My step-son was "30 seconds" late for school yesterday and the school had its usual response (email and phone call about the brutal deed). Yesterday he also did a "good deed" reporting to the office a car's turn signal being on along the school. Were these extenuating circumstances where a parent should intervene?
My partner and step-son are nearly always "on the edge" of being on time to school. The idea of leaving a few minutes early regularly so that he'd be there five minutes early is a totally foreign concept (e.g. a waste of precious time and an impossibility). He's been a few minutes late before.
Playing competitive bridge with a regular partner he told me that I shouldn't have corrected an opponent when s/he conceded the last trick of the hand to me. In fact s/he shouldn't have lost that trick (e.g. if s/he simply played their card they would win the trick). I told my partner that I wouldn't be dishonest in such situations (period).
We often face situations in life where we make choices as to how we view things. How we look at them shapes how we respond.
I find that I tend to look at situations and say to myself:
1.) Is there an issue of principle here in this moment?
2.) Does this really matter?
3.) Am I:
a. 100% right?
b. 100% wrong?
c. Mostly right?
d. Mostly wrong?
e. Partially at fault - unclear as to amount?
f. Is there no "right" or "wrong" here - but it matters to the other person?
g. Other - ?
I try to think of the situation and the other person and look at How important it is that I "win" or not. What lessons are here for me (and for the other person(s))?
Feelings certainly matter!
I also think of how we can work towards the future on the itsy bitsy issue and the larger issues that I see.
How can we move to both be assertive and to work at a micro level towards a better world of communication and compromises?
Thank you!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
46 Days of Palestinian Videos
I have now watched 46 days of videos on You Tube of “Sleepless in Gaza and Jerusalem” . Six days a week Palestinian women (primarily media producers) in Jerusalem, Gaza and Ramallah are videotaped talking with Palestinian people in various settings. While certainly the videos are “political” they also tell a story which a critical viewer can not readily ignore. They expose life in its complexities amongst Palestinians. They show the diversity of the people of the West Bank and Gaza.
The more that I watch the more that I feel a variety of things including shame, anger, admiration, sadness and much more.
Before I began watching the videos I was not aware that Gaza had an educated middle class population as well as people in poverty. I’ve also learned of different communities within the West Bank such as the Samaritans, whose religious faith seems closer to Judiasm than to Islam.
It seems increasingly obvious to me that the Israeli leadership unfortunately either does not want a peaceful permanent settlement with the Palestinians or is so scared of Palestinians per se, that nothing will convince them of genuine cooperation from “the other side”. In either case, it clearly is a situation where the status quo will not change for the better without increasing pressures to force serious negotiations on the part of the Israeli leadership.
It also seems obvious that “peace” is more than creating borders (which is most difficult in of itself). Peace is a recognition that the Palestinian people are the equals of the Jews of Israel. The situation seems clearly similar to how the dominant feelings were in the U.S. amongst White People in relation to Blacks in perhaps the late 1940’s. At that time talking of “freedom” for Black people did Not mean that a Black person would have the right to buy a house next door to a White person. That was “radical” and not realistic.
Today it is “radical” to deem Palestinian needs for water and other resources as being equal to those of the Israeli Jews.
Absent a radical shift in Israeli perspectives whereby Palestinians are miraculously turned into people who accept Palestinians as – “just like us”, building a future peace is in some ways much more complex.
There is a now a total paradox between two conflicting “realities”. With Israel so powerful and Palestinians in a weak position, seemingly Palestinians will need to compromise greatly on whatever is “reasonable” to achieve a true peace.
At the same time the combination of Israeli superiority complexes and their fears of Palestinians requires that Palestinians have a very secure, established state established where Israeli interference in internal affairs Can Not be carried out (as is done today).
It is often stated in the Israeli and American presses that the Palestinians and Arabs have repeatedly been shown to be “untrustworthy” and worse. What is not said is how the increasing apartheid or similar on the West Bank builds upon pre-existing feelings and makes peace more and more difficult to achieve.
Clearly any peace agreement will require that the West Bank be a single, contiguous Palestinian country, with No Israeli “islands” within it. IF there are to be any sites that Israelis maintain access to and partial control over they will need to be under the ultimate control of the Palestinian State. Israel’s recent track record has shown unfortunately that it can not be trusted to be fair and accepting and just to the Palestinians.
Perhaps 15 years ago it might have been possible for some small areas to remain under Israeli control surrounded by a Palestinian State. Ironically now as Israel expands its settlements trying to create “new realities” it seals future possibilities. The choices are either a total Apartheid and a state of permanent near war if not low level combat or a very clearly separated two state solution. (One can only hope that with a two state solution that continued trade and commerce and other existing connections can be continued and developed in new non-exploitative ways.)
It is sad to look back and see how things could have and should have been done differently. Absent the corrupt and ignorant leadership of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Israel might well have come to be a much smaller state than it now is. Absent the poor leadership of the neighboring Arab countries, peace might have been possible before the 1967 War.
