The Missouri legislature just overrode a rare courageous veto from Governor Nixon on the issue of insurance plans. In Missouri, employers may now unconditionally keep their female employees from purchasing family planning services through their insurance provider. Possible effects include-
More abortions- less family planning means more unwanted pregnancies.
Dangerous precedent- now that religious grounds are all that is needed for an employer to assert patriarchal authority over female employees whose sexual behavior he wishes to control, what guarantee of safety is left to Missouri's women?
I rather think, however, that their ultimate goal is simple- to prevent even a handful of women from being economically independent is a victory in their eyes. They want women to have to have babies at the command of their Lord, and leave "man's work" for "man". This bill will by no means keep all women from working, but it will make it more difficult for women to control their own bodies, and keeping the burden of paying for basic health care -which saves all society money- firmly anchored upon working women, rather than their Capitalist Patriarchs. Glorious day for the army of the Lord, I suppose- if even one woman has an unintended pregnancy and is pressured into keeping the baby, and leaves her job, a man can take it and restore the proudest of American traditions- chauvinism.
I try not to blog angry, but...
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Superman: American Subversive (and why that's ok)
As you should know, I'm something of a nerd. This has long extended to vintage DC comics of the 1930s and 40s, which, aside from their entertainment value, are an interesting window into pop culture of past decades, and yes, I just like comics. I've chuckled at the implications of the stories, of the simplistic villains, and the cloying patriotism of the war years. (There's also the instance of Robin exhorting the children of America to be "Regular", a battle cry to conformity or bowel movement, depending on your perspective). Aside from the typical and comical scenes of Batman outwitting the police before his inclusion as an "honorary member" in 1941, the message is what you'd expect from a period piece aimed at impressionable children- follow your country, the only villains you must face are the foreign, the disabled, and the active women. It hit me recently, however, that the first twenty or so issues of Action Comics (which introduced Superman in its debut publication), there's quite a bit of creative daring at work.
The very first act Superman performs for the benefit of America's impressionable youth is MAN-HANDLING THE GOVERNOR IF ILLINOIS TO COERCE A PARDON OF AN (INNOCENT) CONDEMNED WOMAN JUST AS SHE IS BEING SETTLED INTO THE ELECTRIC CHAIR. This really is exciting, as we see not only the possibility of official error, but also the danger such error poses, and, most importantly, the notion that truth and justice is more important than official opinion is really a bold statement for the times. Just remember, this is less than two decades after the mass censorship and repression of the World War I era, and a children's magazine dared to point out flaws in government which would, if left unchecked, cost an innocent woman her life in an exceptionally brutal fashion.
But wait, you say. The trope of mistaken identity in criminal proceedings is nothing new, and Superman deserves no special recognition for using it as a showcase for his power and character.
Fair enough, but this was his first appearance ever, and forecast a pattern of behavior that can only be described as subversive. One of Superman's next appearances involves him infiltrating a prison to expose the cruelty of the guards and the mistreatment of the prisoners. Not once are the crimes of the inmates mentioned, only their rights to decent treatment in prison. This was in the 1930s, when the country made extensive use of slave labor by prisoners, under conditions even more brutal than those of today.
Further stories depict Superman battling cruel foster care facilities and corrupt policemen, both far more loathsome than their comic-relief counterparts in Batman stories of the area. One of the earliest truly detestable Superman villains is "100%" O'Reilly, policeman extraordinaire who conspires to graft vast sums of money as a reward for stirring up lynch mobs and intimidating citizens. Most memorably in one issue Superman dares to confront juvenile delinquency head on- by a frank discussion of poverty and the hopelessness that had already infested American cities, and, rather than punching the young "criminals" into a prison, he provokes the government into renovating the slums and constructing massive public-housing projects. Simplistic? Yes. Courageous in its daring to blame the system rather than the victims? Very yes.
These writers were kids, daring to publish children's literature openly criticizing standard government practice, and their creation has become immortal as an American icon. This most-loved creation of American pop culture began as a fearless reformer, who dared to stick it to bloodthirsty officials who in any other setting would have enjoyed the patriotic obedience of the people (and still do in real life, of course). Daring to question existing social structures is always commendable, but from a 75 year old piece of children's literature it is all the more notable. Before his transformation into a boy-scout-like champion of the status quo, Superman was willing to attack even villains with a stamp of legitimacy upon them, and to go to any lengths to help the people. What does it say about us that our quintessential mythological creation originated as someone who would stop at nothing to help the people, even breaking society's conventions apart to do it? What does it say that he proceeded to turn into a defender of the order of things, even the excesses of Capitalism? It seems to me that the narrative of Superman as a champion of the oppressed is stronger when he acts from conviction, not from a sense of duty to those privileged few who dominate so much of our society.
