The gunman in the Tucson shooting rampage that killed six people and injured many others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, acquired his handgun legally, despite many warning signs to those around him that he was a very mentally unstable young man. In executing his plot, Jared Loughner used a Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine. The purpose of such a magazine is to enable a shooter to fire a high number of rounds in a short period-- to allow for maximum rapid fire without reloading. Loughner's high-capacity magazine held twice as many rounds as a normal Glock magazine (30 rounds rather than 15). Recall that he was not neutralized by bystanders until he had emptied his first magazine and attempted to reload. Think of how things might have been different had Loughner only had a normal-sized magazine with 15 rounds. How many fewer people would have been killed or injured? This type of high-capacity magazine was illegal prior to the 2004 expiration of the assault weapons ban. Had Congress and the prior administration acted in 2004 to extend the ban, there would have almost definitely been fewer casualties in Tucson in 2011.
In the aftermath of the shooting, vehement gun rights advocate and former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that he would support a ban of the high-capacity magazine. In speaking of how to avoid such a tragedy in the future, Cheney pondered, "whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with semi-automatic weapons, we've had that in place before. Maybe it's appropriate to re-establish that kind of thing."
This is both surprising and heartening to hear from a man who, while a member of the House of Representatives, was one of only a number of Republicans who voted against a measure banning detection-avoiding plastic guns and the infamous "cop-killer" bullets.
While vitriol and violent political rhetoric may not have led to the Tucson shooting, the availability of a high-capacity Glock magazine most likely exacerbated the incident. Maybe it's time we re-enacted some common-sense restrictions on the most dangerous types of assault-weapons.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, an informed debate on arms control and the 2nd Amendment should center around a discussion of what types of weapons are too dangerous for ownership by the general population. It's all about where we draw the line.
January 26, 2011
January 12, 2011
The Stimulus Act Bargain
A point was made a few months ago about the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. Obama's economic stimulus plan) that really made a lot of sense to me. Most of us probably recall the tragic I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007. The cause of the bridge was due to a faulty design-- the use of under-sized gusset plates-- and an excessive amount of concrete overloading the bridge. The Federal Highway Administration advised shortly thereafter that there were about 700 other U.S. bridges of similar construction and asked states to inspect them. The Society of Civil Engineers recently gave our U.S. infrastructure an overall "D" grade, indicating that in many cases, our roads, bridges, and other vital infrastructure are in dire need of upgrades. I fear we will have more I-35 bridge scenarios in the future because our current national political dialogue is overly focused on deficits, repealing the health care bill (which will increase the deficit), and other distractions.
In "Infrastructure: the best deal in the economy," Ezra Klein noted how many argue that government should be run more like a business. He then asked rhetorically,
I'm glad the administration had the courage to do what was right at a time when it was politically unpopular to pass the stimulus plan. However, more investment in our infrastructure is needed and there is no better time to do it than now.
In "Infrastructure: the best deal in the economy," Ezra Klein noted how many argue that government should be run more like a business. He then asked rhetorically,
So imagine you are CEO of the government. Your bridges are crumbling. Your schools are falling apart. Your air traffic control system doesn't even use GPS. The Society of Civil Engineers gave your infrastructure a D grade and estimated that you need to make more than $2 trillion in repairs and upgrades... There's good news... Because of the recession, construction materials are cheap. So, too, is the labor. And your borrowing costs? They've never been lower. That means a dollar of investment today will go much further than it would have five years ago -- or is likely to go five years from now. So what do you do? If you're thinking like a CEO, the answer is easy: You invest. You get it done.Obama's stimulus plan did precisely that, although many economists have argued that the stimulus act's overall size, and its investment in infrastructure did not go far enough. But given the political climate at the time, that was probably the best the administration could do. Klein goes on:
When the feds checked in on the [stimulus act's infrastructure improvement] funds, what they found shocked them. The project costs were coming in at 18 to 20 percent less than estimated. The Transportation Department then looked at the share that went to the Federal Aviation Administration for runway repairs. The money that the FAA had thought would complete 300 projects was going to finish 367 projects -- about 20 percent more than projected.When we delay maintenance, infrastructure deteriorates even further, thus increasing future repair costs. It is key to understand here that an improved national infrastructure makes our economy healthier in the long run. Without adequate infrastructure, future economic growth will certainly be stunted. The problem goes beyond crumbling roads and bridges, but also applies to antiquated power grids, limited broadband Internet access, outdated air traffic control systems, and decaying schools. While passing the stimulus act in the middle of a recession may have been unpopular, as I pointed out in an earlier post about recession economics, severe recessions are just about the only time it is in fact advisable for governments to incur large debts.
