Election 2008—The More Things Change… (And Other Rants on Black-America).

Well, it’s been almost a week since the historic and unprecedented election of the 1st African-American to the highest elected office in the nation. And despite the plethora of newspaper headlines, television reports, and radio shows reinforcing this fact, the truth for me is that the reality still hasn’t sunken to the point where I can stop pinching myself. President-elect Barack Obama…has a nice ring to it given my own African-American heritage is concerned.
However, the Elections of 2008 have enlightened me to certain levels of thinking within the African-American community, not all favorable (and I’m sure not to win any friends or influence people with this piece).

Voting:
The day after the election, I arrived at my job as an adult education instructor like always. As I entered the building, I found our most mature and studious student, “Mr. ‘H,’” a mid-50-something-year-old African-American, waiting as usual for us instructors. Walking to the classroom, we engaged in a semi-light conversation about the obvious and its historical significance. During our exchange, Mr. H revealed that the 2008 election was the first time he had voted…ever. His excuse (as opposed from a reason) was that before this past Tuesday, he always thought that no matter who he voted for, “them jokers would always do what they wanted to do.”
Later in the day, I took a minute to read my copy of the latest edition of Ebony Magazine (November 2008). As I opened it up, there was a picture of Ebony’s president and CEO, along with the magazine’s printed endorsement of Barack Obama for president, something the magazine hasn’t done in its entire near 60 year history.
What is troubling about the cumulative effect of these experiences is that they convey the idea that, before now, African-Americans never had a stake in the electoral process. Mr. H’s insistence that his vote never counted before now because of past candidates’ propensity to ignore the black vote has been no doubt shared by many in the black community. While it’s no secret that such feelings are shared in many segments within the black community (thus causing dangerous level of apathy when it comes to our voice being heard), try applying such a mindset to the elderly, who vote their interests in such dependably large numbers and with such unison, that no politician even dares to threaten to retool, revamp, or even talk about its need to do either to social security…despite the fact that all indications are that the current rate of spending will cause its demise within the next 2 decades. While black thinking doesn’t have to be monolithic, its collective voice should be, as most African-Americans’ fates—despite the success of people like BET’s founder Robert Johnson, television mogul Oprah Winfrey and others—are intertwined. But sadly, fragmented political thinking along ideological lines, represented by the likes of Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Cynthia McKinney and others, tends to give the impression that the black community’s voice is not only not unified, but neither are its interests. Will Obama’s election change this? Probably not, as I have seen black ideologues left and right-of-center not only come out against Obama’s election during his candidacy, but have already greeted his ascendancy to office with harsh vocal skepticism and even derision. The more things change…

California’s Proposition 8:
Many gay rights and other activists were appalled at the large numbers of black and Latino support for the controversial ballot measure to amend the state’s constitution to limit the definition of marriage to the traditional union of a man and a woman.
Although I personally feel that marriage is pretty much dead as both an idea and an institution given the current divorce rate and its ever-eroding lack of sanctity in the human heart, it’s hard to imagine that the Founding Fathers could have imagined that human beings of the same sex would ever want to be recognized under the laws and ideas of traditional co-habitation. Granted the fact that blacks themselves were at one time considered “three-fifths of a human being” under the U.S. Constitution, the inherent and obvious argument used by pro-gay activists that such similar rights were eventually extended to African-Americans doesn’t hold water due to the fact that considering black less than a full human being was done only out of a compromise with Southern lawmakers, and not out of the belief that blacks were not (biologically) human beings. But the centuries-long legacy of discrimination of blacks that followed the nation’s founding further confounds these activists as to how and why the black community could come out in numbers of between 70%-80%.
However, if these activists really want to understand why blacks in particular came out in droves against the amendment proposition, all they really need to is look at the current state and history of the family in black America.
In terms of what contributes to the current instability within traditional family unit, African-Americans tend to lead the pack in most categories: teenage pregnancy, single parenting rates, divorce rates, poverty, unemployment, rates of marriage, etc. The last thing that the black community needs is for a re-defining of the traditional family unit driving them further behind the rest of the nation in terms of stability. And within the black community, such a revision of such a traditional notion is all but impossible given the strength and reverence by which the Christian Church and its doctrinal values are held. With respect to the “anyone-who-loves-another-is-a-family” mindset, these activists really need to try and understand African-Americans before they can even begin to impose such a mandate on an already devastated community. It’s not hard to figure out; the strengthening of gay families would mean the further erosion of the black family in a manner of speaking.
Will black support for Proposition change the state of the black family any time soon, probably not likely. But it’s a small measure to defend what little does remain of the traditional family therein. The more things change…