It is easy to see how some of the Arabs of the Middle East have made mistakes and helped, particularly going back many years, in helping allow things to get bad for the Palestinian cause. One can also readily criticize the leadership of Arafat in various ways and use him as an excuse for various failures.
It is more difficult to look back with criticism upon how Israel has become a world military power and the oppressor of an entire people. It is more difficult to see how we as Americans have developed into both the apologist for and the key force preventing peace from developing in the Middle East.
It is fortunate now that President Obama is seeing how Palestine-Israel is a prime impediment to stopping the growth of radical Islam in much of the Muslim world. I can only hope that his insights will lead to real change in U.S. policy, despite the intense pressures in the U.S. to maintain that status quo via Israel and the Palestinians.
Thank you!
The more that I watch the more that I feel a variety of things including shame, anger, admiration, sadness and much more.
Before I began watching the videos I was not aware that Gaza had an educated middle class population as well as people in poverty. I’ve also learned of different communities within the West Bank such as the Samaritans, whose religious faith seems closer to Judiasm than to Islam.
It seems increasingly obvious to me that the Israeli leadership unfortunately either does not want a peaceful permanent settlement with the Palestinians or is so scared of Palestinians per se, that nothing will convince them of genuine cooperation from “the other side”. In either case, it clearly is a situation where the status quo will not change for the better without increasing pressures to force serious negotiations on the part of the Israeli leadership.
It also seems obvious that “peace” is more than creating borders (which is most difficult in of itself). Peace is a recognition that the Palestinian people are the equals of the Jews of Israel. The situation seems clearly similar to how the dominant feelings were in the U.S. amongst White People in relation to Blacks in perhaps the late 1940’s. At that time talking of “freedom” for Black people did Not mean that a Black person would have the right to buy a house next door to a White person. That was “radical” and not realistic.
Today it is “radical” to deem Palestinian needs for water and other resources as being equal to those of the Israeli Jews.
Absent a radical shift in Israeli perspectives whereby Palestinians are miraculously turned into people who accept Palestinians as – “just like us”, building a future peace is in some ways much more complex.
There is a now a total paradox between two conflicting “realities”. With Israel so powerful and Palestinians in a weak position, seemingly Palestinians will need to compromise greatly on whatever is “reasonable” to achieve a true peace.
At the same time the combination of Israeli superiority complexes and their fears of Palestinians requires that Palestinians have a very secure, established state established where Israeli interference in internal affairs Can Not be carried out (as is done today).
It is often stated in the Israeli and American presses that the Palestinians and Arabs have repeatedly been shown to be “untrustworthy” and worse. What is not said is how the increasing apartheid or similar on the West Bank builds upon pre-existing feelings and makes peace more and more difficult to achieve.
Clearly any peace agreement will require that the West Bank be a single, contiguous Palestinian country, with No Israeli “islands” within it. IF there are to be any sites that Israelis maintain access to and partial control over they will need to be under the ultimate control of the Palestinian State. Israel’s recent track record has shown unfortunately that it can not be trusted to be fair and accepting and just to the Palestinians.
Perhaps 15 years ago it might have been possible for some small areas to remain under Israeli control surrounded by a Palestinian State. Ironically now as Israel expands its settlements trying to create “new realities” it seals future possibilities. The choices are either a total Apartheid and a state of permanent near war if not low level combat or a very clearly separated two state solution. (One can only hope that with a two state solution that continued trade and commerce and other existing connections can be continued and developed in new non-exploitative ways.)
It is sad to look back and see how things could have and should have been done differently. Absent the corrupt and ignorant leadership of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Israel might well have come to be a much smaller state than it now is. Absent the poor leadership of the neighboring Arab countries, peace might have been possible before the 1967 War.
It is easy to see how some of the Arabs of the Middle East have made mistakes and helped, particularly going back many years, in helping allow things to get bad for the Palestinian cause. One can also readily criticize the leadership of Arafat in various ways and use him as an excuse for various failures.
It is more difficult to look back with criticism upon how Israel has become a world military power and the oppressor of an entire people. It is more difficult to see how we as Americans have developed into both the apologist for and the key force preventing peace from developing in the Middle East.
It is fortunate now that President Obama is seeing how Palestine-Israel is a prime impediment to stopping the growth of radical Islam in much of the Muslim world. I can only hope that his insights will lead to real change in U.S. policy, despite the intense pressures in the U.S. to maintain that status quo via Israel and the Palestinians.
Thank you!
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Easter - Jerusalem - etc.
Today is Easter. I am Jewish. In my past life Easter has had meanings limited to trivia – such as having commercially bought Easter chocolate eggs given by others. Pesach – Passover proximate to Easter always carried whatever feelings I had in my past life.