All right, I confess I'm tired, and have been listening to John Kerry and Joe Biden speak for the last 2 hours, so my concentration hasn't been 100%. My point stands. Hope to see your thoughts!
The very first act Superman performs for the benefit of America's impressionable youth is MAN-HANDLING THE GOVERNOR IF ILLINOIS TO COERCE A PARDON OF AN (INNOCENT) CONDEMNED WOMAN JUST AS SHE IS BEING SETTLED INTO THE ELECTRIC CHAIR. This really is exciting, as we see not only the possibility of official error, but also the danger such error poses, and, most importantly, the notion that truth and justice is more important than official opinion is really a bold statement for the times. Just remember, this is less than two decades after the mass censorship and repression of the World War I era, and a children's magazine dared to point out flaws in government which would, if left unchecked, cost an innocent woman her life in an exceptionally brutal fashion.
But wait, you say. The trope of mistaken identity in criminal proceedings is nothing new, and Superman deserves no special recognition for using it as a showcase for his power and character.
Fair enough, but this was his first appearance ever, and forecast a pattern of behavior that can only be described as subversive. One of Superman's next appearances involves him infiltrating a prison to expose the cruelty of the guards and the mistreatment of the prisoners. Not once are the crimes of the inmates mentioned, only their rights to decent treatment in prison. This was in the 1930s, when the country made extensive use of slave labor by prisoners, under conditions even more brutal than those of today.
Further stories depict Superman battling cruel foster care facilities and corrupt policemen, both far more loathsome than their comic-relief counterparts in Batman stories of the area. One of the earliest truly detestable Superman villains is "100%" O'Reilly, policeman extraordinaire who conspires to graft vast sums of money as a reward for stirring up lynch mobs and intimidating citizens. Most memorably in one issue Superman dares to confront juvenile delinquency head on- by a frank discussion of poverty and the hopelessness that had already infested American cities, and, rather than punching the young "criminals" into a prison, he provokes the government into renovating the slums and constructing massive public-housing projects. Simplistic? Yes. Courageous in its daring to blame the system rather than the victims? Very yes.
These writers were kids, daring to publish children's literature openly criticizing standard government practice, and their creation has become immortal as an American icon. This most-loved creation of American pop culture began as a fearless reformer, who dared to stick it to bloodthirsty officials who in any other setting would have enjoyed the patriotic obedience of the people (and still do in real life, of course). Daring to question existing social structures is always commendable, but from a 75 year old piece of children's literature it is all the more notable. Before his transformation into a boy-scout-like champion of the status quo, Superman was willing to attack even villains with a stamp of legitimacy upon them, and to go to any lengths to help the people. What does it say about us that our quintessential mythological creation originated as someone who would stop at nothing to help the people, even breaking society's conventions apart to do it? What does it say that he proceeded to turn into a defender of the order of things, even the excesses of Capitalism? It seems to me that the narrative of Superman as a champion of the oppressed is stronger when he acts from conviction, not from a sense of duty to those privileged few who dominate so much of our society.
All right, I confess I'm tired, and have been listening to John Kerry and Joe Biden speak for the last 2 hours, so my concentration hasn't been 100%. My point stands. Hope to see your thoughts!
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
population
Consider this posting 2-days-in-a-row atonement for my previous irregularity in annoying you all with my political beliefs.
I've been thinking a lot about overpopulation. Clearly, Earth is not meant to hold 8 billion resource consuming humans. Long-term security demands that we begin slowing our population's explosive growth, but I'm unwilling to impose stringent child limits like those for which China is so famous. We've seen both ends of government controlling reproductive health- China forcing abortions, and Ceausceau's Romania using secret police as gynecologists to catch any women who were using birth control. Both are abhorrent, as the Right to Choice is essential to all human beings, but especially society's vulnerable and exploited, i.e. women. I am not about to support either.
