Health Care Simpliciter

At the risk of over-simplifying a very important discussion involving a cornucopia of public and private interests, I would like to ask why there is opposition to universal public health care. And at the risk of limiting the discussion to what some might consider inappropriate borders, I would like to exclude (for the moment) any consideration as to whether such health care has achieved any success in other nations or venues. In short, on what grounds--aside from an unabashed and abject form of bigotry--could anyone believe that the completely random circumstances of one's birth ought to predetermine one's ability to be healthy?

The debate is usually (when not reduced to the garrulous, tired idiocy concerning socialism) couched in terms of the costs to the public, both monetary and as to quality of care. These are, of course, legitimate concerns for any social or political venture. Nevertheless, the order of such concerns is often forgotten. E.g., most do not ask about the staggering costs of defense, as defense is considered of such paramount import as to outstrip nearly all doubts as to its worth. Why, then, is the health care "debate" not demanding of similar august status?

Today's Post (see link) has an article about the Mayo Clinic's (et al) rejection of the current health care plan being touted by Obama and Congressional Democrats. Their complaints are numerous, and they address several very legitimate issues as to the implementation of any effective health care plan. For example, they complain that the plan under consideration does not sufficiently account for discrepencies in health care cost/recompense in different parts of the country, and the cost to providers should such a plan be implemented. While some of these concerns are absolutely worth inclusion in the present debate, others at best belie the baffling status of the debate itself. That is, the signatories of the complaint state that the proposed system would result in burdening already stretched provider facilities without due recompense. Fair enough: increase the relevant compensation in the bill, and adjust it as needs and studies determine appropriate. But why on earth would anyone cite this as a justification for maintaining a private health care system which, with the force of a fait accompli, that those born poor should remain disfigured, diseased, or in any other infinite manner of situations disadvantaged solely on the basis of their random birth.

Allow me an alternative scenario: why must I be subjected to inescapable and crushing poverty if I happen upon some misfortune? Why can't I just die? Recently a family member fell off her bike on a twig which punctured her spleen or some such. If they had not operated on her she would have died. However, she did not have any form of health insurance. Thus, the amount she owed approached $60k. Like many folks without health insurance, she is literally (according to the United States government) in poverty.

I'll pretend for the sake of argument that this scenario happened to me, in order that I can be more specific regarding the realities and necessities. I am also impoverished, and have been for a number of years. This amount constitutes more than my combined annual income for the last three years. Thus, I cannot possibly imagine how long this amount would remain outstanding via even the most generous "payment plan." In other words, without some sort of stunning reversal of fortune a la winning the lottery, I would be paying for this chance occurrence for much of the rest of my life. However, I am not given an option. Taken to a hospital unconscious, it is my understanding that they would graciously and benevolently repair me so that I can be committed to their debt for the foreseeable future. Imagine an alternative scenario: imagine that each individual carried an income card which described their economic standing and possibilities, and imagine further that a hospital would accept or reject emergency patients on their ability to pay. Imagine that the hospital refuses me care on this basis, and I die. I don't believe I would find many who would support such a "health care plan," although I don't see much of a difference between this and our current system. Indeed, to quote Thoreau, given the options of parting with my money or my life, why should I be so quick to give up my money? Why would I volunteer my financial future possibilities over my life?

Yes, insane, I know. But let's switch to the wealthy person. The only problem is that there is no longer anything to consider. The story is over as soon as it begins: the wealthy person falls, she gets patched up, she goes back to riding their bike. The end.

This is truncated to the point of being ridiculous. There are all sorts of other permutations. For example, I have narcolepsy. This is a genetic disease with no cure which requires daily medication. Neurologists are incredibly expensive. If I had money, this would not be a problem. Indeed, it would not even merit discussion. However, given that I do not, it is a constant source of difficulty for me. A close friend has diabetes (the "you're born with it" type, not the behavioral variety). We recently discussed her situation, and I was completely embarrassed to have ever thought of my congenital handicap as a problem. Her healthcare costs per month exceed her rent. (And for potential nay-sayers, her living conditions are quire modest.) I need my medication to keep a job or drive. She needs hers daily to survive.

Yes, yes, one could go on with sob stories. That is not the point of any of this. One does not need to bleed from the heart to consider a very simple question: if it is callous to say a poor person who falls prey to an accident should die, why is it so common to say the same person should be forced into life-long financial ruin? Or, why can't I simply ask that they just let me die?

-W.

For Those Interested in the Country's Rebirth...