But what about the debt, you might ask? Well, what about it? Delaying a dollar of needed infrastructure repairs is no different than racking up a dollar of debt. "You run a deficit both when you borrow money and when you defer maintenance that needs to be done," [the chairman of the National Economic Council] said. "Either way, you're imposing a cost on future generations."
I'm glad the administration had the courage to do what was right at a time when it was politically unpopular to pass the stimulus plan. However, more investment in our infrastructure is needed and there is no better time to do it than now.
January 11, 2011
Let's Tone it Down Several Knotches
So far, it appears that the person who targeted Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona for assassination, in Saturday's shooting rampage that left 6 people dead and many others seriously wounded, was not directly inspired by the virulent and violent political rhetoric that has been dominating the public discourse over the past 2 years and beyond. And in this post, I am not trying to assign blame for the shooting rampage to anyone aside from the deranged, homicidal gunman, Jared Lee Loughner. But this national tragedy has provided an opportunity for us to reflect on the type of political conversation we engage in both in public and in private. Last March, I posted about some of the recent violence and violent rhetoric. In the aftermath of the passage of the health care reform bill, many prominent opponents of the bill used inappropriate and irresponsible rhetoric that included implicit violent and hateful messages.
In "Before Shooting, A Campaign Season Rife With Gun Rhetoric," Rachel Slajda points to some other perhaps even more disturbing examples of irresponsible speech used by mostly conservative politicians during the recent campaign season:
In another earlier post, I described how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints recently issued a renewed call for civility in our public discourse. Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently stated,
In "Before Shooting, A Campaign Season Rife With Gun Rhetoric," Rachel Slajda points to some other perhaps even more disturbing examples of irresponsible speech used by mostly conservative politicians during the recent campaign season:
Rep. Giffords' own opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, had a gun-themed fund-raiser in June in which supporters could come and shoot an M-16 rifle with Kelly. It was promoted thusly: Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.
Robert Lowry, a Republican challenger to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event in October. The event was at a gun range, and Lowry shot at a human-shaped target that had Wasserman Schulz's initials written next to it.
Stephen Broden, a Republican challenger to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), in late October said that violent revolution is "on the table."
"People are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out," said Sharon Angle, the GOP's candidate for Harry Reid's Senate seat.
From 2009: Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) told Politico that he hunts Democrats. Asked about the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, he said, "We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition."
New Rep. Allen West (R-FL) almost hired a Florida talk-radio host, Joyce Kaufman, as his chief of staff. But Kaufman withdrew after media coverage of some of her more fiery statements, such as: "I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave a Second Amendment," she told a tea party crowd last summer. "And if ballots don't work, bullets will."Slajda has more disturbing examples. I'm not implying here that these politicians intended to promote violence. I do not have any reason to think that is the case. But by using this kind of violent rhetoric, they are playing with fire. Lest you think that such speech is harmless, here is an actual example of where a deranged man shot a politician after receiving encouragement on the radio to "take her out":
Mary Rose Wilcox, a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in Arizona, was shot in 1997, while walking out of a board meeting, by a man who later said he was angry at her support for a baseball stadium tax. The first Hispanic woman elected to the board, Wilcox, a Democrat, had been the target of talk-radio tirades telling Maricopa County residents to "take her out." "I knew at the time that the hate had been caused by a lot of the rhetoric that had gone on," Wilcox said. "At the trial, the man actually said, 'I shot her because the radio said I should take her out.'"So while Sarah Palin's infamous "crosshairs" map that targeted Rep. Giffords, and her rhetoric of "reload" and "lock and load," may not have led to Saturday's shooting rampage, they could have. There is a difference between freedom of speech and using responsible speech. We all probably recall the international outcry about the Florida pastor who announced he was going to burn Korans on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Many political leaders from both parties as well as military leaders warned that this man's actions would endanger lives of American soldiers and innocent civilians across the Middle East. While the pastor had the freedom of speech to do so, such an action would have been incredibly reckless and irresponsible. The same goes for the violent rhetoric in contemporary politics. While I know there are examples of this on both sides of the spectrum, it is overwhelmingly a problem of the political right. Freedom of speech does not absolve us of personal responsibility. In addition to moderating our own rhetoric, let's also hold our elected leaders responsible for their speech and not patronize the talk show hosts who employ such divisive and evil language.