So, we need a non-coercive way to control overpopulation. I rather think that this is one area where the U.S. can and should take the lead. We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but consume nearly 40% of its resources. Frankly, humanity will benefit much more noticeably from a reduction in our birth rate than it would from an equivalent drop anywhere else. Step one has to be removing the tax incentive for children, at least past the first. This is going to be painful for everyone, not least because having fewer workers will skew our balance of population towards those who have earned their retirement, and suddenly have fewer people to support them. I would remind everyone, though, that economic health is kind of contingent upon actually having resources to consume, and responsible conservation has to be the primary imperative.
Removing the basic tax incentives for large families will help, but should be paired with an expansion of reproductive health care, making sure each baby is wanted. That's the relatively easy part.
Social services are trickier- what of subsidies for child care, or food stamps? What about health insurance? I am unwilling to cover some children, but not all, or to tell a struggling mother that her younger children do not deserve support, and yet these and other tax credits do subsidize unstable population growth. I hope we'll all agree that creating a two-tiered system of "First" and "unwanted" children is every bit as evil as existing class oppressions, and is therefore off the table. I'd like to throw this open for discussion- Is there a way to discourage having large families that will not hurt the most vulnerable members of society?
I've been thinking a lot about overpopulation. Clearly, Earth is not meant to hold 8 billion resource consuming humans. Long-term security demands that we begin slowing our population's explosive growth, but I'm unwilling to impose stringent child limits like those for which China is so famous. We've seen both ends of government controlling reproductive health- China forcing abortions, and Ceausceau's Romania using secret police as gynecologists to catch any women who were using birth control. Both are abhorrent, as the Right to Choice is essential to all human beings, but especially society's vulnerable and exploited, i.e. women. I am not about to support either.
So, we need a non-coercive way to control overpopulation. I rather think that this is one area where the U.S. can and should take the lead. We have about 5 percent of the world's population, but consume nearly 40% of its resources. Frankly, humanity will benefit much more noticeably from a reduction in our birth rate than it would from an equivalent drop anywhere else. Step one has to be removing the tax incentive for children, at least past the first. This is going to be painful for everyone, not least because having fewer workers will skew our balance of population towards those who have earned their retirement, and suddenly have fewer people to support them. I would remind everyone, though, that economic health is kind of contingent upon actually having resources to consume, and responsible conservation has to be the primary imperative.
Removing the basic tax incentives for large families will help, but should be paired with an expansion of reproductive health care, making sure each baby is wanted. That's the relatively easy part.
Social services are trickier- what of subsidies for child care, or food stamps? What about health insurance? I am unwilling to cover some children, but not all, or to tell a struggling mother that her younger children do not deserve support, and yet these and other tax credits do subsidize unstable population growth. I hope we'll all agree that creating a two-tiered system of "First" and "unwanted" children is every bit as evil as existing class oppressions, and is therefore off the table. I'd like to throw this open for discussion- Is there a way to discourage having large families that will not hurt the most vulnerable members of society?
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Impetus for a Prochoice majority to act
I'm sure you all heard what my dear former congressman Akin got himself into. In case you haven't had the stomach to investigate the details (which is fully understandable) not only did he claim that women can simply "shut down" unwanted pregnancy without birth control, but he also accused rape victims of faking their assaults in order to expedite abortion care.
There's really so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. This is clearly the viewpoint of perhaps 30-40 percent(20 percent according to gallup, plus a further 37 that say choice should only be permitted in certain circumstances) of the country, with another third at least dispassionate and uninterested. With this in mind, I find it surprisingly heartening that the reaction has been so overwhelmingly negative. Even the CNN comments section is overwhelmingly anti-Akin. Who knows, maybe people still actually stand up for women's rights...
As I've not yet addressed this topic on this circular, I thought to enumerate my thoughts on the matter of abortion.
As a man, I have significantly greater reproductive freedom than a woman. Whatever the legal and economic consequences being responsible for an unplanned pregnancy on me, I would be spared the physical burdens. This inherent inequality justifies giving women the ultimate authority in this matter. A basic human right is the right to one's own body, and any and all effort to prevent women from exercising this right is simply unqualified evil. My platform on this issue is as follows: Abortion on demand, without exception or apology. Whatever rights a potential human being may have, they cannot compare to those of an actual human being. Therefore, no matter how uneasy I may be made by late term abortions, or by gender-specific abortions, I do not feel entitled to make such a decision for any woman, provided the decision is in fact her own. The aforementioned practices disturb me, but that doesn't justify establishing any cutoff after which women lose their human rights for the duration of their pregnancy. No restrictions on abortion at all.