Today I watched several episodes of the You Tube videos: “Sleepless in Gaza and Jerusalem” (particularly episodes 34A and B) which showed Christian (including Greek Orthodox) attempts at prayers in Jerusalem, the West Bank and finally Gaza from yesterday.
Today I saw much which made me both sad and angry, as well as appreciative of how the spirits of people can continue while they are visibly oppressed by others.
In all the locations I saw Christians, a minority of the Palestinian community, trying to pray and appreciate their historic religious traditions.
In Jerusalem (particularly) the senseless harassment of religious people was most vivid! Christian people were unable to come from the West Bank to pray for Easter because they were “not Israeli citizens” (hardly an acceptance and tolerance of non-Jews).
Yesterday I had seen a Greek Orthodox service from Friday which was beautiful.
Today (yesterday when filmed) the host initially was unable to enter the Old City (of Jerusalem) through the New Gate because it was blocked by Israeli soldiers. She continued in her efforts to get to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a most important site in the history of Christianity. Hundreds of people were waiting and waiting and waiting for the gate to (hopefully) be opened.
The host successfully entered the Damascus Gate, but again her way was blocked as it was to all (who didn’t reside in the blocked area). She continued to try a third way of getting to the area of the Church and it too was blocked. Then a scout band came to the blocked spot. The Israeli authorities let the band go through, also letting the host and her camera person enter.
The host then witnessed the procession from the Church as she had hoped to do.
The other people shown on camera were routinely kept out of the area of the church, regardless of any mitigating factors. There were no stones, no angry words or yelling, no gatherings of young boys or youths who were “threatening”.
On the “other side” (where she was let in) the people were no different from those who were kept out (except those inside had arrived earlier). There was no “security screening” or other such actions.
This was simply (religious) harassment of Palestinians (who were harassed because they are Palestinians) as well as affecting some other pilgrims from outside.
It is obvious that Israeli leadership wants Jerusalem to be “Jewish” which it is not. Jerusalem is both Israeli and Palestinian as well as Jewish, Moslem, Catholic and Greek Orthodox (and other smaller religions).
It seems obvious to me that what has happened recently in the Old City of Jerusalem is a perfect example as to Why any lasting peace settlement can Not simply have Jerusalem as an Israeli (Jewish) City. The “benevolent” (current) leadership will not fairly oversee the needs of the non-Jewish faiths that are also in the Old City. There is no intifada. There is no major unrest.
Where unrest does occur it generally is instigated by Israelis or is in reaction to harsh, unfair measures of the Israelis.
It is unfortunate, but true, that Israel has become “the oppressor”. I can no longer say that it is “radicals” on both sides that prevents peace. That might have been true several decades ago.
I hope that things will change for the better! I can’t imagine this happening until the growing international movements seeking divestment and boycotts of Israel grow. I can’t imagine this happening until the U.S. Government becomes a real mediator, and not a cheerleader for the Israeli Government, occasionally slapping Israel’s hands.
Peace is possible! It isn’t easy and it won’t be easy! Thanks!
Today I watched several episodes of the You Tube videos: “Sleepless in Gaza and Jerusalem” (particularly episodes 34A and B) which showed Christian (including Greek Orthodox) attempts at prayers in Jerusalem, the West Bank and finally Gaza from yesterday.
Today I saw much which made me both sad and angry, as well as appreciative of how the spirits of people can continue while they are visibly oppressed by others.
In all the locations I saw Christians, a minority of the Palestinian community, trying to pray and appreciate their historic religious traditions.
In Jerusalem (particularly) the senseless harassment of religious people was most vivid! Christian people were unable to come from the West Bank to pray for Easter because they were “not Israeli citizens” (hardly an acceptance and tolerance of non-Jews).
Yesterday I had seen a Greek Orthodox service from Friday which was beautiful.
Today (yesterday when filmed) the host initially was unable to enter the Old City (of Jerusalem) through the New Gate because it was blocked by Israeli soldiers. She continued in her efforts to get to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a most important site in the history of Christianity. Hundreds of people were waiting and waiting and waiting for the gate to (hopefully) be opened.
The host successfully entered the Damascus Gate, but again her way was blocked as it was to all (who didn’t reside in the blocked area). She continued to try a third way of getting to the area of the Church and it too was blocked. Then a scout band came to the blocked spot. The Israeli authorities let the band go through, also letting the host and her camera person enter.
The host then witnessed the procession from the Church as she had hoped to do.
The other people shown on camera were routinely kept out of the area of the church, regardless of any mitigating factors. There were no stones, no angry words or yelling, no gatherings of young boys or youths who were “threatening”.
On the “other side” (where she was let in) the people were no different from those who were kept out (except those inside had arrived earlier). There was no “security screening” or other such actions.
This was simply (religious) harassment of Palestinians (who were harassed because they are Palestinians) as well as affecting some other pilgrims from outside.
