional rights and taking the country from a parliamentary democracy to a presidential democracy, resulted in a lead for the ‘Yes’ vote. It’s still pretty early stages but soon, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could find himself granted with more powers and control over the state than before. Erdogan has been in power in Turkey since 2003 and he has grown into a leader who views opposition as enemies to the state.

Turkey is still fragile and healing from the aftermath of a failed coup – tourism in the country already took a bad dent for it. Rooting out corruption, extremism, ensuring greater security is a very bad need in Turkey, and the message from the referendum is loud and clear: the state is placing a great deal of faith in Erdogan’s power despite his checkered equation with democracy itself.

The campaigns put up by Erdogan’s party in power, the AK Parti, dominated both banners placed in town and the media, preceding the vote. The President likes to make the media bend and obey his every command, rather than offering them absolute freedom, and if his latest victory with constitutional amendment is installed, Erdogan will have full control over the budget, as well as cherry-picking parliament members, who do his bidding entirely. That is too much control for one politician to have and it’s not hard to pluck out authoritarian sentiments lining Erdogan’s latest desire.

It is true that no matter the nature of political ideology that the Turkish President likes to portray, with Erdogan in power, Turkey is taking turtle-steps towards bettering national democratic values. Erdogan and his party had once turned a shanty town inhabited by peasants from rural areas (who came to the locality to look for work) into a town filled with apartments, roads and shops. Erdogan had also promised to provide Kurds with rights and help them find peace, previously, although it’s important to note that since 2015 progress has stalled.

The latest military coup has brought back horrible pasts to Turkey, that it had thought it had said goodbye to. The coup d’etat has left Turkish people feeling trapped in their own country. Turkey is no longer the same republic it had been, when it was founded five years after the first world war. The state is a lot more against the West and more religious, nowadays – Turkey is a predominantly Muslim nation. The national atmosphere has been one of defiance following the coup d’etat but there is no denying that the state needs to focus on nation building efforts, again, or nation rebuilding efforts, where the prime focus should be upholding democratic values and it can begin with a vote of confidence in Erdogan once more.

South Korea’s General Elections

Snap elections were announced following Park Geun-hye’s forced removal from office, and the result of that installed Moon Jae-in as the next President of South Korea

Moon Jae-in was recently declared the winner in the South Korean presidential elections, and his win came as a bit of a surprise, given Moon’s past track record of having constantly protested against dynastical rule by Park Chung-hee and Park Geun-hye. The win for Moon can be regarded as a landslide and it comes as a breath of fresh air amidst the negativity that has been circulating around South Korean politics for quite some time now. Ever since, the last president, Park Geun-hye, was sent to prison following a parliament impeachment because of having taken bribes from large corporations with a friend, as well as both permitting her friend to interfere in policy-making and sharing state secrets with her, the next wise political step for South Korea has been shrouded in confusion.

Moon’s recent electoral victory has largely been about making the Korean state fairer. The gap between the rich and the poor, corruption in South Korean society because of the government’s close connections to big corporations, and the grievous difficulty in securing jobs for the young are major issues, which Moon should use his singular five-year term in power to address. Moon has promised to make his government more kind to the public’s concerns – more than half of his votes came from young people in their twenties and thirties, so over the big question of providing more employment opportunities to young South Koreans, which at the time is tough to get without good connections, Moon has promised job creation, primarily in the public sector, a portion of which will be targeted towards young people in South Korea.

Major challenges also exist for Moon over bettering relations with neighbour states: Japan, China and North Korea. South Korea and North Korea still do not see eye-to-eye on matters very much because of the latter’s constant insistence of ramming up nuclear developments. It’s so tough to imagine a different orientation of matters but Moon has offered to reach out if things improve – at the moment, President Trump is pressing for payment of a US-born missile-defence system (THAAD), which brews concern over South Korea’s relations with China because the communist state is already unhappy about THAAD’s use, leading it to boycott South Korean goods. Meanwhile, Japan’s trouble with South Korea is an entirely different one though – the state is not pleased with a revival of anti-Japan protests in South Korea, over what happened during the second world war.

Patriotism in Films

What is patriotism to South Asian cinema?

In India, films with a patriotic theme seems to bind the whole nation together. It portrays nationalistic sentiments, love for one’s nation, and in a sentimental albeit heroic way. Patriotic Indian films also have the power to liven up spirits, teach new thoughts to people irrespective of the class they belong to, their religious or socio-economic background, and these Hindi movies appeal to both the educated and the illiterate.

On another train of thought, since the early seventies, leaving out films with an obvious Pakistani (or Pakistani-minded) slant, Bangladeshi films have often made the Bangladeshi film industry an important one. On the subject of patriotism, in internationally acclaimed director Zahir Raihan’s Jibon Theke Neya (1970), for example, which fictionally depicted the atrocities committed by Pakistan against Bangladesh, pre-independence, the story plays out like a tale of struggle for freedom for a husband, two boys, who are brothers, and some servants, from the clutches of an oppressive woman controlling her family.