This can be coupled with expanded sex education, greater access to birth control, and nationalized childcare services, to ameliorate the unequal burden of domestic labor on women in general and working women in particular. Alternately, paid parental leave. We are the only country in North America or Europe not to guarantee paid time off for family building, the most visible manifestation of our culture's indifference to domestic life- that which is labeled "feminine". Sadly, it is often this work, of nurturing, understanding, and caretaking, that imparts senses of social justice in many people who undertake it, including many mothers. But our society not only belittles the importance of this work, but insults those who do it, either by choice, or because they are expected to. I wonder if a society could ever be based on values of compassion and understanding rather than killing, hate, and fear. Surely, such a realm would be truly great. To me, this is what it means to be a cultural feminist- that merely guaranteeing fairness is not sufficient, rather our social value structure must be reexamined, and, if necessary, amended to make for a greater society.
Whew. That started as just a pro-choice argument but went much broader. This is probably why some professors don't like my essays. To hell with that, I like this, and I feel I've expressed my thoughts adequately.
In Solidarität
Genosse Graham
There's really so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. This is clearly the viewpoint of perhaps 30-40 percent(20 percent according to gallup, plus a further 37 that say choice should only be permitted in certain circumstances) of the country, with another third at least dispassionate and uninterested. With this in mind, I find it surprisingly heartening that the reaction has been so overwhelmingly negative. Even the CNN comments section is overwhelmingly anti-Akin. Who knows, maybe people still actually stand up for women's rights...
As I've not yet addressed this topic on this circular, I thought to enumerate my thoughts on the matter of abortion.
As a man, I have significantly greater reproductive freedom than a woman. Whatever the legal and economic consequences being responsible for an unplanned pregnancy on me, I would be spared the physical burdens. This inherent inequality justifies giving women the ultimate authority in this matter. A basic human right is the right to one's own body, and any and all effort to prevent women from exercising this right is simply unqualified evil. My platform on this issue is as follows: Abortion on demand, without exception or apology. Whatever rights a potential human being may have, they cannot compare to those of an actual human being. Therefore, no matter how uneasy I may be made by late term abortions, or by gender-specific abortions, I do not feel entitled to make such a decision for any woman, provided the decision is in fact her own. The aforementioned practices disturb me, but that doesn't justify establishing any cutoff after which women lose their human rights for the duration of their pregnancy. No restrictions on abortion at all.
This can be coupled with expanded sex education, greater access to birth control, and nationalized childcare services, to ameliorate the unequal burden of domestic labor on women in general and working women in particular. Alternately, paid parental leave. We are the only country in North America or Europe not to guarantee paid time off for family building, the most visible manifestation of our culture's indifference to domestic life- that which is labeled "feminine". Sadly, it is often this work, of nurturing, understanding, and caretaking, that imparts senses of social justice in many people who undertake it, including many mothers. But our society not only belittles the importance of this work, but insults those who do it, either by choice, or because they are expected to. I wonder if a society could ever be based on values of compassion and understanding rather than killing, hate, and fear. Surely, such a realm would be truly great. To me, this is what it means to be a cultural feminist- that merely guaranteeing fairness is not sufficient, rather our social value structure must be reexamined, and, if necessary, amended to make for a greater society.
Whew. That started as just a pro-choice argument but went much broader. This is probably why some professors don't like my essays. To hell with that, I like this, and I feel I've expressed my thoughts adequately.
In Solidarität
Genosse Graham
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Supporting Anderson
It's been quite a few weeks. Missouri had our primary- my reluctant choices for congress and city treasurer won, while my passionate choices for sheriff, state senate, and state house lost. More importantly, there was yet another massacre in Wisconsin. I've outlined my thoughts on gun control in the previous post, but I think that the rise of right-wing extremism and overwhelming prejudice make it all the more important to our republic. Not only is failure to act dangerous to all citizens, but it also puts minorities at greater risk of bodily harm. We need real gun control, not just enforcement of existing laws, and not government by the Rick Perrys, Phil Gramms and Charleton Hestons. Our policy is "any gun, anywhere, any time", and over the past two weeks we've seen bloody reminders of how dangerous that is. Good luck and heartfelt apologies to the victims.