It is obvious that Israeli leadership wants Jerusalem to be “Jewish” which it is not. Jerusalem is both Israeli and Palestinian as well as Jewish, Moslem, Catholic and Greek Orthodox (and other smaller religions).
It seems obvious to me that what has happened recently in the Old City of Jerusalem is a perfect example as to Why any lasting peace settlement can Not simply have Jerusalem as an Israeli (Jewish) City. The “benevolent” (current) leadership will not fairly oversee the needs of the non-Jewish faiths that are also in the Old City. There is no intifada. There is no major unrest.
Where unrest does occur it generally is instigated by Israelis or is in reaction to harsh, unfair measures of the Israelis.
It is unfortunate, but true, that Israel has become “the oppressor”. I can no longer say that it is “radicals” on both sides that prevents peace. That might have been true several decades ago.
I hope that things will change for the better! I can’t imagine this happening until the growing international movements seeking divestment and boycotts of Israel grow. I can’t imagine this happening until the U.S. Government becomes a real mediator, and not a cheerleader for the Israeli Government, occasionally slapping Israel’s hands.
Peace is possible! It isn’t easy and it won’t be easy! Thanks!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Health Reform - Interesting Week
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats in the House of Representatives "perform" this week as the (potential) health care vote nears.
On the "left" we have some who are not willing to give any more and could vote against the bill if it is unduly (more) restrictive on abortion.
On the "right" we have the die hard opponents of abortion rights.
Other smaller issues similarly divide.
The drug companies and hospitals have been "bought off" to support a situation where seemingly they will do better than the status quo. The Chamber of Commerce interests merge with the Republican issues and matter only in how strongly they can lobby with the conservative Democrats.
If the Democrats win the vote this week it will be a moderately impressive success at allowing some to "duck and cover" and vote against the bill, while having enough votes to just barely win. Unless the Democrats can effectively get votes from both the right and left they will be doomed to a serious defeat.
One can hope that enough Democrats in the end will recognize the obvious paralysis of the party if the vote doesn't go through and vote for it. If the bill passes, the Democrats road will still be difficult. If the bill fails, the path will be pretty hopeless both for future legislation and the 2010 elections.
If the bill succeeds, it will obviously be necessary for future legislation to add to the "reform" so that cost savings actually occur. Otherwise, costs will continue to skyrocket with some more people potentially covered.
It is sad that Obama won't ask both houses to vote on a non-binding resolution in support of a public option to see if the votes are there to pass it. That clearly could either unite the Democrats or spell their doom (and the risk is probably too great to try that).
Perhaps some day I'll live long enough to see single payer - and a "destruction" of our current health care mess. That seems unlikely until and unless Congress passes serious legislation limiting the powers of "private interests" to own individual Congresspersons. That seems a long, long way away! Thanks!
On the "left" we have some who are not willing to give any more and could vote against the bill if it is unduly (more) restrictive on abortion.
On the "right" we have the die hard opponents of abortion rights.
Other smaller issues similarly divide.
The drug companies and hospitals have been "bought off" to support a situation where seemingly they will do better than the status quo. The Chamber of Commerce interests merge with the Republican issues and matter only in how strongly they can lobby with the conservative Democrats.
If the Democrats win the vote this week it will be a moderately impressive success at allowing some to "duck and cover" and vote against the bill, while having enough votes to just barely win. Unless the Democrats can effectively get votes from both the right and left they will be doomed to a serious defeat.
One can hope that enough Democrats in the end will recognize the obvious paralysis of the party if the vote doesn't go through and vote for it. If the bill passes, the Democrats road will still be difficult. If the bill fails, the path will be pretty hopeless both for future legislation and the 2010 elections.
If the bill succeeds, it will obviously be necessary for future legislation to add to the "reform" so that cost savings actually occur. Otherwise, costs will continue to skyrocket with some more people potentially covered.
It is sad that Obama won't ask both houses to vote on a non-binding resolution in support of a public option to see if the votes are there to pass it. That clearly could either unite the Democrats or spell their doom (and the risk is probably too great to try that).
Perhaps some day I'll live long enough to see single payer - and a "destruction" of our current health care mess. That seems unlikely until and unless Congress passes serious legislation limiting the powers of "private interests" to own individual Congresspersons. That seems a long, long way away! Thanks!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Two Parables - Oppression - I Can't See (Fully) Inside
Yesterday I wrote about - Wrong Place, Wrong Time, John Rich's fascinating book. (Now I'd like to say a little more related to what I read in this book.)
A. Parable One:
Roy Martin, as John Rich described him, is an admirable man who has struggled and moved from the inner city world of his youth to successfully working to help youths growing up as he grew up. He has moved, with serious struggle, to a middle class world, though it hasn't been and isn't easy for him.