To Whom It May Concern:

Insofar as the United States is defined as an idea, rather than by a mass of land, a religious-, social-, or cultural-heritage, a monarchy, etc., it has been... well, it has essentially not been for several years. Without getting into the history and importance of habeas corpus, suffice it to say that it was considered so absolutely vital to the existence of our nation that those guys who wrote the Constitution gave it the honor of being the only right enumerated in the text of the Constitution. (If you are curious, look at the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment. Notice that every single other protection disappears without the Writ of habeas. Some would argue that some remain, but you can't really dispute the quartering of soldiers in your home if you are detained without access to counsel...) And it has not had de facto power for over 6 years, and has "legally" been rendered moot for around 3. Until June 12th.

For those interested, the full text of the opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html. The case name is Boumediene v. Bush. The opinion, while pretty unbelievably long, is worth the read. The dissents also reward perusal, Mr Roberts' as an erudite discussion of that which the Court failed to address, and Mr Scalia's as a shrill consideration of all those things the Court rightfully left unconsidered.

(It seems to me that the latter gentleman should recuse himself from all cases involving anything having to do with terrorism, torture, detainees' rights, etc., as long as his judgment is clouded--according to his own admission--by his son's involvement in Iraq. Let's not forget his quote from late 2006, regarding a case similar to Boumediene: "I had a son [Matthew Scalia] on that battlefield; they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial." Filth.)

My favorite part was when Kennedy quoted Hamilton's Federalist 84:

“[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been,

in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instru

ments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious

Blackstone . . . are well worthy of recital: ‘To bereave

a man of life . . . or by violence to confiscate his estate,

without accusation or trial, would be so gross and no

torious an act of despotism as must at once convey the

alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but

confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to

jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is

a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more

dangerous engine of arbitrary government.’ And as a

remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly

emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus

act, which in one place he calls ‘the BULWARK of the

British Constitution.’” C. Rossiter ed., p. 512 (1961)

(quoting 1 Blackstone *136, 4 id., at *438).

Patriots, express your elation as you will. I plan to run naked through the streets with a cardboard cutout of Mr Scalia covering my front and Mr Thomas my rear.

-W.

You're Come a Long... Well, You've Come Some Way, Baby

The Audacity of Hope receives an unwanted reality check:

"As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll" (WP, June 22).

-W.

But I thought we won this war...?

More exciting news from Afghanistan. Remember that place?

More hypocrisy, Anglican-style

It's always so fun when you have meetings of church elders to discuss a return to "traditional values." For example, Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda: "I want that we go back to the first love that the early Church had in Jerusalem, that inspired them to mission, that allowed them to make sacrifices, that we go back to believing the word of God to be the word of God, as it is in the Bible."

Don't these people go to seminary? Don't they force you to read about the "early Church" in seminary? Don't they tell you that... um... well... that there is no such thing as the "early Church" in Jerusalem, or that what the Anglicans now believe--pretty much all of it--has absolutely no resemblance to the "early Church" in Jerusalem? That the "early Church" in Jerusalem did not have a copy of the "word of God, as it is in the Bible," because that didn't exist until the 4th century in Rome?

Man I hate hypocrisy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7468065.stm

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rival meeting deepens Anglican rift

Source: news.bbc.co.uk

Three hundred traditionalist bishops and archbishops - who believe that the Bible outlaws active homosexuality - are staging what is in effect a rival meeting to the Lambeth Conference, the 10-yearly gathering ...

An unlikely alliance of federalists, business leaders and environmentalists

On Monday, environmentalists, governors, and business leaders all won a victory in the Supreme Court. In a split ruling (5-4), the Court answered three questions: (1) states have the right to sue the EPA if it is not upholding federal law, (2) the Clean Air Act gives the EPA “authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases,” and (3) the EPA needs to “re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions.

 

How now? A bizarre case, indeed.

 

First, business and industry leaders siding with environmentalists and governors? It makes sense, if you read the fine print. The businesses/industries in question are quite large and span across many states. Thus, it is much less costly for them to follow a single (i.e., federal) standard rather than having to adhere to a patchwork of individual states’ regulations.

 

Second, the ability of states to sue—individually, let alone collectively—the federal government should not have been a question, according to the Constitution if I understand it correctly. This right is as old as the debate over federalism.

 

Third, I find the Court’s stated opinion odd regarding whether the EPA has the “discretion” to enforce federal law. That is, either this law falls under their portfolio of responsibilities or it falls under some other entity. If not them, then somebody needs to do it, no? Otherwise, what the hell is the point of the law?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotus.dukeenergy.ap/index.html

 

-W.

Polls R Confoozing

Strait from the horse’s mouth—though, judging by the results, it appears that either the pollsters or the American people themselves are not sure to which end this refers.

 

The Pew Research Center put together a Mother of All Polls for your wonk-ish delight, at the following link:

 

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312

 

In this case, the poll is particularly august. Pew has been conducting the same poll since 1987, and the link provides a basic report of the results—both regarding the most recent and the 20-year trends.