In the landscape of the film, it is shown that protests erupt in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) against oppressive Pakistani rule, which signifies the days of Bangladesh’s language movement but the portrayal of the oppression was more symbolic than anything else, imprinted into a family drama. The turmoil of the oppression reflects in the lives of this family who begin to protest against the oppressive woman and her brand of family-regime by speaking loudly against her. The home front then gets more tangled inside a protest-theme, when a marital angle is thrown into the narrative: the two boys bring home two wives, who plot to snatch away sovereignty of their new family from this oppressive woman in power by obtaining the keys to the house – it symbolises gaining control of the house.

What was also rather interesting about the movie was the specific, symbolic caricature of former Pakistani President Ayub Khan’s autocratic rule in East Pakistan as a despotic female head of the house, with an ill-tempered nature – marriages and schemes for control tragically follows in the lives of the Bangladeshi family for it. Meanwhile, patriotism in Indian filmmaking is often proclaimed through the tense subject of Kashmir. Since 1947, a dispute has been happening at the shared border between India and Pakistan which has spelled out into three separate wars to claim Kashmir.

At the moment, India controls a majority of Kashmir, and I have always felt Kashmir as an entire state belonged to India, not Pakistan. In Hindi films, such as Mission Kashmir (2000) and Roja (1992) the theme of the Kashmir conflict is woven together with a major love story. It’s hard to picturise a romantic angle to a story in the theatre of war but that is what the narrative is often like for South Asian cinema – if it’s not romantic, it must be a family drama of all things, heavily reliant on symbolism to depict patriotism rising in the face of oppression.

The Pointless Eurosceptic Agenda Of The Tories

David Cameron’s Eurosceptic ways aren’t sound at all, as a Tory

In the United Kingdom, Brexit is on everyone’s mind, even though ideally it should not be because Britain’s place is with the European Union. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a Conservative foreign secretary in the past, echoed this in his opinion recently in a Brussels summit. He is for giving Britain (and like countries) some rights over protecting itself in a sea of Euro-zone nations. Britain also prefers to be detached from an exhibition of too-much-closeness, which has drawn criticism as well, and the Tories, in particular, want to prevent EU migrant workers getting welfare benefits for four years but this is going against the free movement EU treaty, which France isn’t prepared to change. An insignificant percentage of Britons would change their mind about leaving the EU if a cap isn’t put on benefits for migrants, but 9 percent is still a figure worth noting.

The sentiment that it is going to be very tough for David Cameron to renegotiate the terms of the EU treaty is getting heavily popularised: the referendum is scheduled for June 23, and it is too horrific to imagine what will happen to David Cameron if he loses the referendum. 3mn (or maybe even more) jobs survive with EU trade in the United Kingdom, because relationships have been amicable with fellow Euro countries. It is not expected that trade with the EU would discontinue entirely even if there was a Brexit, so playing up false fears is a shoddy way to speak about the full impact of Tory expectations from a second win.

In the Conservative Party, controversies surrounding Europe is not new. When Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, in 1990, her government fell spectacularly because she impossibly opposed the European Commission’s federal agenda. Her strong opposition to it led Geoffrey Howe, her foreign secretary (in the past) to resign two days after the incident, triggering the end of the Thatcher era. This promise of a Brexit campaign has been delayed for three years, and now less than half of Cameron’s 330 MPs are for Out, and it counts two somewhat familiar names: Michael Gove (a firm Eurosceptic) and Boris Johnson (a political figure who can play with opportunities). Family trouble is brewing because of the three’s disagreements over Brexit, as YouGov reports that nationally most Tory members want to go for an Out.

The Tories, historically, have always been pro-Europe – only the fringes of the party wanted a Brexit in the 1990s, in the face of stiff opposition. Similarly, when a step behind integration with the Euro failed, most Tories recommended a greater unity with Europe as a part of it’s policy-plans, even going ahead and expressing hope for a federal Europe. But David Cameron prefers to be different from his party and show his true colours as a thorough Eurosceptic, and an ally of the anti-EU UKIP. In the near past, all this colourful display of anti-EU emotions from inside the Conservative Party would have been an out-of-place ideal, and the truth is that it is still the same today because even though it might be so very hard to believe, Thatcherism is no longer worth a political catastrophe in London.

A Battle For The White House: Trump Vs. Clinton

In 2012, Mitt Romney was expected to win in the polls but Barack Obama came out as the President returning for a second-term, to a shocked America. But how uncertain is the political game this time around?