At one time Roy Martin was just completing a period as an intern at Senator Kerry's Office when he totally disappeared from Senator Kerry's Staff and John Rich. While Rich could not reach Martin, he heard that he was "ok" but needed to take care of some things before he could be reachable and in contact again.
After being unreachable for close to a year, Rich was able to contact Martin and was together with him briefly. Martin was clearly stressed and scared. He disclosed little as to what was going on but indicated that he was doing what he needed to do and would be in touch when things were worked out.
Close to a year later Martin reappeared and began working for Senator Kerry again. John Rich then learned that Martin had been getting his hair cut when a young man from his past came into the barber shop, clearly being about to physically attack him.
Martin escaped and realized that he'd not gotten free of his past, He felt that he needed to resolve things (privately) before he could move forward in his life. He did not want to face a situation where he might be attacked while working for Senator Kerry or being with John Rich. He did not want to have his violent past thrust into the lives of his new mentors and supporters in his middle class, predominantly White worlds.
Rich evidently never learned details as to how Martin made peace with those who wanted to attack him. He was only clear that he'd not attacked or killed others in achieving what he had sought.
While I can understand the words and appreciate much here this is a totally foreign type of life experience in my White World.
B. Interlude:
I've lived mostly in a "safe White world". As a child I had no fears of "criminals" attacking me, burglars or robbers invading our home or other things that might have been more common in poorer, often minority, often urban communities.
As an adult my life has similarly been mostly "safe" and isolated from the complexities of worlds of murders, serious drug problems, and other such issues. I have had moments of drama such as the two times I was held up at gunpoint in Chicago (1970's) and Oakland (1990's), not living in isolation.
As a child there were, of course, things that happened. My father died of stomach cancer when I was 13 and my brother was 11. A boy I knew (part of the Jewish community of our town) died at a junior high school football practice after choking on his own vomit. Others faced serious obstacles in their lives.
Two stories I've recounted previously stick in my mind relating to oppressions:
1. During my men's anti-rape organizing period in the mid-1980's - I remember the quoted story (in a video I think) of a woman who was the majority leader of one of the legislative branches of the Wisconsin State Government at the time. She indicated that despite the power that she wielded at the state capitol, when she stepped into the nearby parking garage at night, she was just another woman trying to be careful that she not sexually assaulted by a man who might be hidden from her sight.
2. At a men's retreat I attended in California a little later in the 1980's I remember a man I talked with (who was Black). He'd co-hosted a major session on racism with a White ally/friend earlier. In that session he'd encountered much resistance to his statements regarding racism and oppression. Other men had talked of how he shouldn't talk at them in the tone/style he used, because they'd faced oppressions themselves - related to abuse and homophobia. Talking privately he confided to me that he'd chosen Not to respond to their words speaking of how he'd been physically attacked and similarly oppressed as a boy, on top of the racism that he'd faced.
C. Parable Two:
Someone I care about has just learned that she will soon have a new supervisor at work who will be between her and her boss. Previously, she was seemingly "number two" at her agency.
She was and is extremely upset that she's "not good enough" to be the one formally taking over the leadership position that is being created. She had previously suggested that the leadership logically could either involve a single deputy director as is seemingly happening now (hoping that it would be her), or involve two such leaders; herself and a new director.
The only answers which come forth all relate to her being assertive and "making others uncomfortable", including her boss. Being Non-White and assertive and "not like us" is threatening.
It doesn't matter what she says or does. "The Good Ole (White) Boy's Network" has morphed into a "Safe White Women's Network".
Racism - is Racism - is Racism.
Respect and cooperation and support is often in the eyes of the beholder! Competency and performance and other factors don't seemingly matter here.
I'm sad. I'm touched. While I can understand the words and appreciate much here this is a totally foreign type of life experience in my White World.
Thanks!
A. Parable One:
Roy Martin, as John Rich described him, is an admirable man who has struggled and moved from the inner city world of his youth to successfully working to help youths growing up as he grew up. He has moved, with serious struggle, to a middle class world, though it hasn't been and isn't easy for him.
At one time Roy Martin was just completing a period as an intern at Senator Kerry's Office when he totally disappeared from Senator Kerry's Staff and John Rich. While Rich could not reach Martin, he heard that he was "ok" but needed to take care of some things before he could be reachable and in contact again.
After being unreachable for close to a year, Rich was able to contact Martin and was together with him briefly. Martin was clearly stressed and scared. He disclosed little as to what was going on but indicated that he was doing what he needed to do and would be in touch when things were worked out.
Close to a year later Martin reappeared and began working for Senator Kerry again. John Rich then learned that Martin had been getting his hair cut when a young man from his past came into the barber shop, clearly being about to physically attack him.
Martin escaped and realized that he'd not gotten free of his past, He felt that he needed to resolve things (privately) before he could move forward in his life. He did not want to face a situation where he might be attacked while working for Senator Kerry or being with John Rich. He did not want to have his violent past thrust into the lives of his new mentors and supporters in his middle class, predominantly White worlds.