On a lighter note, I've been preparing to take the next step in supporting Justice Party candidate Mayor Ross "Rocky" Anderson for president. His campaign is conducting a write-in effort in Wisconsin, where I attend school so I will be able to vote for him. There is, however a snag. Wisconsin law requires any candidate to have a slate of electors representing each of Wisconsin's 8 districts pledged to him, to go vote in the electoral college in the (in this case unlikely) event he is to win the state. The campaign has none yet recruited. I therefore am pleased to announce to you all my candidacy for Presidential Elector of Wisconsin on behalf of Rocky Anderson, and my search for fellow candidates from all of Wisconsin's districts. I ask all of you to rack your brains to think of friends you have in any part of the Badger state, preferably crazy left-wingers like me, but anyone willing and registered to vote will suffice. To reiterate, this is not an onerous task- it consists of filling out a form, which I will mail or otherwise provide to the prospective candidates, sent to the board of elections before October 23d.
If you know anyone in the 1st, 3d, 4th-(yay, Congresswoman Moore!), 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th districts who may be interested, please notify me!
In Solidarity
Genosse Graham
On a lighter note, I've been preparing to take the next step in supporting Justice Party candidate Mayor Ross "Rocky" Anderson for president. His campaign is conducting a write-in effort in Wisconsin, where I attend school so I will be able to vote for him. There is, however a snag. Wisconsin law requires any candidate to have a slate of electors representing each of Wisconsin's 8 districts pledged to him, to go vote in the electoral college in the (in this case unlikely) event he is to win the state. The campaign has none yet recruited. I therefore am pleased to announce to you all my candidacy for Presidential Elector of Wisconsin on behalf of Rocky Anderson, and my search for fellow candidates from all of Wisconsin's districts. I ask all of you to rack your brains to think of friends you have in any part of the Badger state, preferably crazy left-wingers like me, but anyone willing and registered to vote will suffice. To reiterate, this is not an onerous task- it consists of filling out a form, which I will mail or otherwise provide to the prospective candidates, sent to the board of elections before October 23d.
If you know anyone in the 1st, 3d, 4th-(yay, Congresswoman Moore!), 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th districts who may be interested, please notify me!
In Solidarity
Genosse Graham
Saturday, July 21, 2012
gun control is a necessity
Yesterday's tragic shootings were a heartbreaking moment for all of us. My thoughts are certainly with the victims, and I hope all of yours are as well.
What makes this attack disgraceful as well as tragic is that it was thoroughly preventable. The gunman purchased his stockpile legally and carried his weapons legally. Only in America is the right of a madman to arm himself against the big, bad "gummint" more important than the right of the security of the residents of a free state. Can you imagine this happening... ANYWHERE else (with a functioning government)? Madmen like this one do not constitute a well-regulated militia, and certainly contribute nothing to the security of a free state. The ultra-tight background checks proposed by Senator Gillibrand are a good first step, but broader action is needed to keep guns out of criminal hands.
My thoughts are as follows-
rifles and shotguns, and other hunting weapons: I'm not a hunter, and it doesn't hold terribly much appeal for me. That said, my stepbrother, John, does hunt, and after living with him for eight years, I really see no great harm in them, however distasteful I find firearms of any type. Especially considering the volume of shootings conducted with handguns and assault weapons, I don't think we need to deal with these just yet.
Handguns- these are clearly designed for person-person use, and therefore deserve greater scrutiny than hunting weapons. I think monthly psych evaluation for hand-gun owners would be a good starting point, but I would like to see broader action moving towards their ban.
Assault weapons and military grade hardware- totally outlawed. The body count here would have been cut in half had the madman not had a 6000 round automatic weapon. For those nuts who insist that these weapons are for "hunting purposes only", I say that if you need a machine gun to hit something the size of a deer, you have no business holding a firearm of any kind! In short, anyone who wants one of these obviously anticipates having to kill a great many people, quickly. We have the Texas state government, and Obama's predator drones for that. The civilians who want these tend to be right-wing, sovereign citizen-types who pose more of a threat to our security than any foreign agent.