Fashion:
One would think with Obama’s meteoric rise to political superstardom and highest office that his image, including his sense of fashion would rub off on black males.
Did I miss something? When did “Ghetto Stupid” become a fashion trend? What I’m talking about is the trend of sagging pants, “saggin’” as it’s popularly known as. It’s a notion that has divided the black community…some black males choose to sag, while most older, more sensible types choose not to. The style (or lack of it) has even crossed over into segments of the white and Latino communities, no surprise considering that other formerly exclusively black cultural trends have historically crossed over such as music and dreadlocks.
At the risk of sounding like my father, can someone explain to me why it’s even done? It makes no sense beyond the psychological need to become a part of in-group thinking.
I have tried to come up with a logical way to try to create a level of consistent thinking when it comes to my personal dislike and revulsion of this particular trend. I can’t say that it simply offends my (and many others’) fashion sensibilities because the first thing someone would say in defense of the right to “sag” is “what about this group or that group?” And sadly, they would have a decent defense. I mean, doesn’t the gothic sub-culture offends older whites? What about the manner of dress associated with punk-rockers? Heavy metalers? Etc.
Lacking strength in the logic and reason approach, I’ll try the pragmatic approach. Many police officers have publicly stated that they want criminals and would-be criminals to sport the baggy look; the better for police to catch fleeing suspects who were trying to maintain their sense of style with sagging, ankle-bound trousers. In fact, the ‘net is full of stories of criminals tripped up by their sense of style. Now I’m no great fan of the criminal element, but if anyone—criminal or not—doesn’t see the practical side of not wearing your pants to the point where your attention is divided between something as simple as running/walking and holding your pants up with one hand (here’s a clue Einstein...the belt does that for you), then maybe someone should take you off the street so the rest of us do not laugh ourselves into a coronary at such a ridiculous spectacle.
Maybe someone Up There does love us and seeks to protect us from such a fate; cities such as Flint, Michigan and Atlanta, Georgia and others have made it illegal for pants to hang off the body in such a way as to display underwear publicly. Hard to believe that such an idiotic trend would spur the need for even more idiotic laws. But sadly, despite the increase in arrests, the practical side of black males keeping their pants up at the intended waist level hasn’t taken.
So, since I have no logical or practical arguments, I’ll simply become my father and say to all those who sag that you look stupid! Pull your damned pants up! You’re walking around with pants hanging off you’re a**es and you’re wearing a belt…how dumb is that?
Take a page from the Obama playbook. You want to be successful and be taken seriously? Start with a sense of style. Walking around, trying not to fit in? And you wonder why the unemployment rate is so high among black males? You look like trouble. Yeah, I know that you do it to “keep it real.” Real stupid!
Obama, here’s hoping that, in much the same way you addressed the issue of race and the need for black fathers to step up to the plate to take care of their children, that you address the need to make pulling pants up a national priority in America. In fact, I would urge you to move it ahead of the financial crisis!
Will Obama’s successful election change the image of the black male in America? Probably not any time soon. The more things change…

Read More

Vote!!

There is an interesting viral video making the rounds among e-mail inboxes of late. A product of CNNBC Video, it is an amusingly entertaining message video that allows individuals to create a customized parody of a day-after-the-election newscast whereby the named receiver of the video will be blamed for one candidate or the other losing the election by a single vote...his/hers. The video is clearly slanted in favor of an Obama victory, but the overall point--sans the partisanship--is that one vote can make a difference, which the 2000 presidential election clearly demonstrated.
This video emphasizes the need for responsible citizens of a democracy to vote and let his and/or her voice be aired (or at least have a right to air their dissatisfaction with the candidate that wins). In America, where the highest voting rate to date was the record 56.7% of the 2000 election, greater participation is vital to the overall foundation of a fair deomocratic system of government. The nation's rate of voter participation lags behind most other industrialized (and even many unindustrialized) nations. Austrialia for example, with its compulsory voting, has a voter participation rate of some 95%. The U.S's voter participation rate lags behind even Russia, with its relatively recent (and questionable) entry into the free election process. And for African-Americans and other minorities, this right is most important considering that brave activists fought and died to obtain secure it; failure to exercise this right would be akin to spitting on their graves.
If you're looking for a few laughs with a dash of a positive message, this video can be obtained at:

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf.shtml?id=14590-2944885-cLLfgzx&nid=BSERKoj89jS0QHmzszhTgDk1NDMzOA--


The personalized version of this video appears like this:



And for pity's sake, use your right to be heard and VOTE!!