In another earlier post, I described how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints recently issued a renewed call for civility in our public discourse. Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently stated,
Many in this world are afraid and angry with one another. While we understand these feelings, we need to be civil in our discourse and respectful in our interactions. This is especially true when we disagree. The Savior taught us to love even our enemies. The vast majority of our members heed this counsel. Yet there are some who feel that venting their personal anger or deeply held opinions is more important than conducting themselves as Jesus Christ lived and taught. I invite each one of us individually to recognize that how we disagree is a real measure of who we are and whether we truly follow the Savior. It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable. Violence and vandalism are not the answer to our disagreements.
January 8, 2011
Are We Headed for Single Payer Health Care?
It's been interesting to listen to the debate rage over what will happen to the individual health insurance mandate in President Obama's health care reform bill as the issue moves its way up through federal courts. The mandate was recently ruled unconstitutional by one (Bush-appointed) federal judge in Virginia, but was ruled constitutional by a couple of other federal judges. It seems that most pundits agree that this issue is headed for the Supreme Court.
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post noted that Republicans may be doing some long-term damage to their cause by focusing on the individual mandate, which as my last post explained, was originally a Republican idea. To be certain, the mandate is essential to have a health-care system where everyone has coverage but private insurers dominate (Obama's plan). If the Supreme Court ultimately rules the mandate unconstitutional, the only other options for universal coverage will be the single-payer system, as found in Canada, or the fully nationalized system, as found in the United Kingdom. The mandate, as Klein states, is a very "common device" used in several other industrialized countries (including Switzerland and the Netherlands) that ensure universal coverage while relying on private insurers.
Klein makes a convincing argument when he states, "if Republicans get [the insurance mandate] ruled unconstitutional in America, they'd be wise to ask themselves what other options they have: After all, the constitutionality of Medicare is not in question, and that's really the other model we could eventually trend toward."
Another columnist argues:
By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans, you'll hasten the day when the public throws up its hands and says, "Just give us single-payer and price controls." Don't think the anti-government wave this fall won't reverse itself on health care if the most private sector-oriented health care system on earth keeps delivering the world's costliest, most inefficient care.
The current unrealistic threats by the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives to repeal the 2010 health care reform bill are good political theater, but will likely backfire. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how our federal government works, knows that Republicans do not have the numbers they need to repeal. They don't have a veto-proof majority in the House and are in the minority in the Senate. Additionally, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which typically acts as a referee in the partisan atmosphere of Congress, has indicated that a repeal of the health care bill would increase the national deficit by $230 billion.
What is ironic about the last election, which was supposedly about run-away government deficits, is that Republicans have supported positions that drastically increase the national debt. The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich have added far more to the long-term debt of our nation than Obama's 2009 stimulus plan. The CBO estimated that the health care reform bill would actually decrease the deficit by $143 billion in its first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. In an upcoming post, I'll go into some of the details of the new law, including its cost savings, but the fact of the matter is that repeal would drive us further into debt, notwithstanding doing nothing to improve our antiquated health care system including helping the tens of millions of uninsured working-class Americans and their families.
Isn't it ironic that the new House majority voted against a measure this week that would have required all Representatives to disclose whether they would accept their government-provided health insurance? As Rep Steve Israel (D-N.Y), stated, "every Republican voted to hide their own government health care, while many of them are pledging to repeal health care for everyone else." Don't we think it is relevant for constituents to know whether their representative is accepting government-sponsored health care? Nonetheless, repeal isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court is really the only mechanism by which the Obama heath care reform bill (and Romneycare) can be annulled at this point. And in the remote chance that occurs, it will probably lead us to something that is actually closer to what conservatives label as "socialized medicine."
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post noted that Republicans may be doing some long-term damage to their cause by focusing on the individual mandate, which as my last post explained, was originally a Republican idea. To be certain, the mandate is essential to have a health-care system where everyone has coverage but private insurers dominate (Obama's plan). If the Supreme Court ultimately rules the mandate unconstitutional, the only other options for universal coverage will be the single-payer system, as found in Canada, or the fully nationalized system, as found in the United Kingdom. The mandate, as Klein states, is a very "common device" used in several other industrialized countries (including Switzerland and the Netherlands) that ensure universal coverage while relying on private insurers.
