SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: coug who wrote (79314)11/10/2009 11:12:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Jesuit bioethicists take a stand on universal health care...

jesuitbioethics.net

The Moral Case for Insuring the Uninsured:

As health care ethicists, we believe providing universal access to health
care is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it. Much like
our commitment to providing universal access to K-12 education, the
reasons for doing so are both pragmatic and moral. And these reasons are
so compelling that they require us to do what it takes to overcome
obstacles.

Each year, according to a report of the prestigious Institute of Medicine,
approximately 18,000 Americans die prematurely because they lack health
insurance. Persons who lack insurance typically do not seek medical care
until their illnesses have progressed to the point when they can no longer
be ignored. Then the illness is far more difficult (and expensive) to treat.
This simple fact of the death toll from lack of insurance should provide the
moral will to treat this situation as we treat any national emergency that
threatens large numbers of Americans whether that emergency is from an
aggressor such as terrorists, a natural disaster such as Katrina, or a
communicable disease such as swine flu. In national emergencies, we
require our representatives to determine what needs to be done to alleviate
the threat and to appropriate the resources to do it. In such situations we
would be very surprised to hear our representatives or members of the
media talking about whether this was the right time for action, arguing to
slow down the momentum toward action, or debating whether we can
afford to act.

But, of course, people dying prematurely in hospital from lack of timely
and proper management does not capture the moral imagination of the
public the way a terrorist attack or hurricane might. Such suffering is
easily out of sight and mind. Moreover, because most Americans have
health insurance, it is easy to assume the uninsured must somehow be
different from ourselves or to blame for their predicament. However,
while there are some in our society who willfully fail to purchase health
insurance that they could afford, lack of health insurance is usually caused
by unfair or profoundly unfortunate circumstances. Most of the uninsured
live in households in which the head of the household works full time
often for a small business. Not only is it difficult for a small firm to
finance health insurance, but such firms are typically charged much higher
prices for their coverage. Similarly, many persons lose their insurance
when they involuntarily lose their job for a period of time.

Of course, we are never ethically obliged to do the impossible and it is
natural to ask whether we can afford to expand health coverage--
particularly during economic hard times. Nevertheless, the total amount
required to achieve this goal is approximately 3 – 5% of the total spending
on health care in the United States. In other words, the increase required is
significantly less than the rate of one year’s medical inflation. Many
credible policy analysts believe we need to control health care costs in the
long run in our nation. However, it is clear that insuring the uninsured is
not a major part of that issue. In other words, insuring the uninsured is not
a significant part of the problem of rising health care costs in the United
States.

We believe that thinking about our values—values of justice, solidarity,
and compassion—changes our perspective on health care reform.
Currently, support among the public is wavering because of concerns
about cost, funding mechanisms, and what is in it for the person who
currently has private health insurance. From the point of view of our
common values, the final concern is the most relevant. A just and
compassionate society is obligated to try to meet the basic needs of all
members of the community—not every imaginable desire, but our most
basic needs such as food, a foundational education, and basic health care.
Political leadership, if it is to be true moral leadership, must have the
courage and will to push forward legislation that may not please everyone,
but will give all persons access to an acceptable level of health care
services. We become better people when we respond to the arbitrary and
capricious threats to life and the pursuit of happiness that afflict our
neighbor. And, of course, when we guarantee justice for our neighbor, we
do so for ourselves and our families as well should disaster befall us.

The Consortium of Jesuit Bioethics Programs:

James J. Walter, PhD, Loyola Marymount University
Carol Taylor, PhD, MSN, RN, Georgetown University
Mark G. Kuczewski, PhD, Loyola University Chicago
Amy M. Haddad, PhD, RN, Creighton University
James M. DuBois, PhD, DSc, St. Louis University
Peter Clark, SJ, PhD, St. Joseph’s University
Debra Bennett-Woods, EdD, Regis University



To: coug who wrote (79314)11/12/2009 12:51:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
America’s Defining Choice
______________________________________________________________

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Op-Ed Columnist
THE NEW YORK TIMES
November 12, 2009

President Obama and Congress will soon make defining choices about health care and troops for Afghanistan.

These two choices have something in common — each has a bill of around $100 billion per year. So one question is whether we’re better off spending that money blowing up things in Helmand Province or building up things in America.

The total bill in Afghanistan has been running around $1 million per year per soldier deployed there. That doesn’t include the long-term costs that will be incurred in coming decades — such as disability benefits, or up to $5 million to provide round-the-clock nursing care indefinitely for a single soldier who suffers brain injuries.

So if President Obama dispatches another 30,000 or 40,000 troops, on top of the 68,000 already there, that would bring the total annual bill for our military presence there to perhaps $100 billion — or more. And we haven’t even come to the human costs.

As for health care reforms, the 10-year cost suggests an average of $80 billion to $110 billion per year, depending on what the final bill looks like.

Granted, the health care costs will continue indefinitely, while the United States cannot sustain 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for many years. On the other hand, the health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Who are these Americans who die for lack of insurance? Dr. Linda Harris, an ob-gyn in Oregon tells of Sue, a 31-year-old patient of hers. Sue was a single mom who worked hard — sometimes two jobs at once — to ensure that her beloved daughter would enjoy a better life.