Read More

Survivor: White House Run!

Someone pinch me! Did I miss the television promos of the latest incarnation of Survivor? Survivor…you know the show…the one where contestants resort to trickery, backstabbing, name-calling, and other levels of duplicity in order to win the prize at the end of the season? It seems this particular “reality” TV program is reality…at its most real. My guess is, since I must have obviously not paid attention to those annoying corner graphics that normally distract me as I watch my favorite network television shows, that what I’m watching on television is Survivor: White House Run, or something to that effect.
That’s how I’m seeing the current run for the White House by the two major contending presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. It seems that anything in the way of mean-and-bread issues that concern Americans of all stripes has taken a backseat to politics as usual. We hear the ridiculous dollar amounts plopped down by the Republican National Committee on Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, how John McCain (sadly) doesn't know how to operate a computer or surf the web. On the other side, we hear questions about Barack Obama’s questionable ties to domestic terrorists, his lack of patriotism for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, or Senator Joe Biden’s historical faux paux about how FDR would sit down in front of the television set to address the nation during the Great Depression. So much has been made of these issues that they have inevitably degraded into distortions of reality and truth which has come to symbolize Americans’ discontent with electoral politics. The only Saving Grace this time around is the relative novelty of the race’s candidates; the 1st African-American, 1st female (or Gyno-American if you’re into being PC), the oldest American, and the obligatory white male running for the two highest elected spots in the land.
Despite both the novelty of this election, and the promise of civility (from both sides) of an election where issues would be the focus instead of the distractions of mudslinging and opponent degradation, we have witnessed what could be called “civil muckraking;” gutter politics as usual, but with more gentlemanly articulation. I acknowledge this because, compared to 2004 presidential election where Swiftboating attack ads sank John Kerry’s White House bid and the rush to dig up dirt on President Bush helped bury the network career of Dan Rather, we see a more refined level of nastiness, but with the usual political distractions from the issues. It’s too bad that the Survivor series doesn’t require writers…they could take ideas from what’s going on currently.
Is Sarah Palin’s expensive wardrobe really an issue in an arena where image and image building is not only accepted, but necessary to a shallow electorate (Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debate? The 1st televised presidential debate where the tanned and makeup-laden Kennedy looked like a bronze tiger compared to the plain, go it au naturale Nixon). And what about Obama’s supposedly jab at Palin by his use of the time-worn phrase “lipstick on a pig” remark? He could have just as easily used the equally-aged variation, “perfume on a pig.” Either way, unless one is just so partisan, that he or she is just looking for a way to make this rather innocuous statement about Palin, it’s a meaningless barb. Biden’s slip? Nobody’s perfect, especially us historically-challenged Americans. McCain’s lack of computer savvy? He’s 71-years old…is that so usual a condition among that particular age group? Obama being a "Socialist?" Well, hard to ignore the recent nationalization of banks/lending institutions...if that isn't a socialist move, then I don't know what is.
And what about all this talk about “lack of experience?” This particular distraction non-issue deserves special highlighting because to assume that any American lacks experience for public office reeks of the arrogance of the political class--career politicians who tout the honor in being "public servants." If we truly are The People that the Constitution states that we are, then we are own potential representatives too. And our country's history is full of examples of our representatives coming from among ordinary people, such as Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who successfully launched a campaign for Congress, as was elected on a platform of gun control after her husband was killed in 1993 by an armed man on a New York subway. And lest we forget that an entire myth of legendary proportions was built around a certain rail-splitter from Illinois who eventually became one of the most honored U.S. presidents during this country’s most crisis-ridden period. Finally, the Founding Fathers had no experience in cobbling together the legal foundation of a country, but that didn't stop them…and most of them were home-schooled, lacking the formal education, political office experience, and 200+ years of history as a reference that both Obama or Palin has as advantages. As with most elections--sadly--innuendo, negative aspersions, interpretations of an opponent's intents that border on conspiracy theory, and outright lies have become integral components of the process. However, these shady actions are poor substitutes for "issues" by [the] candidates, or of "reasoning" by the so-called "enlightened electorate." And this latter non-issue is among the most irrelevant of the distractions of the current campaign. To believe that only the "experienced" can be our logical representatives is analogous to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church's doctrine of the "necessity" of an intercessor (e.g., priest) to represent us or legislate on our behalf before the "God" of public servitude.
The fact that these distractions are brought to us by nearly every television network is what blurs the line between reality and “reality TV.” Backstabbing, name-calling, character assassination and outright lying may make for questionable entertainment, but as a basis of picking the leader of our nation and the Free World? Looking at things from a Big Picture perspective, I can’t say that I blame the candidates for these types of engagements…if We The People would learn to distinguish between TV and tv, and stop caring so much about the smoke-and-mirrors of show over the life-and-death issues of substance, maybe people like me wouldn’t have such a hard time telling the difference what we watch and what I’m watching. Maybe then, we could force our representatives to address issues such as this current crisis economy and external threats (not perceived threats). Because as it stands right now, we're all playing Survivor.

