Category: Society

We are the Socialists for Britain

T.R. Reid: Looking Overseas For ‘Healing Of America’ : NPR:

Mr. REID: Yeah, yeah. One of the ways – you know, they have that thing on Britain on Wednesday where the prime minister stands up in parliament, and the other party insults him and shouts questions at him. And one of the most-standard questions is: A woman in my constituency has been waiting four weeks to see a doctor. This is outrageous. And that happens, and then the answer that the prime minister always gives is, well, obviously, the gentleman opposite wants to see us institute for-profit, American-style corporate medicine. This we will never do. You know? And they never will.
GROSS: Is that the worst thing that you can say, we’re going to institute American-style corporate medicine?
Mr. REID: All over the world, people say that. If you complain about health care, they say well, you want to move to America? You think that’s better?
Everywhere I went, people had this kind of smug superiority. They know. They know that we let people die and go bankrupt by the thousands in our health care system, and they don’t do that, so they feel better.
A person in the Health Ministry in Canada – you know, they’re kind of understated people in Canada – said to me, you know, we don’t go around chanting we’re number one like some countries I know, but there are two areas where we’re better than the states: hockey and health care.
(Soundbite of laughter)

(Via NPR.)

Our system is ranks 37th in the world right between Costa Rica and Slovenia.

How Far Would You Go to Save a Life?

Abortion is a hot button issue mainly because both sides care a great deal about the things they see themselves protecting: a woman’s control over her own body, her self, her personhood; an unborn child’s right to simply live. I don’t mean to answer that question here in this small space. (What hubris that would be!) I do intend to state where I am in all of this and that is in a state of moral dilemma. I see both sides as protecting things that are worthwhile, even essential.

(Version 1.5)

The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means.
–Georges Bernanos

Abortion is a hot button issue mainly because both sides care a great deal about the things they see themselves protecting: a woman’s control over her own body, her self, her personhood; an unborn child’s right to simply live, its self, its personhood. I don’t mean to answer that question here in this small space. (What hubris that would be!) I do intend to stake out where I am in this debate and that is in a state of moral dilemma. I see both sides of the issue as protecting things that are worthwhile, even essential. (I have something between disdain and contempt for the political “debate” as it stands. I don’t like people demonizing others nor do I like propaganda, i.e. comfortable lies.)

To put it as succinctly as I can, I am a pro-lifer unwilling to save the lives of the unborn by any means. I have always had moral problems with abortion and pro-choice arguments  have only solidified that position. I am not, however, a contraception-is-abortion pro-lifer. I don’t think RU-486 is an “abortion pill.” Preventing conception is simply not abortifacient. I tend to follow those in the medical profession who won’t perform abortions on unborn who clearly can feel and react to what is happening to them. In that, I find it cruel and inhuman.

But supporting its legal ban has always given me pause. The awful truth is that via the state I am usurping power and control over the most intimate parts of a woman’s body. An act very similar to rape. This escalates to full murder when pregnancy kills. And Hallmark cards aside, it does kill. But to put it in more palatable terms, it is violating the physical person of one individual for the sake of another in our society. And that is something that the majority of the Pro-Life movement do not have the moral integrity to acknowledge. We would recoil in horror if the state required people to donate bodily tissue, a kidney for example, in order to save the lives of others. It goes against many of our core democratic principles surrounding human rights.

How would we react if a man on dialysis, i.e. dying a slow death, was so far down the donor list that he virtually had no prospects for a transplant and the government saved him by finding and mandating a compatible person donate their kidney? How would any of us feel about being the donor? Remember, a person’s life is at stake here. Would you approve on that basis? I seriously doubt any of us would approve of such an act even to save a man’s life. So how is the mother of an unborn child worth any less than a kidney donor?

So until the pro-life movement is less pro-baby and fully pro-life and the pro-choice movement is less pro-woman and ceases to treat the unwanted unborn as something akin to the appendix, I remain in my moral Catch-22: support movements with little regard for life itself only that of certain parties.

So No Principles at 60?

When speaking on politics and sharing that my conclusions come from a matter of principle, I’ve heard Churchill’s old saw invoked to imply that they are those of some dreamy eyed waif with visions of some utopian paradise. In truth, I’ve tried to take that, frankly lazy, thinking graciously and ask myself, “So at what age is it proper to sacrifice my principles and values?” Because that is exactly what I would be required to do.