Rich evidently never learned details as to how Martin made peace with those who wanted to attack him. He was only clear that he'd not attacked or killed others in achieving what he had sought.
While I can understand the words and appreciate much here this is a totally foreign type of life experience in my White World.
B. Interlude:
I've lived mostly in a "safe White world". As a child I had no fears of "criminals" attacking me, burglars or robbers invading our home or other things that might have been more common in poorer, often minority, often urban communities.
As an adult my life has similarly been mostly "safe" and isolated from the complexities of worlds of murders, serious drug problems, and other such issues. I have had moments of drama such as the two times I was held up at gunpoint in Chicago (1970's) and Oakland (1990's), not living in isolation.
As a child there were, of course, things that happened. My father died of stomach cancer when I was 13 and my brother was 11. A boy I knew (part of the Jewish community of our town) died at a junior high school football practice after choking on his own vomit. Others faced serious obstacles in their lives.
Two stories I've recounted previously stick in my mind relating to oppressions:
1. During my men's anti-rape organizing period in the mid-1980's - I remember the quoted story (in a video I think) of a woman who was the majority leader of one of the legislative branches of the Wisconsin State Government at the time. She indicated that despite the power that she wielded at the state capitol, when she stepped into the nearby parking garage at night, she was just another woman trying to be careful that she not sexually assaulted by a man who might be hidden from her sight.
2. At a men's retreat I attended in California a little later in the 1980's I remember a man I talked with (who was Black). He'd co-hosted a major session on racism with a White ally/friend earlier. In that session he'd encountered much resistance to his statements regarding racism and oppression. Other men had talked of how he shouldn't talk at them in the tone/style he used, because they'd faced oppressions themselves - related to abuse and homophobia. Talking privately he confided to me that he'd chosen Not to respond to their words speaking of how he'd been physically attacked and similarly oppressed as a boy, on top of the racism that he'd faced.
C. Parable Two:
Someone I care about has just learned that she will soon have a new supervisor at work who will be between her and her boss. Previously, she was seemingly "number two" at her agency.
She was and is extremely upset that she's "not good enough" to be the one formally taking over the leadership position that is being created. She had previously suggested that the leadership logically could either involve a single deputy director as is seemingly happening now (hoping that it would be her), or involve two such leaders; herself and a new director.
The only answers which come forth all relate to her being assertive and "making others uncomfortable", including her boss. Being Non-White and assertive and "not like us" is threatening.
It doesn't matter what she says or does. "The Good Ole (White) Boy's Network" has morphed into a "Safe White Women's Network".
Racism - is Racism - is Racism.
Respect and cooperation and support is often in the eyes of the beholder! Competency and performance and other factors don't seemingly matter here.
I'm sad. I'm touched. While I can understand the words and appreciate much here this is a totally foreign type of life experience in my White World.
Thanks!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Great Book - on Poor Urban Black Men
I just finished reading: "Wrong Place, Wrong Time" - by John A. Rich. It is by far the best book I've ever read at explaining inner city violence (as it relates to poor, Black young men).
p.57 - as per "Jimmy"
* If you want to avoid being a sucker, you have to have a rep.
* If you want to have a rep, you have to earn it.
* You earn a rep by putting in work.
* In Jimmy's world, work means doing violence.
* Have a rep, even if you got it by violence, makes you known.
* When you are known, you are somebody.
* You could get a rep for doing good, but people still come after you for disrespecting them in the past. Therefore violence is more effective.
"Violence worked in his world to accomplish something that all of us wanted- to be somebody- but that Jimmy could not find any other way to do."
John Rich is a Black, middle-class (raised and currently) physician whose worlds had shielded him from much of what he discovered (in 2006 he was awarded a MacArthur "genius" Fellowship).
Rich's best informant: Roy Martin tellingly answered him explaining: (p.60)
' "I bet this kid isn't the kind of kid who's gonna be a basketball star. Or a lady's man, a player, right?" Roy said, answering his own question. "He probably ain't no great brainiac who's going to college. If he was any one of those things, he would be doing that. He'd be about that kind of stuff. But he's not." '
p.63 - "If these young men were numb from all the violence that they had seen and if they, like Jimmy, were unable to see a clear future, then the whole concept of violence in the inner city was beginning to make sense."
Dr. Rich provides a brilliant expose of the humanity of poor, "tough" Black young men and their worlds. He talks of the traumas the violence creates (and often is ignored by others). His picture in no way romanticizes this life, but it really helps "outsiders" to understand a lot more.
This book isn't long. It isn't difficult to read, though much of what it talks of is scary. For anyone interested in such a subject, I highly recommend it!
Thanks!
p.57 - as per "Jimmy"
* If you want to avoid being a sucker, you have to have a rep.
* If you want to have a rep, you have to earn it.