Read More

Sarah Palin & The "Great" Debate

Well, it’s the morning after the 1st and only Joe Biden-Sarah Palin vice-presidential debate, and like many political pundits—both professional and amateur alike—I was almost spasmodic with eager anticipation of the expected verbal sparring match, what amounted to a high-profile under card to the Obama-McCain main bout.
Like many others interested in the realm of the political, I watched Palin’s acceptance speech at this year’s Republican Convention, and took note of how, in the following days, electrified McCain supporters and Republican-leaning fence-sitters…albeit briefly.
After basking in the glow of her convention speech and the resulting novelty of her candidacy, the Alaskan governor made the rounds on the television evening news interview circuit, grilled first by Charles Gibson of ABC, and then by CBS’s Katie Couric. To say the least, her performances during these interviews made her look less than stellar. With Gibson, she dances around the question of what she thought about the Bush Administration’s policy of pre-emptive military action in protecting America; her lack of knowledge on the subject was obvious. While with Couric, she looked more like Dick Van Dyke’s old television character of Rob Petrie—answering questions with almost comedic ramblings and stumbling over her own words.
As I watched, I almost found myself searching for possible answers for her dismal interviews. I was considering everything from whether or not she was merely acting the part of a former blonde dyed brunette (in an attempt to lull her Democratic rivals into believing she was a pushover in the upcoming debate. If this were the case, she had missed her true calling as an actress), to whether or not her deer-in-the-headlights appearance was some sort of karma coming back to haunt her, payback for killing all the moose with her hunting rifle (as her supporters often like to tout). Needless to say, she was considered the underdog in the debate by most who had witnessed her meltdown during her previous interviews.
However, during the debate, Palin (although failing to come across as seasoned and knowledgeable as her rival) managed to somewhat hold her own, even if was by way of answering moderator questions with slogans (e.g., “Drill, baby, drill”) and canned rhetoric that adhered to the party line (withdrawing from Iraq was tantamount to America “Waving the white flag of surrender.”). It was clear that she had had some decent coaching by McCain’s staff.
Between Biden and Palin’s almost exclusive ping-pong pandering to the Middle Class voter (in typical high-profile political fashion, the rich were made to have the ethics Simon Legree, while the poor were not even mentioned), Palin’s strategy appeared to be one of talking to the audience rather than answering moderator Gwen Ifill’s questions directly. In fact, she sounded more like she was on a presidential stump rather than directly answering questions in a formal give-and-take (to be fair, Biden did some dancing around questions too). This tactic is sure to go over well with voters already committed and looking for “confirmation,” or to those who vote their passions as opposed to the merits of the issues at hand.
However, and much to her credit, she did managed to interject the need for personal responsibility as a factor in cleaning up the current crisis in the lending industry. When asked “who was responsible for the current subprime mortgage situation,” she cautioned viewers against “living outside our means” (I personally believe that too many Americans do not take personal responsibility into account in policy).
Biden, according to preliminary polls out this morning, appeared by most to seem more presidential, more in command of the issues. However, there were points of order for him that Palin (probably because she is not as skilled a debater or as seasoned as Biden) decided not to take advantage of, such as his voting for the bankruptcy reforms of 2 years ago, and Obama’s vote against the same policy; Ifill seemed more committed to pressing Biden on this point than Palin (a point I personally would have loved to see him try to defend).
After the smoke of the verbal dust-up cleared, both combatants remained standing, much to my personal dismay; given both my love examining the nuances of political theater and Palin’s own previous dismal performances, I was half-expecting a Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle-era knockout. Although she performed well in this particular forum, her command of the issues as well as her green nature in the hardball world of Washington politics was evident. One of her verbal jabs during one the evening’s exchanges seemed to have reflected this as she tongue-in-cheeked, “I guess I'm not used to the way you all do things in Washington.”