Klein makes a convincing argument when he states, "if Republicans get [the insurance mandate] ruled unconstitutional in America, they'd be wise to ask themselves what other options they have: After all, the constitutionality of Medicare is not in question, and that's really the other model we could eventually trend toward."
Another columnist argues:
By fighting the mandate needed to make private insurance solutions work, and doing nothing to ease the health cost burden on everyday Americans, you'll hasten the day when the public throws up its hands and says, "Just give us single-payer and price controls." Don't think the anti-government wave this fall won't reverse itself on health care if the most private sector-oriented health care system on earth keeps delivering the world's costliest, most inefficient care.
The current unrealistic threats by the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives to repeal the 2010 health care reform bill are good political theater, but will likely backfire. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how our federal government works, knows that Republicans do not have the numbers they need to repeal. They don't have a veto-proof majority in the House and are in the minority in the Senate. Additionally, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which typically acts as a referee in the partisan atmosphere of Congress, has indicated that a repeal of the health care bill would increase the national deficit by $230 billion.
What is ironic about the last election, which was supposedly about run-away government deficits, is that Republicans have supported positions that drastically increase the national debt. The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich have added far more to the long-term debt of our nation than Obama's 2009 stimulus plan. The CBO estimated that the health care reform bill would actually decrease the deficit by $143 billion in its first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. In an upcoming post, I'll go into some of the details of the new law, including its cost savings, but the fact of the matter is that repeal would drive us further into debt, notwithstanding doing nothing to improve our antiquated health care system including helping the tens of millions of uninsured working-class Americans and their families.
Isn't it ironic that the new House majority voted against a measure this week that would have required all Representatives to disclose whether they would accept their government-provided health insurance? As Rep Steve Israel (D-N.Y), stated, "every Republican voted to hide their own government health care, while many of them are pledging to repeal health care for everyone else." Don't we think it is relevant for constituents to know whether their representative is accepting government-sponsored health care? Nonetheless, repeal isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court is really the only mechanism by which the Obama heath care reform bill (and Romneycare) can be annulled at this point. And in the remote chance that occurs, it will probably lead us to something that is actually closer to what conservatives label as "socialized medicine."
January 6, 2011
They Were For It Before They Were Against It
During the early 1990s, when President Bill Clinton tasked First Lady Hillary Clinton to lead the effort to overhaul the nation's health care system, Republicans proposed an alternate idea to Hillary's proposal, which envisioned a larger role for government in health care than what President Obama signed into law last March. That Republican proposal was a health insurance mandate that would require all Americans to have coverage, precisely the same obligation that Republicans have vehemently lambasted in the recent health care reform bill. Polled individually, all of the major elements of Obama's health care overhaul are very popular with the notable exception of the health insurance mandate. You'll be hard-pressed to find a politician or citizen anywhere who thinks it is a bad idea that parents can keep their children covered under their insurance plan until age 26, or that insurance companies can no longer deny children with pre-existing conditions coverage, or that insurance companies cannot cancel someone's plan when they become ill.
In 2006, then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law a program that is strikingly similar to the Obama plan. Romney's plan included the same health insurance mandate that is present in the 2010 bill. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle." Like President Obama's plan now, the Romney plan relied solely on private insurers to cover the uninsured. Both also included other health insurance industry regulations to prevent the exclusion or denial of care to sick people and subsidies for low-income individuals. Both are conservative, market-based ideas that don't expand government-run health insurance. Since then, Romney has changed his tune significantly.
Other prominent Republican politicians, including LDS Church members Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, have also previously co-sponsored health care legislation that included a health insurance mandate. Even Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, whose victorious election last year was trumped by Republicans as a statement against the Democrats' health care reform effort, supported the health insurance mandate in Romney's plan when he was a state-level legislator. "In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said. So if Republicans were for it then, why are they against it now? Sen. Brown odiously tried to reconcile his support of the health insurance mandate in Massachusetts with his opposition to President Obama's plan as a states' rights issue.
Romney viciously accused President Obama of "betray[ing] his oath to the nation," after the bill was passed. Romney's attacks on the 2010 health care reform bill have been relegated to hyperbole and focus on minutia. Meanwhile, he has had to defend himself against (accurate) accusations from other Republican contenders that his health care plan hardly differs from Obama's. The bottom line is that Obamacare practically equals Romneycare.