 

Among the most interesting (from my perspective) highlights:

 

Of those questioned,

 

-          From 1996-2007 (sans a brief tie in 2002), the percentage of those who self-identified as “Democrat/lean Democrat” exceed Republicans by anywhere from 4-15 points. This makes the Republican majorities and presidential successes over the last 10 years somewhat vexing, lest one concludes that Democrats (and those who lean on them) have a serious allergy to voting.

-          The percentage of those who agree with the following statement has reduced from 51 to 28: “School boards should have the right to fire homosexual teachers.” You’ve come a long way, baby.

-          The number of folks who agree with the statement, “most elected officials care what people like me think” has dropped ten points since 2002, almost reaching the all-time low since the question was asked: 34% (33% in 1994). Apparently Congressional revolutions occur when people realize that those in power don’t give a damn about them.

-          “Young people continue to hold a more favorable view of government than do other Americans. At the same time, young adults express the least interest in voting and other forms of political participation.” All that is missing from these two statements is, “Voting-age-children are either incapable or unwilling to inform themselves about their own government.”

 

Enjoy.

 

-W.

 

Since when does opinion trump accountability?

Now that his former chief of staff has testified before Congress as to his spotty memory, Gonzales is in deep poop. He is really showing his mettle, however; here is his quote from Friday regarding the testimony:

 

“I believe in truth and accountability, and every step that I’ve taken is consistent with that principle. At the end of the day, I know what I did. And I know that the motivations for the decisions that I made were not based upon improper reasons” (npr.org).

 

Interesting. I was not aware that our legal system takes mens rea so seriously. That is, I didn’t realize that an individual—let alone a public servant, let alone one in such a high position, let alone the top lawyer in the country—can respond to calls for accountability and/or transparency with, “Trust me. I know I didn’t do anything wrong.”

 

-W.

Not to beat a dead elephant...

…but I hope everyone is familiar with this most recent insanity. Even the staunchest blowhard now agrees that war planning was delusional. But “delusional”—along with “completely unrealistic” and other such august terms—is the official assessment of the National Security Archive, an independent research institute at George Washington University, regarding prewar planning.

 

Declassified documents released by the NSA show that retired General Tommy Franks—chief strategist for the Iraq war—and other officials predicted that by December of 2006 “the US military projected a stable, pro-US and democratic Iraq” which, by that time, would only require 5000 troops on the ground. Further, they predicted the “stabilization phase” would only be two to three months, “followed by an 18- to 24-month ‘recovery’ stage.”

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm

 

Yikes.

 

-W.

 

Different strokes for different media conglomerates

Interesting headlines.

 

Anybody hear about the recent EU’s parliamentary report on extraordinary rendition of terror suspects? The gist: while condemning some EU governments for their collusion, and while shaming others for their refusal to assist in the investigation, on the whole it chastised the US for running more than 1245 CIA flights through the EU—many of which, their evidence shows, “were subjected to torture to extract information from them.” The report was condoned by a massive majority—382 in favor, 256 against, 74 abstaining.

 

But with every atrocity comes a punchline. Here is how the BBC tagged their story:

 

“EU endorses damning report on CIA.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6360817.stm

 

Here is CNN’s version:

“EU governments accused over CIA flights.”

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/14/europe.cia.ap/index.html

 

Sigh.

 

-W.

 

Insurrection--literally--in the administration

For those of you who didn’t hear, the White House is kind of falling apart. The Libby trial has been the primary stage recently for such exposure of the not-so-disciplined administration which was just recently famed for its discipline. But the most amazing examples have escaped the radar. Here’s the Readers’ Digest version:

 

Today, General Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came out against the administration and Pentagon’s claims that the Iraqi insurgency is supported by the Iranians.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/pace.iran/index.html

 

As you may have heard, GOP senators and congresspersons alike, alongside everyone in the administration have repeatedly stated that the very specter of debate will reduce troop morale (we are divided, therefore we don’t support them and/or believe in what they are doing) while encouraging the enemy. As Joe Lieberman—who helped Republicans block debate of the nonbinding resolution put it—“Our debate here will be heard by Iraqi moderates trying to decide what to do in Iraq. What we say here will be heard by the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria; by the leaders of al Qaeda. This is a resolution of irresolution on the part of Congress, on the ‘eve of a decisive battle.’” (By the way, if you weren’t paying attention, the filibuster was not against the bill, but against even talking about the bill in the first place.) In short, any discussion about the president’s plan “will compromise our nation’s security” (Lieberman again).

 

Interesting. Whenever I hear this stuff, I am utterly thunderstruck at how stupid they think the American people are. Why, you ask? I’ve taught logic in college, so I know a little something about it. Let’s follow the logic of the argument here: debate shows a lack of resolve, and therefore either shows that we are genuinely weak or gives our enemies and our troops the impression that we are weak. Either way, this hurts our cause and troops while helping the enemy. Democracy is based on the idea that debate is good for the country. Dictatorship and despotism are types of government that disallow any debate. Therefore, Dictatorship and despotism are stronger forms of government than democracy. Further, since the GOP, administration, etc. are showing preference for strength and resolve over weakness and debate, they believe that dictatorship and despotism would be better forms of government than our current deliberative democracy.