Read More

Wal-Mart--Low Ethics!

Like many Americans, I shop at Wal-Mart...an almost economic essential in these trying economic times. However, when I recently received an e-mail from an old friend, I had to stop and re-evaluate my preference for "low prices."
A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article citing that human resources personnel at the nation's largest private employer are routinely walking the razor's edge of law by telling many of it's hourly workers not to vote for presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. The purpose for this is to head off a hint of the possibility of unionization among its workers. Unionizing among its employees is something which the retailer has fought tooth, nail, and claw for years to keep out of its stores, and the retail giant feels that an Obama administration would make federal support for unionizing among the retailer's employees all but certain.
Granted, I knew about the criticism of the comparatively low wages that Wal-Mart allegedly pays its employees (it's why local legislators and activists in the city of Chicago fought hard to keep the retailer from building a store within its city limits, but eventually settled on a compromise in order to build there), but I hadn't a clue as to how deeply involved in the political process my soon-to-be-no-longer favorite store was, or of the extent of its attempt to stymie collective bargaining among its employees.
With the current administration's recent bailouts, takeovers, and loaning of federal money to lending giants Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, American International Group (AIG), IndyBank, Bear- Sterns and others, its easy to see that government is willing to intervene during these trying economic times on the side of business (yeah, I know...that's "different"). However, business apparently views government action on it's behalf an exclusive privilege reserved for only its interests, and not worthy of the American worker. To that end, businesses like Wal-Mart are engaging in full-court hardball tactics such as PAC-funding what it feels to be "pro-business" candidates and informing it's employee who they should not vote for.
Given the current rate of rising unemployment in this country, for some Wal-Mart, the world's largest retail giant and the largest private employer in America, is the only place for potential employment. But being the only game in town should not translate into the right to tell one's employee's whom to vote for, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whomever.
Sure, Wal-Mart can argue that keeping out unions and lobbying its representatives are its legal rights under the law. It can even argue that doing so is why many Americans such as myself are able to spend less money for roughly the same products as compared to other retailers' prices. However, are we supposed to believe that pressing it's employees is solely an egalitarian gesture on the retail giant's part to help you and I spend less money in a challenging economy? You be the judge.

For the complete story of how low Wal-Mart is willing to go to keep out unions, and to what extent it's involvement in the political process is a means to that particular end, please follow the link to the Wall Journal website.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Read More