Obviously, criminals will try to acquire guns whatever the laws. But modern technology has reached the point at which we can have our self-defensive cake and eat it too, with non lethal dart-tasers, pepper spray, and so on. To all those who think they can beat the 40-1 odds and use a gun to apprehend or kill a criminal with no harm to themselves, I say to get a taser. As to criminals acquiring guns, no matter if they were bought illegally, at some point those guns were legal, and therefore, standards can be tightened. As a side note, if the government can spy on all of us by the locations of our cellphones, why not install similar tracking devices in the guns of the nutjobs who won't be happy until they get to lead a lynch mob?
This tragedy should leave us griefstricken, but more than that, it should inspire us to declare: Never Again. I hope you join me in calling your representatives, the White House switchboard, (at 202-456-1111), your senators, mayors, anyone at all in a position of power, to ask: what are their plans to control gun violence and get guns off the streets of America? Why should the safety of the citizenry be held hostage to the so-called "right" of a radical fringe to feel secure against the power of the community?
In solidarity
Genosse Graham
What makes this attack disgraceful as well as tragic is that it was thoroughly preventable. The gunman purchased his stockpile legally and carried his weapons legally. Only in America is the right of a madman to arm himself against the big, bad "gummint" more important than the right of the security of the residents of a free state. Can you imagine this happening... ANYWHERE else (with a functioning government)? Madmen like this one do not constitute a well-regulated militia, and certainly contribute nothing to the security of a free state. The ultra-tight background checks proposed by Senator Gillibrand are a good first step, but broader action is needed to keep guns out of criminal hands.
My thoughts are as follows-
rifles and shotguns, and other hunting weapons: I'm not a hunter, and it doesn't hold terribly much appeal for me. That said, my stepbrother, John, does hunt, and after living with him for eight years, I really see no great harm in them, however distasteful I find firearms of any type. Especially considering the volume of shootings conducted with handguns and assault weapons, I don't think we need to deal with these just yet.
Handguns- these are clearly designed for person-person use, and therefore deserve greater scrutiny than hunting weapons. I think monthly psych evaluation for hand-gun owners would be a good starting point, but I would like to see broader action moving towards their ban.
Assault weapons and military grade hardware- totally outlawed. The body count here would have been cut in half had the madman not had a 6000 round automatic weapon. For those nuts who insist that these weapons are for "hunting purposes only", I say that if you need a machine gun to hit something the size of a deer, you have no business holding a firearm of any kind! In short, anyone who wants one of these obviously anticipates having to kill a great many people, quickly. We have the Texas state government, and Obama's predator drones for that. The civilians who want these tend to be right-wing, sovereign citizen-types who pose more of a threat to our security than any foreign agent.
Obviously, criminals will try to acquire guns whatever the laws. But modern technology has reached the point at which we can have our self-defensive cake and eat it too, with non lethal dart-tasers, pepper spray, and so on. To all those who think they can beat the 40-1 odds and use a gun to apprehend or kill a criminal with no harm to themselves, I say to get a taser. As to criminals acquiring guns, no matter if they were bought illegally, at some point those guns were legal, and therefore, standards can be tightened. As a side note, if the government can spy on all of us by the locations of our cellphones, why not install similar tracking devices in the guns of the nutjobs who won't be happy until they get to lead a lynch mob?
This tragedy should leave us griefstricken, but more than that, it should inspire us to declare: Never Again. I hope you join me in calling your representatives, the White House switchboard, (at 202-456-1111), your senators, mayors, anyone at all in a position of power, to ask: what are their plans to control gun violence and get guns off the streets of America? Why should the safety of the citizenry be held hostage to the so-called "right" of a radical fringe to feel secure against the power of the community?
In solidarity
Genosse Graham
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Health Care ruling and Jimmy Carter article
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=1
The first thing I wanted to do is link to that article- it's President Carter's view on Obama's foreign policy/human rights record, and I think it's exactly what needs to be said. Wish McGovern had taken a similar tack in his last book, the more elder statesmen that come out and declare that the Democratic Party's rightward shift is shameful and untenable the better.