Sue’s jobs never provided health insurance, and Sue felt she couldn’t afford to splurge on herself to get gynecological checkups. For more than a dozen years, she never had a Pap smear, although one is recommended annually. Even when Sue began bleeding and suffering abdominal pain, she was reluctant to see a doctor because she didn’t know how she would pay the bills.

Finally, Sue sought help from a hospital emergency room, and then from the low-cost public clinic where Dr. Harris works. Dr. Harris found that Sue had advanced cervical cancer. Three months later, she died. Her daughter was 13.

“I get teary whenever I think about her,” Dr. Harris said. “It was so needless.”

Cervical cancer has a long preinvasive stage that can be detected with Pap smears, and then effectively treated with relatively minor procedures, Dr. Harris said.

“People talk about waiting lines in Canada,” Dr. Harris added. “I say, well, at least they have a line to wait in.”

Based on the numbers from the Harvard study, a person like Sue dies as a consequence of lack of health care coverage every 12 minutes in America. As many people die every three weeks from lack of health insurance as were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Health coverage is becoming steadily more precarious as companies try to cut costs and insurance companies boost profits by denying claims and canceling coverage of people who get sick. I grew up on a farm in Yamhill, Ore., where we sometimes had greased pig contests. I’m not sure which is harder: getting a good grip on a greased hog or wrestling with an insurance company trying to avoid paying a claim it should.

Joe Lieberman, a pivotal vote in the Senate, says he recognizes that there are problems and would like reform, but he denounces “another government health insurance entitlement, the government going into the health insurance business.” Look out — it sounds as if Mr. Lieberman is planning to ax Medicare.

The health reform legislation in Congress is imperfect, of course. It won’t do enough to hold down costs; it may restrict access even to private insurance coverage for abortion services; it won’t do enough to address public health or unhealthy lifestyles.

Likewise, troop deployment plans in Afghanistan are imperfect. Some experts think more troops will help. Others think they will foster a nationalist backlash and feed the insurgency (that’s my view).

So where’s the best place to spend $100 billion a year? Is it on patrols in Helmand? Or is it to refurbish our health care system so that people like Sue don’t die unnecessarily every 12 minutes?

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: coug who wrote (79314)11/16/2009 5:49:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Biggest State Party to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan

by Norman Solomon

Published on Monday, November 16, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

This week begins with a significant new straw in the political wind for President Obama to consider. The California Democratic Party has just sent him a formal and clear message: Stop making war in Afghanistan.

Overwhelmingly approved on Sunday by the California Democratic Party's 300-member statewide executive board, the resolution is titled "End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan."

The resolution supports "a timetable for withdrawal of our military personnel" and calls for "an end to the use of mercenary contractors as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties." Advocating multiparty talks inside Afghanistan, the resolution also urges Obama "to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid."

While Obama weighs Afghanistan policy options, the California Democratic Party's adoption of the resolution is the most tangible indicator yet that escalation of the U.S. war effort can only fuel opposition within the president's own party -- opposition that has already begun to erode his political base.

Participating in a long-haul struggle for progressive principles inside the party, I co-authored the resolution with savvy longtime activists Karen Bernal of Sacramento and Marcy Winograd of Los Angeles.

Bernal, the chair of the state party's Progressive Caucus, said on Sunday night: "Today's vote formalized and amplified what had been, up to now, an unspoken but profoundly understood reality -- that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. What's more, the vote signified an acceptance of what is sure to be a continued and growing culture of resistance to current administration policies on the matter within the party. This is absolutely huge. Now, there can be no disputing the fact that the overwhelming majority of California Democrats are not only saying no to escalation, but no to our continued military presence in Afghanistan, period. The California Democratic Party has spoken, and we want the rest of the country to know."

Winograd, who is running hard as a grassroots candidate in a primary race against pro-war incumbent Rep. Jane Harman, had this to say: "We need progressives in every state Democratic Party to pass a similar resolution calling for an end to the U.S. occupation and air war in Afghanistan. Bring the veterans to the table, bring our young into the room, and demand an end to this occupation that only destabilizes the region. There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that requires we cease our role as occupiers if we want our voices to be heard. Yes, this is about Afghanistan -- but it's also about our role in the world at large. Do we want to be global occupiers seizing scarce resources or global partners in shared prosperity? I would argue a partnership is not only the humane choice, but also the choice that grants us the greatest security."

Speaking to the resolutions committee of the state party on Saturday, former Marine Corporal Rick Reyes movingly described his experiences as a warrior in Afghanistan that led him to question and then oppose what he now considers to be an illegitimate U.S. occupation of that country.

Another voice of disillusionment reached party delegates when Bernal distributed a copy of the recent resignation letter from senior U.S. diplomat Matthew Hoh, sent after five months of work on the ground in Afghanistan. "I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan," he wrote. "If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons."

Hoh's letter added that "I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan." And he wrote: "Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will never heal or will only worsen with time. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made."

From their own vantage points, many of the California Democratic Party leaders who voted to approve the out-of-Afghanistan resolution on Nov. 15 have gone through a similar process. They've come to see the touted reasons for the U.S. war effort as specious, the mission as Sisyphean and the consequences as profoundly unacceptable.

Sometime in the next few days, President Obama is likely to learn that the California Democratic Party has approved an official resolution titled "End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan." But will he really get the message?