Health Care is Killing America, Conclusion

So what are America’s options to the current system, which is headed for a critical mass, along with—potentially—the nations itself? First, remove the negative rhetoric. Political and economic interests opposed to revamping a system that is clearly headed toward a meltdown can no longer be afforded the power to control the language of the issue. Contrary to popular opinion and patriotic tradition, “socialized medicine” is not a bad word or phrase. Whether people want to believe it or not, we already have mechanisms in place that, if are not socialized in function, and doing a damn good imitation of socialism. The federal and state governments have been directly involved with the medical care of soldiers, veterans, legislators, children, the aged, and handicapped for decades in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The free market system cannot solve every problem, and it obviously can’t solve this particular problem…if it could, it wouldn't be a problem. A system of universal health care coverage is needed, and its time ideologues faced facts, both federal and state governments are not going to get out of spending something on it. Furthermore, there is no “perfect system” for administering this. Every valiant attempted system that currently exists in the world has some bugs, some issues that makes users less-than happy. Is this an endorsement of a socialist system-based solution, not at all. But one thing is for certain…what we in place have is not working, and it is imperative that a solution be not only found but implemented soon…no matter how ideological distasteful it may be. There is simply no reason for not having a system of affordable universal health care; most polls show that the people want it, many professionals in the health care system want it (an Internet search for organizations supporting universal health care will bring up a plethora of such organizations, both professional and grassroots), and the economy demands it.
Those opposed to any kind of universal health care in America that isn’t founded on solely free-market principles typically cite the long waits for service under “socialized medicine,” systems such as those in Canada and the United Kingdom. I’ve spent many hours in online chat rooms based in those countries, and the conversations would always invariably become political in nature. And since this issue has been a personal crusade for me, I would often ask individuals in those (and other) countries would they trade health care systems with America if given the chance…the answer was always an unequivocal “no!” To them, the inconvenience of a wait is a tolerable trade off for the surety and comfort of not having to struggle with illness, while at the same time trying to figure out how to pay for treatment without going into financial ruin. And it’s a safe bet that opponents of some kind of nationalized health care coverage haven’t ventured out of their ivory-tower or think-tank offices to hospitals in poor urban areas. For many, the emergency room is the personal-physician-of-last-resort where the uninsured go, often to receive treatment for chronic conditions that have progressed because of the hard choice of medical care or material necessity. Unless one of these unfortunates walk in with a bullet wound, a knife sticking out of their heads, or a severed limb hanging on by a single shard of loose skin, there is a wait for service!
We should also look into taking some of the socioeconomic glamour out of the medical profession, and bring a back-to-basics approach back to medicine. Restructuring of the medical profession in America is long overdue. Believe it or not, the medical field wasn’t a vocation where individuals were seeking the social prestige and relative financial security of being a doctor. It was one a purely humanitarian endeavor, staffed by those seeking to alleviate human suffering. If one is expand their outlook and chance stepping outside the limiting mindset of a “realist,” it seem almost unethical to profit from someone else’s misery. In the UK, doctors are civil servants, a position that still afford relative financial security, but without the detraction of social status, or the specter of possible blackballing due to instances of malpractice. It’s high time we think of making doctors government employees. It would weed out the intent of those seeking to become physicians for the purpose of helping others, as opposed to those looking to inflate their egos, as well as their pockets as the sole motivation. Additionally, the division of labor among medical practitioners can be divided along lines based on the severity of the affliction. A well-experienced nurse could just as easily diagnose a cold and prescribe bed rest as easily as well-practiced doctor. The same could be said for nursing assistants and others.
The linchpin in the health care crisis, the complex bird's nest of administration each insurer uses to process payments and patient information, could be reduced significantly. There could be a centralized database used by all health care providers, where each would input all of the information about their patients. All insurers in turn, would be required to access this database in order to acquire the information needed to process payment (and other necessary) information; this would be a huge step toward creating a uniform system of payouts.
In the area of drug prescription costs, we should consider eliminating drug patents. The idea is that with many drug companies competing for a market share of a universally produced drug, we wouldn’t have so few of them charging so much in an effort to recover the money invested in developing these drugs (a chief cost-booster in overall purchase price of prescription drugs). Also, advertising (except directly to medical professionals) and promoting drugs in questionable ways should be illegal. This would mean no perks or bonuses for doctors and/or medical centers willing to prescribe a certain drug manufacturers drugs exclusively to their patients. This would level the playing field of the market and lower prices via fair competition.
Legally, it is a given that the high numbers of malpractice suits must be curbed. Under a revamped system, the merit of all lawsuits could be subject to an evidentiary hearing, in much the same way as impending criminal proceedings. Those wishing to file a lawsuit would have to have them heard before either a judge or an impartial board of some kind so that people whose fingernails were chipped during the removal of a cuticle are summarily dismissed from taking such frivolity into a courtroom.
Finally, a person should be allowed to be relived from the discomfort of a slow, agonizing, and—if artificial means of keeping them alive are employed—costly death. The final choice a person can make should not be subject to the legislative whims of someone bringing their personal religious beliefs into the realm of government. Although I am not intimately familiar with the process of artificially maintaining the life of a person who is essentially beyond hopes of resuscitation or recovery, I have to imagine that it is a costly endeavor. And those brave souls willing to either spare themselves the dishonor of an ignominious passing or their families the burden of having to make the fateful decision to terminate treatment should be allowed to do so. This report is by no means meant to be the end-all-be-all of what can be done to halt the current crisis in the health care system. Nor should it be considered a comprehensive list of possible solutions. However, it should be taken as a template of ideas to bring attention to something that could stop health care’s killing of America.