Well, happy fourth to all. I think it time to comment on the upholding of the Health Care Reform bill. Many of you know my sentiments, but I will restate the crux of the matter here: Health Care is too important to be determined by the market. It is a right, not a commodity, and no so-called reform bill that allows private profit margins to influence health care decisions will have my support. The Affordable Care act does not meet my standards of even s step in the right direction, as it keeps public health insurance off the table for the vast majority of Americans. I know the mandate is lenient and difficult to enforce, but the fact remains that the government has once again agreed that the profit of the insurance companies is a legitimate consideration, yea even at the expense of the people's health. Obliging the government to foot part of the bill for poor people's treatment with the new subsidies is correct in principle, but as the industry remains profit-driven the offered subsidies will either soon prove inadequate, or bankrupt the government as it strives to keep pace with the rocketing cost of insurance, driven by speculation, inefficiency, and above all the drive for profit.
That said, there are a number of useful regulations in the bill, and had the thing been struck down in its entirety, it would have been a loss. I am personally benefiting from the policy enabling parents' health insurance to cover children until age 26, and once the prohibition of refusing coverage to those with preexisting conditions kicks in, it will be somewhat helpful too. Furthermore, insurance companies are now barred from charging women more than men for the same health care, so that's a positive too.
Of course, none of this changes the underlying problem: capitalism's disregard for humanity. My fears now are twofold- that the government will be weakened by the loss of the sums it must now hemorrhage to feed the insurance companies whose profit motive as recently as 2009 was responsible for the deaths of 45000 people a year, according to Reuters, and that having applied the palliative of "Hope and Change", the nation will fail to undertake serious action to address the root of the problem for a long time to come.
To solve this problem, the first step would be to expand Medicare to all those who want it. This could be paid for by charging reparations from the insurance companies for the damage they have wrought upon us, but I would much prefer a more sustainable solution: namely Socialized medicine. Health care providers should be employed by the government, funded by taxation, and able to help patients without answering to anyone's bottom line but that of their conscience. You can't put a price on the priceless, like good health, but we can certainly learn the cost of the status quo as the quality of care keeps deteriorating to better profit the private companies who now as before have the full support of the government.
Nationalize the lot of them.
In Solidatität
Genosse Graham
The first thing I wanted to do is link to that article- it's President Carter's view on Obama's foreign policy/human rights record, and I think it's exactly what needs to be said. Wish McGovern had taken a similar tack in his last book, the more elder statesmen that come out and declare that the Democratic Party's rightward shift is shameful and untenable the better.
Well, happy fourth to all. I think it time to comment on the upholding of the Health Care Reform bill. Many of you know my sentiments, but I will restate the crux of the matter here: Health Care is too important to be determined by the market. It is a right, not a commodity, and no so-called reform bill that allows private profit margins to influence health care decisions will have my support. The Affordable Care act does not meet my standards of even s step in the right direction, as it keeps public health insurance off the table for the vast majority of Americans. I know the mandate is lenient and difficult to enforce, but the fact remains that the government has once again agreed that the profit of the insurance companies is a legitimate consideration, yea even at the expense of the people's health. Obliging the government to foot part of the bill for poor people's treatment with the new subsidies is correct in principle, but as the industry remains profit-driven the offered subsidies will either soon prove inadequate, or bankrupt the government as it strives to keep pace with the rocketing cost of insurance, driven by speculation, inefficiency, and above all the drive for profit.
That said, there are a number of useful regulations in the bill, and had the thing been struck down in its entirety, it would have been a loss. I am personally benefiting from the policy enabling parents' health insurance to cover children until age 26, and once the prohibition of refusing coverage to those with preexisting conditions kicks in, it will be somewhat helpful too. Furthermore, insurance companies are now barred from charging women more than men for the same health care, so that's a positive too.
Of course, none of this changes the underlying problem: capitalism's disregard for humanity. My fears now are twofold- that the government will be weakened by the loss of the sums it must now hemorrhage to feed the insurance companies whose profit motive as recently as 2009 was responsible for the deaths of 45000 people a year, according to Reuters, and that having applied the palliative of "Hope and Change", the nation will fail to undertake serious action to address the root of the problem for a long time to come.
To solve this problem, the first step would be to expand Medicare to all those who want it. This could be paid for by charging reparations from the insurance companies for the damage they have wrought upon us, but I would much prefer a more sustainable solution: namely Socialized medicine. Health care providers should be employed by the government, funded by taxation, and able to help patients without answering to anyone's bottom line but that of their conscience. You can't put a price on the priceless, like good health, but we can certainly learn the cost of the status quo as the quality of care keeps deteriorating to better profit the private companies who now as before have the full support of the government.
Nationalize the lot of them.
In Solidatität
Genosse Graham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)