If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
–Winston Churchill

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
–Albert Einstein

When speaking on politics and sharing that my conclusions come from a matter of principle, I’ve heard Churchill’s old saw invoked to imply that they are those of some dreamy eyed waif with visions of some utopian paradise. In truth, I’ve tried to take that, frankly lazy, thinking graciously and ask myself, “So at what age is it proper to sacrifice my principles and values?” Because that is exactly what I would be required to do.
I’m only a few years away from 40 and admittedly, as I have gotten older, I have tempered where and when I pick my battles. But what I have found is that my principles burn that more brightly in my world perspective. A good friend, for whom I have tremendous respect and love, once asked me if with the birth of my son had my perspective on social issues, esp. on homosexuality, took on a more conservative bent. I told him no, if anything, I have less patience with conservatives whose political, theological, and social thinking and activities are at odds with my principles and values. Ironically, he was right that I was taking on a more conservative perspective in the way I view conservative ideas.
As many of my friends on Facebook know, I’ve been very vocal on the issue of healthcare. I take a very dim view of our system because it runs counter to deeply held values that are best expressed by my faith in Jesus Christ, something which I take very, very seriously. In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 25 verses 31 to 46, the author has Jesus talking about his return and the judgment of the nations at the Apocalypse. It’s in this section, that we see the phrase “the least of these.” A phrase often taken out of context to connote the sappy compassion of the liberal bleeding heart. Not so in Matthew, it is the love of the righteous as opposed to the wicked. Jesus makes his often heard list:

  • For I was hungry and you gave me food.
  • Thirsty and you gave me…drink.
  • I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
  • I was naked and you clothed me.
  • I was sick and you took care of me.
  • I was in prison and you visited me.

Note that he was talking about doing these things to the “least of these,” meaning the poor, the downtrodden, the vulnerable. The righteous who do these things get eternal life while the wicked receive perdition for refusing to do the same. Whether you read this story as allegorical or literal, it’s very clear how our healthcare system that rations care precisely on one’s ability to pay would fair on the least-of-these scale. Our system is wrong. It should be changed. That’s the liberal 20 year old speaking. As I get older, my epectations on how much things can and will change has been tempered, but never would I suggest that we slow change or conserve the status quo. Even if the goal is unattainable, which in this case it most certainly is not, it’s incumbent on me as a moral and sane person to be an agent of change. That’s the nearing 40 year old speaking.
So, my question to those who would ask me to have a brain once I reach forty and become a conservative. Do I have to trade in my principles, my values, my eternal soul in order to do so? Harshly said I know, but I want to rebut forcefully that sense of false pragmatism that is really disguised cynicism.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , ,

Slavery needs more than an apology

Commentary: Slavery needs more than an apology – CNN.com:

But here’s the funny thing: While we white Americans are busy establishing our innocence, it turns out that many black Americans are not personally angry at us for slavery. Many do want authentic acknowledgement of what happened, but not for the sake of guilt-tripping. I’ve witnessed a generosity of spirit that I have been humbled by.
Meanwhile, many African-Americans are upset about the disparate outcomes that persist and want to see everyone step up to address them. There are so many lingering ‘structural inequalities,’ as President Obama put it — ones without clear racist villains but that are embedded, like the fact that schools are funded with property taxes, so poor black neighborhoods, the legacy of earlier eras of discrimination, are not able to fund the quality schools that we say all our children deserve.

(Via CNN.)

Justice is the sound love makes when spoken in public.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

How American Health Care Killed My Father – The Atlantic

I knew someone out there had some good ideas at reform. A Democrat no less. It’s a great read and should be on anyone’s list interested in reform who is interested in solutions to fixing our status quo. The sad part is that no one in power is advocating a solution resembling the author’s, esp. the GOP which should be if they were actually solution oriented. In fact, I’ve thought of many of the same things.

How American Health Care Killed My Father – The Atlantic
(September 2009):