 

Or: those who make such claims are hypocrites who believe the public will hear their incendiary claims, will see their opponents (the democrats) as weak, and thereby will support the troop surge without ever examining their crappy arguments.

 

But here is the punch-line: On the 7^th, Both General Pace and the new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, testified before Congress regarding the troop surge. They were specifically asked what they thought of the assertions by the GOP and the White House that such debate itself “emboldens the enemy,” as the talking-point goes. Both stated, much to the shock and awe of the administration (etc.), that debate is good, it shows our strength, and that the troops are smart enough (GASP!) to know the difference.

 

Gates: “As a truism from the beginning of time and the time the first Neanderthal picked up a club, you try to see whether your enemies are divided or not, all I would say is that history is littered with examples of people who underestimated robust debate in Washington, D.C. for weakness on the part of America.”

 

Pace: “There’s no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.” Regarding the troops: “They understand how our legislature works. And they understand that there’s going to be this kind of debate, but they’re going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided.”

 

Pay attention to the logic here again. By taking a different tack than the GOP, Pace all but saying that those who claim otherwise believe the troops’ sensitivity to the minutiae of Washington and their melancholy constitutions are stronger than their intellect. Further, both Pace and Gates have all but stated that those who believe debate is dangerous don’t actually understand democracy.

 

Supposedly we are technically in a time of war. Therefore, Mr Bush is the Commander in Chief. Thus, General Pace is his subordinate and an officer. By stating his mind in such a manner as to disagree with his superiors, is the top soldier in the United States technically guilty of insurrection?

 

Regardless, if things are this bizarre right now, I can’t imagine how weird things are going to get in Washington before the next election.

 

-W.

 

Mooninites Revenge!

This applies only to fans of Adult Swim:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/index.html

 

Truly gives meaning to the phrase, “You can’t buy that kind of press.” Please note that Boston PD shut down two bridges, all traffic on the Charles, and blew up one of the “devices” before realizing their mistake.

 

I have one thing to say about that:

 

Update on the Valerie Plame Affair

All the hype this week regarding the coming out parties of Mr Richardson, Mr Obama, and Ms Clinton, followed shortly by the State of the Union, has overshadowed a case of some import: the trial of “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former Chief of Staff who faces perjury and obstruction charges. Remember that guy? Luckily, the BBC does.

 

Highlights:

 

1. The defense team’s opening remarks are nothing short of stunning. Counsel Theodore Wells “said that Bush administration officials blamed Mr Libby for the leak to protect President Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove because of his own disclosures… Mr Libby, who was asked to refute [former ambassador] Joseph Wilson’s criticisms [of Mr Bush’s erroneous claims regarding Iraq’s attempts to buy uranium from Niger], felt betrayed and went to the vice president with his concerns of becoming ‘a sacrificial lamb’, the defense said. After hearing Mr Libby’s concerns, Mr Cheney wrote a note saying that one staffer should not be sacrificed for another, Mr Wells said.”

 

Now that IS interesting. So much for the theories that (a) Mr Libby was taking one for the team; (b) that Mr Rove was innocent!

 

2. Apparently jury selection was gruesome for two reasons: First, “because so many candidates were critical of the White House team, especially Mr Cheney, who is expected to be a major witness.” No surprise here; Mr Cheney consistently polls even lower than Mr Bush—a not too shabby feat. Second, even though “blacks outnumber whites by more than 2-to-1” in the DC area, the jury consists of 10 whites and 2 blacks. Impressive vetting on the part of the defense, I must say.

 

Ugh.

 

-W.

Disturbing Polls

The World Service survey recently did a study of 25 nations—including the US—asking general and specific questions about the role of the US in the international community. These ranged from whether the respondents agreed with our position on global warming to generally whether they thought we provided a positive influence on the world. Now before the liberal amongst you respond with cynicism (“Of course they think we suck—we do!”) and the conservative amongst you respond with spite (“Of course they think we suck—it’s always in vogue to resent your benefactors!”), you should read the BBC write-up of the study. It is beyond disturbing.

 

To give you a tidbit: two years ago the percentage of individuals who responded that the US has a positive impact on the world was 40%. It is down to 29%. If that doesn’t scare you, let’s try domestic opinion. “But among Americans, the number of those who viewed thir country’s role positively fell to 57%--six percentage points down from last year and 14 percentage points down from two years ago.” You know things are bad when even our nationalistic pride is hurting in the polls.

 

Read the write-up for yourselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm.

 

-W.