Republican opposition to Obama's health care bill (particularly for those who previously supported the individual mandate) is nothing more than politics at its best. Romney is clearly running for the Republican nomination in 2012 and needs to run as fast and as far away from his middle-of-the-road accomplishments as governor to please the increasingly radical and detached-from-reality base of the Republican Party. We live in an age where the opposition party will do anything to prevent the President from having a "success," even if it is a success with an idea they originally devised. How else do you explain Republicans' attempts to block legislation like the new START treaty with Russia, the 9/11 first responders health care bill, the repeal of DADT? These last three measures had the broad support of the American public and the relevant experts. Yet at the end of the Lame Duck Session of Congress, you had Republicans complaining about Democrats' attempts to push through these bills, which had been on the docket (and blocked by Republicans) for months. We truly live in an era of a sad state of affairs where the public good is regularly set aside for political theater and personal and political agendas.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones Magazine has summed up some of my feelings of the current political state of affairs quite well:
I can't remember when I've been more demoralized about American governance. I have this overwhelming feeling of barnacles building up relentlessly, untouchable because of interest group pressure on both left and right, and a complete inability and/or unwillingness to address any of it. Democrats have some things they want to do, but in addition to satisfying their own interest groups they have to settle for third or fourth best policies because Republicans have simply decided they don't care about anything except tax cuts for the rich, hating gay people, and bennies for favored industries. In the middle of a massive recession they opposed a stimulus bill. In the aftermath of a financial crisis they opposed a financial reform bill. In the face of skyrocketing healthcare costs they demagogued modest cuts in Medicare spending. They spent months negotiating a spending bill — transparently, openly, via the ordinary committee process — and then killed it just because it would annoy Harry Reid. Global warming is a hoax, gay recruits will destroy the military, and creationism is an appropriate topic for high school biology classes. Our infrastructure is crumbling and our schools are mediocre, but the creeping encrustation of government prevents anything serious from being done about either. We're in hock to Middle Eastern theocracies for our oil, and the laughable answer from the right consists entirely of nukes and a bit of marginal extra drilling around the periphery of America. An arms control treaty that could have been negotiated by Ronald Reagan himself [was] unsure of passage because too many Republican senators deem[ed] it unsafe to risk the wrath of Fox News or their tea party constituencies.
In 2006, then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law a program that is strikingly similar to the Obama plan. Romney's plan included the same health insurance mandate that is present in the 2010 bill. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle." Like President Obama's plan now, the Romney plan relied solely on private insurers to cover the uninsured. Both also included other health insurance industry regulations to prevent the exclusion or denial of care to sick people and subsidies for low-income individuals. Both are conservative, market-based ideas that don't expand government-run health insurance. Since then, Romney has changed his tune significantly.
Other prominent Republican politicians, including LDS Church members Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, have also previously co-sponsored health care legislation that included a health insurance mandate. Even Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, whose victorious election last year was trumped by Republicans as a statement against the Democrats' health care reform effort, supported the health insurance mandate in Romney's plan when he was a state-level legislator. "In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said. So if Republicans were for it then, why are they against it now? Sen. Brown odiously tried to reconcile his support of the health insurance mandate in Massachusetts with his opposition to President Obama's plan as a states' rights issue.
Romney viciously accused President Obama of "betray[ing] his oath to the nation," after the bill was passed. Romney's attacks on the 2010 health care reform bill have been relegated to hyperbole and focus on minutia. Meanwhile, he has had to defend himself against (accurate) accusations from other Republican contenders that his health care plan hardly differs from Obama's. The bottom line is that Obamacare practically equals Romneycare.