In the United States, it is a good time to set priorities straight. Elections-fever has gripped the nation but there is also widespread rage over the local political narrative: the general idea for decades now has been that America needs a new direction to steer to. Wages have been sluggish, as the rich keep on getting richer, and fears in American cultures, such as the white population dwarfing nationally dictate the American economy; all of this are the aftermath of the dissolving of the Soviet Union, and the United States of America enjoying for quite some time a status as a global superpower, all alone. So, when Trump and Cruz promise to make the country great again, it all sounds so artificial.

China is a country on-the-rise, and if America was Europe there would be protests by now over Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) but this is America: Trump is all-poised to maybe even win. Protests in the country are always against aristocracy because British colonial history has implanted that legacy in the fabrics of their history. The whole electoral system distributes central power and the race has been so intense, from Iowa to New Hampshire. What was all fueled up to be a Bush-Clinton farce over the White House, spat out a more civilized battle between Trump-Clinton, I believe, with Cruz completing the triangle.

Trump has his own money influencing the campaign, for a change from his in-party contender, and what is working against the political tide is that Americans are only properly fired up about politics in the primaries, during which the thought “the state of the United States” is on everyone’s mind, even though unemployment is not a huge concern and neither is the United States’ economy, which is performing better than fellow developed nations. Soon, the race grows boring even for the most politically-dedicated – Sanders was also expected to oppose Hillary Clinton less by going out of steam as he approached the South, populated by delegates, which has been proven partly true. Clinton, meanwhile, has black Democrats backing her, but Trump is still quite ahead because he has broken out a fiery performance for the crowds built of Cruz-haters and Trump-happy people.

The Republican Party has put up front runners, who are both actively destroying the positive image that the party has always normally been associated with. Neither Trump nor Cruz offer any sound policies or economic solutions but they are on the ballot providing a much more pleasant alternative to Jeb Bush. Trump is also busy forking out from the right and the left, and there is always a great worry that he could win over the center with his brashness. At the end of the day, Cruz and Trump are naturally better at campaigning than Clinton, but a major poll is suggesting Clinton has a greater than 50 percent chance of winning the elections, this year.

Dilma Rousseff & Brazil’s Economic Uncertainty

Dilma Rousseff is one of the most charismatic leaders to have come out of Latin America but that is not what everybody would like to think

Brazilians, overwhelmingly, reject Dilma Rousseff. As the President of Brazil, she is fast becoming the target of criminal charges, that seems to have no solid ground to stand upon but was nonetheless pressed into reality by Eduardo Cunha, the lower house of Congress’ Speaker. This is happening as political evidence points towards her term coming with excessive spending, bad management skills, huge unemployment figures, and a bad-performing economy – all of this is only in Dilma’s first term. In her second term, Congress ran out of her control, and no news really about much needed fiscal reforms and spending cuts to help Brazil’s economy. A troubled economy is feeding into the perception that the public have of Dilma and it is obviously a very unfavourable one, as notices file up about her hiding the full extent of government misspending. In Brazil’s recent history, Dilma can be looked at as a defective President: the criminal charges pressed against her might have been motivated by bitter vengeance, but the fact remains that unpleasant political derivatives in Brazil because of Dilma needs sound justice.

This year is meant to be about hosting the Olympic Games for Brazil, the first country in South America, to have received this honour. Amidst preparations for a national party atmosphere, is the looming thought about the country’s political hardships. The state debt scale has been reduced to junk status, the finance minister quit prematurely in hopelessness, and the economy is expected to be slashed by around 2.5percent to 3percent this year, which is topping up the same amount for last year. Brazil cannot be an emerging economy in distress because it is a part of BRICS (B) and that status is indicative of it being an economy that can be classified as a rapidly growing one (in size), like Russia, China, India and South Africa. The catalyst of the problems in Brazil now can be traced back to excessive spending to fork out pensions and a tax relief for industries on the hotbed for favouritism, and now the only solution within sight seems to be the increment of taxes and alienating the thought of too much spending.

With a new finance minister at the helm, Dilma should move towards securing a more stable pensions system because right now, Japan, a richer state than Brazil, shelves less for pensions. In Brazil, on average, women retire at the ago of 50, and men retire at the age of 55, and the national minimum wage, as now, cannot be at the same level as the expected pensions rate, if Brazil is to smoothly expand economically. Furthermore, labour laws have fenced in expensive firing for workers who can never do their job right, slim international competition inside of Brazil is thinning productivity, and most of public spending is secure from cuts because of a cause for celebration back in 1988 over the termination of military rule, which made it possible to grant security over jobs, as well as national advantages. The good news is that borrowing, for the most part has been in the national currency, so there is no fear of defaulting, but there is a great fear of inflation because of a mountain of debts. Inflation can happen if Brazil’s government cannot transform the national climate, so that means a possibility of more poverty again, or at least no economic progress, and a political way forward is historically much more sound for Brazil.