Read More

Health Care is Killing America, Part 1

Let’s forget for the moment that most Americans simply lack restraint when it comes to our self-indulgent lifestyles; we simply won’t stop overworking, sunbathing, eating processed foods, or drinking and smoking in excess. Not only is this bit of reality a given, but so is the knowledge that our way of life creates a laundry list of accompanying health problems. After all, it’s been said that the aging process is only 20% chronological, but 80% environmental…more of a product of what we do to ourselves than who we are. Ask anyone you know with a particular self-destructive vice why, at the risk of inflicting bad health, do they indulge in such irrational behavior and you will more than likely receive the usual cop-out; “Everything causes cancer!” “I just like it,” and the always justifiable, “You gotta die of something, right?”
Even if such BS were rationally sustainable, it still flies in the face of the human proclivity for trying to remedy a problem after the fact. We have a health care system in America that, for the most part, is based on fixing our individual medical boo-boo’s only after we have abused ourselves with fast living, fast foods, fast driving, and “need” for fast fun. And in much the same way that we have rationalized our counter-productive behavior with fatalism, we have done the same with our lack of resolve in having some kind of universal health care insurance covering all of America’s citizens. Given the current precarious position of the average American’s financial stability, as well as America’s vulnerability in a globally integrated economy, we have to conclude that the current health care system is killing America.
So how is the current state of health care endangering America to the point of our potential decline as a nation? First off, too many people are too quick to adopt the patriotic rhetoric about how America “has the best health care system in the world.” This would be true if every American had access to that “best health care.” But as it stands, such defensive ideological-based rhetoric blinds us to the fact that not every American can afford to have “the best.” Consider the following experience, written by a medical professional:

…I find peace of mind in knowing that if someone runs into my car and tears a fender off I can stand the expense. My insurance company will pay the bill. The same thing is true of fire. If my house burns down I am guaranteed the funds with which to rebuild. If I should come to die I should have the satisfaction of knowing that my life insurance policies will at least keep the family from the poorhouse.
‘But if I or any member of my family should have another serious illness I doubt if I could ever be rid of the debts with which my life would be burdened. I cannot understand why society has not devised some method by which I and millions like me may be assured in advance that we can meet the costs of illness. After all, I am more likely to be sick than to suffer by fire or be robbed or lose my life. Why can I not be protected where protection is most likely to be needed?