Republican opposition to Obama's health care bill (particularly for those who previously supported the individual mandate) is nothing more than politics at its best. Romney is clearly running for the Republican nomination in 2012 and needs to run as fast and as far away from his middle-of-the-road accomplishments as governor to please the increasingly radical and detached-from-reality base of the Republican Party. We live in an age where the opposition party will do anything to prevent the President from having a "success," even if it is a success with an idea they originally devised. How else do you explain Republicans' attempts to block legislation like the new START treaty with Russia, the 9/11 first responders health care bill, the repeal of DADT? These last three measures had the broad support of the American public and the relevant experts. Yet at the end of the Lame Duck Session of Congress, you had Republicans complaining about Democrats' attempts to push through these bills, which had been on the docket (and blocked by Republicans) for months. We truly live in an era of a sad state of affairs where the public good is regularly set aside for political theater and personal and political agendas.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones Magazine has summed up some of my feelings of the current political state of affairs quite well:
I can't remember when I've been more demoralized about American governance. I have this overwhelming feeling of barnacles building up relentlessly, untouchable because of interest group pressure on both left and right, and a complete inability and/or unwillingness to address any of it. Democrats have some things they want to do, but in addition to satisfying their own interest groups they have to settle for third or fourth best policies because Republicans have simply decided they don't care about anything except tax cuts for the rich, hating gay people, and bennies for favored industries. In the middle of a massive recession they opposed a stimulus bill. In the aftermath of a financial crisis they opposed a financial reform bill. In the face of skyrocketing healthcare costs they demagogued modest cuts in Medicare spending. They spent months negotiating a spending bill — transparently, openly, via the ordinary committee process — and then killed it just because it would annoy Harry Reid. Global warming is a hoax, gay recruits will destroy the military, and creationism is an appropriate topic for high school biology classes. Our infrastructure is crumbling and our schools are mediocre, but the creeping encrustation of government prevents anything serious from being done about either. We're in hock to Middle Eastern theocracies for our oil, and the laughable answer from the right consists entirely of nukes and a bit of marginal extra drilling around the periphery of America. An arms control treaty that could have been negotiated by Ronald Reagan himself [was] unsure of passage because too many Republican senators deem[ed] it unsafe to risk the wrath of Fox News or their tea party constituencies.
January 4, 2011
Ill 9/11 First Responders and Broken U.S. Healthcare
The following interview conducted by Jon Stewart of four 9/11 first responders clearly exemplifies the health care crisis that so many working class Americans currently face or are at risk of facing. At about 3:55 in the clip, the panelists discuss the fact that they lost their health insurance coverage after they had to stop working as police officers, fire fighters, etc, due to severe illnesses they contracted as a result of working in the toxic dust at Ground Zero. After leaving the workforce, they had to fight their terminal diseases while fighting to get workman's comp to pay for their expensive medical treatments. Although the clip focuses on the 9/11 First Responders Health Care Bill, the problem is the same for most Americans who lose their jobs after becoming seriously ill. Once the job is lost and the health insurance is dropped, what is severely ill person to do?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| 9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster | ||||
| ||||
January 1, 2011
Morality and the Health Care Crisis in America
I've been meaning to do a post about health care ever since the health care reform bill was debated and passed last year. I'll approach health care in two posts, first by discussing American health care (pre-reform) and the immorality of the status quo. In my next post, I'll compare the varying types of universal health care systems and examine the recent health care reform bill.
Health care reform is not just a political issue for me- it's also a moral issue. There is nothing more fundamental to one's well-being than their health. One's ability to obtain an education, to acquire and hold a job, and to sustain a family is entirely dependent on their physical and mental health. If we, as the world's most wealthy country, were happy with the pre-reform status quo, with leaving millions of lower and middle working class Americans either under-insured or uninsured, and were content with a system that bankrupts people when they become sick and lose their jobs as a result, then we've had a significant moral lapse. As I pointed out in a previous post about a "culture of life," can one truly claim to be "pro-life" when they are content to let people become sick and die for lack of treatment in the wealthiest, most powerful country the world has ever known? I've actually had some conservative friends argue as a counterpoint that anyone can be seen in an E.R. (at taxpayer expense), thus there is no need for reform. E.R. access as the sole point of access to health care is woefully inadequate. So, say someone has cancer, do you think they can go to the E.R. for chemotherapy? It doesn't take a health care professional to explain that the E.R. can handle only emergencies, not medium and long-term care for the seriously and chronically ill, not to mention cost-saving and life-enhancing preventative medicine.
Let's briefly examine health care in America, pre-reform. (It's worth noting the central features of the new health care reform bill will not be fully enacted until 2014.) In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the world's health care systems based on multiple criteria, including the overall level of population health (i.e. infant mortality rates, rates of preventable disease), health care inequalities within the population, and responsiveness of the health care system. The U.S. was ranked at number 37, just behind Costa Rica and barely ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. It was a dismal, albeit unsurprising showing for the U.S. health care system. Before examining some of the major problems with pre-reform U.S. health care, it is important to point out that the WHO rankings were not a condemnation of U.S. health care professionals, who are among the most highly skilled in the world. When opponents of health care reform claim that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, perhaps what they are referring to is American medical professionals, who are truly among the best. However, the debate about America's health care system is not about the skill set of America's health care professionals- it is primarily a question of access. And when it comes to access, our system performs exceptionally poorly.