“I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy…
First, we should replace our current web of employer- and government-based insurance with a single program of catastrophic insurance open to all Americans—indeed, all Americans should be required to buy it—with fixed premiums based solely on age. This program would be best run as a single national pool, without underwriting for specific risk factors, and would ultimately replace Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. All Americans would be insured against catastrophic illness, throughout their lives…
Every American should be required to maintain an HSA, and contribute a minimum percentage of post-tax income, subject to a floor and a cap in total dollar contributions. The income percentage required should rise over a working life, as wages and wealth typically do…
Americans should be able to borrow against their future contributions to their HSA to cover major health needs; the government could lend directly, or provide guidelines for private lending. Catastrophic coverage should apply with no deductible for young people, but as people age and save, they should pay a steadily increasing deductible from their HSA, unless the HSA has been exhausted. As a result, much end-of-life care would be paid through savings…
For lower-income Americans who can’t fund all of their catastrophic premiums or minimum HSA contributions, the government should fill the gap—in some cases, providing all the funding…
Some experts worry that requiring people to pay directly for routine care would cause some to put off regular checkups. So here’s a solution: the government could provide vouchers to all Americans for a free checkup every two years…
Many experts believe that the U.S. would get better health outcomes at lower cost if payment to providers were structured around the management of health or whole episodes of care, instead of through piecemeal fees… For simplicity and predictability, many people will prefer to pay a fixed monthly or annual fee for primary or chronic care, and providers will move to serve that demand…
Many consumers would be able to make many decisions, unaided, in such a system. But we’d also probably see the rise of health-care agents—paid by, and responsible to, the consumer—to help choose providers and to act as advocates during long and complex care episodes…”

(Via The Atlantic.)

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Martin Lawrence on the Cops

YouTube – Martin Lawrence stand up 6:

““

(Via YouTub.)

If you listen from 1:00 to about 3:30, you get an apropos discussion on today’s brouhaha. Note: this is circa 1995. (WARNING: NSFW!)

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Will Cops And Black People Ever Get Along?

Will Cops And Black People Ever Get Along? « The Michael Eric Dyson Show:

“Are the perceptions that have been heard about the relationships between cops and black men really as tense as projected or  nothing more than big misinterpretations?”

(Via The Michael Eric Dyson Show.)

I would say things have been always tense. When one has to fear for his life, that’s not a calm and cool situation. That said, it was an interesting show.

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

The Henry Louis Gates Jr. Arrest: When Race Matters – TIME

The Henry Louis Gates Jr. Arrest: When Race Matters – TIME:

“Obama, in all likelihood, has had similar experiences with the police, exchanges in which he was left with the impression that his Ivy League pedigree could take him only so far. And so it’s unfortunate that he felt unable to continue to express what he truly felt. He was forced to revise and turn what was an objectively true statement — that it’s stupid to arrest a man in his own house for being rude — into a vague ‘teachable moment’ [emphasis mine] about nothing particular…
This is deflating. If the rest of the country is too immature for some straight talk about the relationship between blacks and the police, delivered by our most accomplished and temperate diplomats, then the prospects for a broader dialogue about race are not good.”

(Via TIME Magazine.)

Exactly. With all of the defenses I’ve heard for Crowley, not one addresses the fact that they arrested a man in his own home for essentially being rude. All those small government, losing freedom folks said nothing about this. This is the central argument for black folks accurate or not: That Gates’ race made this kind of violation sanctioned in our society. Crowley’s defenders simply prove that fear right.

Civilized Medicine

Today I had to take my son for his 15 month well visit. All day in the car as I listened to NPR, universal healthcare was the topic. Little did I know I would get a reminder of the problems with our system up close and personal today.
At the doctor’s, my son developed a strong fever. It turns out this was due to a new ear infection. Great. His shots would have to be delayed another few weeks and we’d have to give him a course of antibiotics. All of this would be handled well by my insurance. The full course, between generic substitutions in pharmacy and our family’s insurance coverage, would run me $12. No sweat. With a $15 copay my running total so far was $27.
But there was a problem.
My wife was concerned with the wheezing she still hears in my son’s breathing at night. My doctor was as well. She prescribed a 30 day supply of Pulmicort, an asthma treatment medicine. Since there are no generic substitutes, I have to pay full boat with my plan reimbursing me for 60% of the cost. And that cost? $365!
Now I don’t know about you, but how is a person with few means supposed to shelve out that kind of money on a monthly basis to treat their child? First you have to have the cash on hand or the credit to shell out what amounts to a car payment. Second, you’d have to be able to afford the 40%, or $146, you’d be responsible for if you have insurance. What happens if you are one of the 47,000,000 people who don’t? What’s wrong with this picture?
Truly, when I think of folks defending our healthcare system, esp. with regard to the pharma companies, I find it hard not to think of the phrase “full of shit.”
UPDATE: I can’t really take credit for the title, it was from a teacher and mentor who corrected me when I mentioned that the UK’s universal healthcare system was socialized medicine. She said, “No, it’s civilized medicine.”

YouTube – President Barack Obama addresses the 2009 NAACP Convention

YouTube – President Barack Obama addresses the 2009 NAACP Convention:

““

(Via YouTube.)