* You earn a rep by putting in work.
* In Jimmy's world, work means doing violence.
* Have a rep, even if you got it by violence, makes you known.
* When you are known, you are somebody.
* You could get a rep for doing good, but people still come after you for disrespecting them in the past. Therefore violence is more effective.
"Violence worked in his world to accomplish something that all of us wanted- to be somebody- but that Jimmy could not find any other way to do."
John Rich is a Black, middle-class (raised and currently) physician whose worlds had shielded him from much of what he discovered (in 2006 he was awarded a MacArthur "genius" Fellowship).
Rich's best informant: Roy Martin tellingly answered him explaining: (p.60)
' "I bet this kid isn't the kind of kid who's gonna be a basketball star. Or a lady's man, a player, right?" Roy said, answering his own question. "He probably ain't no great brainiac who's going to college. If he was any one of those things, he would be doing that. He'd be about that kind of stuff. But he's not." '
p.63 - "If these young men were numb from all the violence that they had seen and if they, like Jimmy, were unable to see a clear future, then the whole concept of violence in the inner city was beginning to make sense."
Dr. Rich provides a brilliant expose of the humanity of poor, "tough" Black young men and their worlds. He talks of the traumas the violence creates (and often is ignored by others). His picture in no way romanticizes this life, but it really helps "outsiders" to understand a lot more.
This book isn't long. It isn't difficult to read, though much of what it talks of is scary. For anyone interested in such a subject, I highly recommend it!
Thanks!
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tales of "new" and "old"
In looking at the failures of the Democrats and Obama to reform health care and to make other significant changes, it seems obvious to me that Money Talks. Until we have Serious Campaign Finance Reform and in general live in a world in the U.S. and the world as a whole where "people matter" we will face serious obstacles to both world peace and justice in general.
The failures of the Democrats and Obama also have helped make the rise of the Tea Partyites and the pushes towards Facism and Fundamentalism and similar much scarier.
Recently I've been doing a lot of genealogical work and related studying of my father's family. My father's family includes a great-uncle who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in the 1960's, a noted psychotherapist who was the first wife of Erich Fromm as well as some serious scholars and many fascinating people in general. My great-grandfather was a successful and wealthy German (Jewish) banker. I was named after him.
Most recently hearing the sad story of my great-aunt Rahel (Rachel, as well as one of her sons and his wife, gives in some ways a "counter story" to some of what I hear and feel today as discussed above. Rahel's husband Sally owned or managed a most successful timber business in Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad) after World War I. The business had offices in other parts of Europe and his sons managed some of these offices as the business grew.
In 1936 Rahel and Sally moved to Amsterdam and the Nazi's relieved the families' ties to their business because they were Jewish. Sally died of natural causes in 1940 as World War II began.
Soon after Sally's death, a family member living in Zurich unexpectedly received a large trunk from Rahel. Rahel hoped to escape to Switzerland with her family and have her possessions safe from the turmoil in The Netherlands. In 1942, after escaping detection in Holland, Rahel, a son and daughter-in-law fled to Paris. In Paris they moved constantly tried to avoid detection by the Nazis and desperately sought to escape to Switzerland, South America or some other safe haven.
Rahel - unlike many other desperate Jews - was wealthy. Despite having lost some of their wealth, she could afford to pay for whatever was necessary to escape.
Unfortunately - the contact (to escape) that they finally made was with a pathological French physician - who killed them with injections and then hacked their bodies to pieces and burned the remains, while taking their possessions. He was put to death in 1946 after a trial, having killed well over 100 people including some non-Jews as well. (Evidently his actions had nothing directly to do with any support of the Nazis.)
The sad story of Rahel and part of her family is a case where money didn't matter. Being Jewish was "the crime" and "the curse". Jews - had had some economic power, but that power was useless as Nazi ideology blamed Jews for all that had befallen the Germans after World War I.
Today in the U.S. we face the realities of how millions of Blacks were enslaved and exploited after 1865. Racism persists. Many have died because they were the wrong skin color and were seen as "the enemy" by jealous White Men (usually men anyway). The racism in the U.S. used economic exploitation.
Today in the U.S. we face problems as the Glenn Beck's of our country exploit the economic turmoil with its resultant fears and ignorance. Hopefully we will Not go further in the directions that lead to sad stories such as my relatives faced.
Thanks!
The failures of the Democrats and Obama also have helped make the rise of the Tea Partyites and the pushes towards Facism and Fundamentalism and similar much scarier.
Recently I've been doing a lot of genealogical work and related studying of my father's family. My father's family includes a great-uncle who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in the 1960's, a noted psychotherapist who was the first wife of Erich Fromm as well as some serious scholars and many fascinating people in general. My great-grandfather was a successful and wealthy German (Jewish) banker. I was named after him.