The approximately 45 million uninsured Americans predominantly come from households with at least one full-time worker. Most poor already have access to adequate health care through Medicaid, so health care reform was not about creating a new entitlement program for the poor, as some detractors claimed, but was about ensuring access to adequate health care for America's working class. The pre-reform health care system is one in which the working poor and lower middle class disproportionally suffer from lack of access to adequate health care. Those affected by the health care reform bill are people whose employers do not provide health insurance, which is about 40% of America's work force. Factcheck.org offers a great statistical synopsis of the uninsured, setting the record straight for those who falsely assert that most uninsured are illegal aliens. According to a study cited by Factcheck.org, 79% of the uninsured are U.S. citizens. The other 21% are comprised of both legal and illegal immigrants. Twenty percent of the uninsured are children, meaning that millions of American children do not receive the routine pediatric care that is required to ensure that children have a good start a life, including vaccinations and key screenings for illnesses and birth defects. (Again- how can someone say they are "pro-life" when they don't have a problem with this situation?)
Here are a few more facts to consider:
I think it is frankly immoral for our country, the wealthiest on earth, to allow these types of situations to occur. The working-class breadwinner in this scenario, who is as hard-working as Americans who have health insurance, is forced to live in a situation where his/her family is one serious illness away from personal financial disaster. Because Medicaid will only cover those who have little or no assets (including home equity, retirement accounts, etc.) and practically no income, such a family would have to sell their house and stop working before they qualified for Medicaid. This scenario, which is all too typical in America today, has precisely the wrong incentive structure. The working poor shouldn't need to quit their jobs and sell their homes and other meager assets to qualify for Medicaid when they become ill. This situation is not only bad for those families, it is bad for our economy as a whole because it contributes bankruptcies, home foreclosures, and leads to reliance on government welfare programs.
We need to ask ourselves, why do we spend far more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the rest of the world, but have far poorer public health than other industrialized countries? Why do we accept a status quo where such a large portion of working Americans and their families cannot afford to purchase health insurance? I believe that the criteria for receiving adequate medial care should be based on the clinical need of the patient, not one's ability to pay for it.
Although the Law of Consecration was abandoned because of the early Saints' inability to adhere to it, the Lord's declarations are still relevant: "But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin," (D&C 49:20). Third Nephi chapter six, which discusses how the Nephites descended into wickedness in the run up to Christ's visit to the Americas, proclaims, "there became a great inequality in all the land," after the people became distinguished in ranks or classes by their riches and chances for learning. In contemporary America, a great inequality exists in the land with respect to the most basic of human needs- good health. And this is primarily due to a lack of access to adequate health care. Although the health care reform bill is imperfect, I'm very grateful that our lawmakers, after nearly a century of efforts to create universal health care in America, have finally acted to redress this great inequality.
Health care reform is not just a political issue for me- it's also a moral issue. There is nothing more fundamental to one's well-being than their health. One's ability to obtain an education, to acquire and hold a job, and to sustain a family is entirely dependent on their physical and mental health. If we, as the world's most wealthy country, were happy with the pre-reform status quo, with leaving millions of lower and middle working class Americans either under-insured or uninsured, and were content with a system that bankrupts people when they become sick and lose their jobs as a result, then we've had a significant moral lapse. As I pointed out in a previous post about a "culture of life," can one truly claim to be "pro-life" when they are content to let people become sick and die for lack of treatment in the wealthiest, most powerful country the world has ever known? I've actually had some conservative friends argue as a counterpoint that anyone can be seen in an E.R. (at taxpayer expense), thus there is no need for reform. E.R. access as the sole point of access to health care is woefully inadequate. So, say someone has cancer, do you think they can go to the E.R. for chemotherapy? It doesn't take a health care professional to explain that the E.R. can handle only emergencies, not medium and long-term care for the seriously and chronically ill, not to mention cost-saving and life-enhancing preventative medicine.