This is not a recent article written in a left-of-center leaning publication; it is an article published in the October 1930 issue of The Atlantic Monthly entitled “A Cure for Doctors’ Bills.” Even then, some could see the need to affordability in health care. You read right…1930! One has to wonder how and why such ideological rhetoric has blinded us to this crisis for so long.
At the risk of sounding like a 60s radical, the reason why ideology has so successfully repressed any attempt come up with a solution is that political and economic interests have mastered the art wordplay. More to the point, they have such a mastery over the control of any and all language associated with maintaining the current health care funding model, that it could best described as the “’P’ Phenomenon;” mixing Politics and Patriotism to create Propaganda which controls Policy or even Proposals. This is to say that those interests with a stake in the current model have successfully posed that the free-market is the only way to remedy both universal access to health care as well as control the rocketing costs that’s makes health care affordability prohibitive to begin with. Although there is no law that says that America has to adhere to a free-market solution to any policy, interests have managed over the years to successfully ingrain this notion into people’s thinking to such a degree that even proposed solutions by progressive-minded politicians adhere to this ethos. Anything that remotely smacks of government intervention or involvement in health care is maligned as “socialism,” and is avoided as if maintaining a solely free-market were the chief mandate of the Constitution, which it is not. The reality is that we already have vestiges of a socialist-like mechanism already in policy; the government provides health care to our soldiers and veterans, to our federal legislators, on a local level, states do the same with children and the aged. The more we adhere to secondary political ideologies that prevent us from opening our minds to new solutions for open and equal access to health care, the more we destroy—at least in a philosophical sense—the primary ideological foundation for why America exist in the first place…equal opportunity.
Aside philosophically dying, inaccessibility to health care for those who can’t afford comprehensive (or even partial) health insurance is killing American literally. Who can forget the article in May 2nd, 2002 edition of USA Today, which cited the conclusion of a study by the non-profit Institute of Medicine that blamed 18,000 deaths a year on a lack of health insurance? According to the report, 1 in 7 working-age Americans don’t have employer-provided insurance, and don’t qualify for government medical care; this doesn’t include the estimated 10 million children who go uninsured. According to the latest statistics, between 40 and 50 million Americans total lack health insurance of any kind. The bulk of those individuals who die do so needlessly, lacking coverage for life saving health screenings for diseases such as diabetes and cancer…so they simply go without. The report started talk on many a radio station on the subject of universal health care at the time of its publication. No one doubts—especially after the 3,000 deaths that occurred on Sept 11th—that if we had lost 18,000 of our fellow citizens in a single conventional or terrorist attack that we would have declared war and/or reacted almost instantly. One has to question the lack of an equal response to 18,000 deaths annually due to system of our own creation.
But it is in the realm of the economy where America stands to lose its current life. Since records have been kept, the cost of health care has only risen year after year. Currently, a minimum of between 10 and 20 cents of every dollar spent in America is spent on health care. In 2007, that was equivalent to 16% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or $2.3 trillion; by 2016 it’s expected that health care spending will reach approximately $4.2 trillion or 20 of the GDP, which includes government spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And with an already record-level budget deficit, the nation runs the risk of spending itself into penury. With the more traditionally higher paying jobs moving offshore and supplanted by lower paying service-based jobs, we obviously cannot maintain this level of consumer spending on this single but growing portion of the total economic output of the nation. Many familes already know the potential end result of doing so, as the majority of declared bankruptcies filed in any given year are due to the inability to pay medical bills. Under higher paying jobs, paying for health care was a strain; with the lower-paying positions that have replaced them, the choice simply comes down to—for many—paying for health care or paying a utility bill…in worse cases, it comes down to food or equally-needed prescription drugs. Health care in American has become unaffordable for both businesses and individuals.
The reasons for these soaring costs in health care include the high cost of prescription drugs (a crisis in itself), the high cost of medical technology, and the high administrative cost of the sophisticated multi-payer system that our system is based on. In addition, the high numbers of uninsured contribute to these high costs because chronic or developing conditions, which could be nipped in the bud by way of preventative care, often progress into the more expensive, often more life-threatening condition of whatever their silent or chronic symptoms may indicate. Furthermore, we pay hospitals and doctors in our country more than they’re paid in other countries, particularly medical specialists and specialty institutions, such as the Mayo Clinic and the like. These specialists in turn, tend to rely on the overuse of costly medical technologies and procedures…again in levels that far exceed both their use in other countries and their need in individual cases. And last, but not least, America’s litigious nature—suing for every possible reason as it relates to malpractice claims in particular and health care in general—drives up health care insurance premiums to beyond the reach of many to afford. America’s health care system is questionably the best in the world, but definitely by far and away the most expensive.
And while both the American consumer and employer struggles based in-part on the current health care scheme, our global competitors thrive without such burdens. China, our biggest economic competitor currently has a tiered system that is based on a patient’s location in the country. Under the 2005 implemented New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System, 80% of the country’s rural population is covered state-sponsored insurance, ranging from 60% to 80% coverage of general health claims (under their system, patients requiring specialists have to pay for most of those related services themselves). India, another up and coming economic power in competition with America for a share in the global market, has a system made up of local “government hospitals” which provide treatment as well as selected drug at taxpayer cost. Even though there are shortcomings in their systems, the two most populous nations on the globe—growing economic powers with a combined billion or so potential workers—see the ethical and practical need to cover the cost of health care for its citizens. More to the point, these powers-to-be are challenging America’s economic dominance, and they don’t have businesses in their countries locating abroad in an effort to lower health care-driven labor costs (for a recent in-depth focus on China's rise toward becoming the next preeminent global superpower, see the CBS newsfeed at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/17/sunday/printable4356248.shtml).
These businesses have the advantage of having government subsidized health care for their workers. Their need to fuel their economic growth as it relates to health care, is not stymied by bickering political ideologues, or business interests who seek to maintain the status quo for the sake of inflating their profits. Health care is killing America.

To Be Concluded

Read More