It is hard to make sense of health care reform. We hear of angry folk shouting down congressmen in town hall meetings, comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the health care bill to socialism and Nazism incarnate—and for a while, it can all be pretty amusing. However, none of it matters or says anything worthwhile about health care reform.
Nonetheless, it is important to understand some basics, for one, the rationale behind the health care overhaul. In reformers’ minds, three issues must be addressed: uneven quality of care, inadequate coverage, and finally, cost.
They argue that for a nation that spends on health care almost twice the average of rich, developed nations, survival rates for heart attacks, infant mortality, and life-expectancy in America are all worse than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average. Simply put, Americans are not getting their money’s worth. Proponents of reform also point to statistics concerning Americans’ budget: health care costs consume 16% of the economic output, and on top of that, Medicare, the government-run insurance plan for the elderly, could be exhausted by 2017.
Critics of the health care system bring up several key wasteful practices. To begin, most American doctors work on a fee-for-service basis: the more pills and tests they order—the more resources they consume—the more they get paid. All this encourages exorbitant spending and waste. The insurance system also promotes over-consumption: employers buy for their employees expensive insurance plans, which employees in turn abuse by ordering nonessential care. Thus, insurance companies make money and so have all the more reason to feed the aforementioned reckless spending.
Meanwhile, the population of the uninsured grows, currently at 46 million, up 13% from two years ago. Then there is the less publicized population of the underinsured, numbering at 25 million, whose insurance plans cover little: in 2007, an American family filed for medical bankruptcy every 90 seconds—three quarters were “insured.”
On the other hand, defenders of the existing system argue that a free-spending attitude promotes medical advancement and they cite the number of innovations America’s health care system has made over its European counterparts.
However, the majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that reform ought to occur—the question now is to what degree. Liberal Democrats urge for a “public option,” or government-offered insurance plan. Supporters of the public option argue that insurance ought to be available to everyone and that the most effective way of accomplishing this is by creating a government-backed insurance plan. This plan would be affordable for the uninsured because the government needs not to make a profit, and so the price of this government-back insurance plan would be comparably lower than that of privately run insurance companies, who do need to make a profit. The cheaper public option would also, in turn, force insurance companies to compete by lowering their prices.
Opponents believe that because the government does not need to make a profit, prices will be so low that it would undercut private insurance companies. Another fear is that a public option might create a messy, complicated bureaucracy to administer insurance. Given that a public option would create a complex, compartmentalized government agency, such a fear is not unfounded.
In his Sep. 9 speech to congress, President Barack Obama set forth though he was in favor of a public option, he would also be willing to compromise in favor of a workable and passable bill. Borrowing from both sides, the President gave what he believed to be a plan that was both.

Should investigators confirm that the Station Fire was indeed man-made, the arsonist could face the death penalty. Though not much has been released concerning the details of what officials have found, as it could possibly hurt chances of apprehending the criminal, it has been established that pool-like burn patterns and a foreign substance, both indications of the presence of an accelerant such as gasoline, were found at the suspected origin of the Station Fire.
Whether the arsonist gets two years in prison or the death penalty all depends on one thing: intent. Because two firefighters died in their effort to halt the inferno, the case is being treated as a homicide. Should the blaze have been an accident, the result of, say, a smoldering cigarette, then the arsonist could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, for which the minimum sentence is two years. However, as authorities admit, the possibility that the fire was an accident is highly unlikely, or as one anonymous source connected with the investigation said, “There was material that didn't belong there. It was clear evidence that the fire was intentionally set.” Thus it could be a contest between whether the person should be charged with first or secondary degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, which carries with it a 20-year sentence. And though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger initially set the reward for finding the arsonist at $100,000, it is, as of Sept. 8, $150,000.
Intentional or not , however, the damage has been wrought. First spotted Aug. 26 at Mile Marker 29 along the Angeles Crest Highway, up in the mountains north of La Canada Flintridge, which is twenty minutes north and west of Arcadia, the Station Fire advanced into the densely populated neighborhoods to the south. On Aug. 27 and 28, the first evacuations in Palos Verdes Peninsula and La Canada Flintridge were called, and evacuation centers were erected at various places in the area, including at Crescenta Valley High School. As orders for evacuation exceeded the thousands, around 6,600 by Aug. 31, to be exact, reports poured in of frantic families carrying nothing but a few belongings and their pets underarm into emergency shelters. “I packed valuables, such as my cello, important papers, pictures—only the really personal ones—and my dog,” admitted Ashley Park, a senior at Crescenta Valley High School, “When leaving the house, I went through most of the rooms thinking ‘wow… this may be the last time I’m seeing whatever's here.’”
Though, not all were compliant with evacuation orders. For example, half the residents of Acton, a semi-rural community up near the fire, dug in and decided to stay, while residents of La Crescenta formed neighborhood watch groups called “ember shifts,” designed to spot and respond to embers that may wander into town. Of course, officials expressed dismay, particularly Gov. Schwarzenegger, who cited as examples three people who were injured in Big Tujunga Canyon the day before because they refused to evacuate.
By Aug. 31, the fire had roughly reached the height of its nastiness, with firefighters having only been able to contain 5% of the fire, 74 structures destroyed, and with the eastern flank advancing towards the historic Mount Wilson Observatory and all its neighboring radio communications facilities. Once over the hump however, the firefighters managed to stomp back the wall that threatened Mount Wilson in an epic three day battle, which ended Sept. 3. “Thankfully, the Observatory went unscathed. It’s a landmark in the physics world,” said senior Timofey Semenov. By Sept. 7, the fire was 56% contained.
It was during the week of Sept. 7 when the Station Fire got as close to us as it ever would, with firefighters conducting controlled burns above Monrovia and Arcadia, releasing plumes of gray smoke. “I was worried the fires had reached the Foothills area,” confessed junior Coleen Ju, “I’m relieved I was wrong.” By Sept. 15 the blaze was 91% contained, and a week later, in a final display of defiance, the fire rode the Santa Ana winds to negligible effect.
And so Sept. 25, with the once roaring blaze now de-clawed and toothless, firefighters reached full containment, ending the Station Fire’s month-long reign of terror over the southland. And though it left its indelible mark on Los Angeles in the way of over 80 houses destroyed, 100 million dollars in disaster response, and the passing of 2 firefighters, Los Angeles persists.