Let's briefly examine health care in America, pre-reform. (It's worth noting the central features of the new health care reform bill will not be fully enacted until 2014.) In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the world's health care systems based on multiple criteria, including the overall level of population health (i.e. infant mortality rates, rates of preventable disease), health care inequalities within the population, and responsiveness of the health care system. The U.S. was ranked at number 37, just behind Costa Rica and barely ahead of Slovenia and Cuba. It was a dismal, albeit unsurprising showing for the U.S. health care system. Before examining some of the major problems with pre-reform U.S. health care, it is important to point out that the WHO rankings were not a condemnation of U.S. health care professionals, who are among the most highly skilled in the world. When opponents of health care reform claim that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, perhaps what they are referring to is American medical professionals, who are truly among the best. However, the debate about America's health care system is not about the skill set of America's health care professionals- it is primarily a question of access. And when it comes to access, our system performs exceptionally poorly.
The approximately 45 million uninsured Americans predominantly come from households with at least one full-time worker. Most poor already have access to adequate health care through Medicaid, so health care reform was not about creating a new entitlement program for the poor, as some detractors claimed, but was about ensuring access to adequate health care for America's working class. The pre-reform health care system is one in which the working poor and lower middle class disproportionally suffer from lack of access to adequate health care. Those affected by the health care reform bill are people whose employers do not provide health insurance, which is about 40% of America's work force. Factcheck.org offers a great statistical synopsis of the uninsured, setting the record straight for those who falsely assert that most uninsured are illegal aliens. According to a study cited by Factcheck.org, 79% of the uninsured are U.S. citizens. The other 21% are comprised of both legal and illegal immigrants. Twenty percent of the uninsured are children, meaning that millions of American children do not receive the routine pediatric care that is required to ensure that children have a good start a life, including vaccinations and key screenings for illnesses and birth defects. (Again- how can someone say they are "pro-life" when they don't have a problem with this situation?)
Here are a few more facts to consider:
- Prior to the recent recession, the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. was health care expenses. This is not an efficient way for a modern economy and society to operate; it contributed to the real estate crisis when many people had to sell their homes to pay off major medical bills because they were either uninsured or under-insured.
- The U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care access for its citizens.
- The U.S. spends far more money on health care as a percentage of GDP (about 17%) than any other country, yet the overall level of our public health as measured by infant mortality, life expectancy, levels of preventable disease, etc, is significantly less than that of most other industrialized countries. In other words, we get much less bang for our health care bucks than do other modern countries.
- The often criticized National Health Service of the United Kingdom costs British taxpayers only about 7% of GDP compared to the 17% of GDP health care cost burden in the U.S.
- For decades, many health insurance companies in the U.S. have had morally reprehensible practices such as canceling insurance policies of individuals after they became seriously ill, denying coverage to people (including children) with pre-existing conditions, and placing annual and lifetime caps on benefits- an assault to the seriously and chronically ill. There are many documented cases of people actually dying after their insurance canceled their coverage and they had to stop receiving treatment because they couldn't afford to pay the bills (especially since most serious illnesses prevent people from being able to work).
I think it is frankly immoral for our country, the wealthiest on earth, to allow these types of situations to occur. The working-class breadwinner in this scenario, who is as hard-working as Americans who have health insurance, is forced to live in a situation where his/her family is one serious illness away from personal financial disaster. Because Medicaid will only cover those who have little or no assets (including home equity, retirement accounts, etc.) and practically no income, such a family would have to sell their house and stop working before they qualified for Medicaid. This scenario, which is all too typical in America today, has precisely the wrong incentive structure. The working poor shouldn't need to quit their jobs and sell their homes and other meager assets to qualify for Medicaid when they become ill. This situation is not only bad for those families, it is bad for our economy as a whole because it contributes bankruptcies, home foreclosures, and leads to reliance on government welfare programs.
We need to ask ourselves, why do we spend far more on health care per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the rest of the world, but have far poorer public health than other industrialized countries? Why do we accept a status quo where such a large portion of working Americans and their families cannot afford to purchase health insurance? I believe that the criteria for receiving adequate medial care should be based on the clinical need of the patient, not one's ability to pay for it.
Although the Law of Consecration was abandoned because of the early Saints' inability to adhere to it, the Lord's declarations are still relevant: "But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin," (D&C 49:20). Third Nephi chapter six, which discusses how the Nephites descended into wickedness in the run up to Christ's visit to the Americas, proclaims, "there became a great inequality in all the land," after the people became distinguished in ranks or classes by their riches and chances for learning. In contemporary America, a great inequality exists in the land with respect to the most basic of human needs- good health. And this is primarily due to a lack of access to adequate health care. Although the health care reform bill is imperfect, I'm very grateful that our lawmakers, after nearly a century of efforts to create universal health care in America, have finally acted to redress this great inequality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)