Most recently hearing the sad story of my great-aunt Rahel (Rachel, as well as one of her sons and his wife, gives in some ways a "counter story" to some of what I hear and feel today as discussed above. Rahel's husband Sally owned or managed a most successful timber business in Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad) after World War I. The business had offices in other parts of Europe and his sons managed some of these offices as the business grew.
In 1936 Rahel and Sally moved to Amsterdam and the Nazi's relieved the families' ties to their business because they were Jewish. Sally died of natural causes in 1940 as World War II began.
Soon after Sally's death, a family member living in Zurich unexpectedly received a large trunk from Rahel. Rahel hoped to escape to Switzerland with her family and have her possessions safe from the turmoil in The Netherlands. In 1942, after escaping detection in Holland, Rahel, a son and daughter-in-law fled to Paris. In Paris they moved constantly tried to avoid detection by the Nazis and desperately sought to escape to Switzerland, South America or some other safe haven.
Rahel - unlike many other desperate Jews - was wealthy. Despite having lost some of their wealth, she could afford to pay for whatever was necessary to escape.
Unfortunately - the contact (to escape) that they finally made was with a pathological French physician - who killed them with injections and then hacked their bodies to pieces and burned the remains, while taking their possessions. He was put to death in 1946 after a trial, having killed well over 100 people including some non-Jews as well. (Evidently his actions had nothing directly to do with any support of the Nazis.)
The sad story of Rahel and part of her family is a case where money didn't matter. Being Jewish was "the crime" and "the curse". Jews - had had some economic power, but that power was useless as Nazi ideology blamed Jews for all that had befallen the Germans after World War I.
Today in the U.S. we face the realities of how millions of Blacks were enslaved and exploited after 1865. Racism persists. Many have died because they were the wrong skin color and were seen as "the enemy" by jealous White Men (usually men anyway). The racism in the U.S. used economic exploitation.
Today in the U.S. we face problems as the Glenn Beck's of our country exploit the economic turmoil with its resultant fears and ignorance. Hopefully we will Not go further in the directions that lead to sad stories such as my relatives faced.
Thanks!
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Howard Zinn, J.D. Salinger, and C.
Last week saw the confluence of three things from my past which have no direct ties to each other:
1. Howard Zinn died,
2. J.D. Salinger died, and
3. My "old" friend C. - was incapacitated with major "replacement" surgery.
Generationally - the two deaths hit me hard - yet they seem not to have really hit some of the generation of bloggers who are younger than me as hard.
I grew up in a world which seemed to me at least much more "conformist" than things are today. There was a definite lack of alternative periodicals (though there were a few)as well as no internet - nor other simple means of being reached by others.
Howard Zinn was a giant in reaching out to those in my generation who were open to looking at the United States in an alternate way that was both critical and loving. He was different from some whose focus seemed to be on Marxism, though Marxism certainly must have influenced him. He was scholarly, but wasn't aloof from those outside of academia. The sources where I've had the most to read of online, since his death have largely been - Peace Seeking Jews opposed to the status quo re: Palestine-Israel - and this certainly wasn't his primary focus in his long and bountiful life.
Howard Zinn was clearly a "mensch" - one who gave and shared and loved.
J.D. Salinger wrote a few Great Novels - which were lovingly read by me as a teen. He chose a life apart from nearly all. I'm glad to have been touched by his writings and they will live on well beyond his death.
Salinger was a great writer who chose to be "apart". While he wasn't a "bad" person, he also wasn't "of this world" in many ways and certainly lacked greatness as a "person".
C. - my old buddy - is working hard at recovering from his surgery. He's my one friend who I could count on to know and appreciate both of them. If he'd not been of necessity focusing upon his surgery and subsequent recovery, I suspect he might have had significant feelings (different from mine no doubt) about both of them.
C. - has had some of the drive of Zinn and some of the creativity of Salinger.
May the memories of the first two live on in us and those who follow us and may C.'s recovery be smooth and as comfortable as is possible.
Thanks!
1. Howard Zinn died,
2. J.D. Salinger died, and
3. My "old" friend C. - was incapacitated with major "replacement" surgery.
Generationally - the two deaths hit me hard - yet they seem not to have really hit some of the generation of bloggers who are younger than me as hard.
I grew up in a world which seemed to me at least much more "conformist" than things are today. There was a definite lack of alternative periodicals (though there were a few)as well as no internet - nor other simple means of being reached by others.
Howard Zinn was a giant in reaching out to those in my generation who were open to looking at the United States in an alternate way that was both critical and loving. He was different from some whose focus seemed to be on Marxism, though Marxism certainly must have influenced him. He was scholarly, but wasn't aloof from those outside of academia. The sources where I've had the most to read of online, since his death have largely been - Peace Seeking Jews opposed to the status quo re: Palestine-Israel - and this certainly wasn't his primary focus in his long and bountiful life.
Howard Zinn was clearly a "mensch" - one who gave and shared and loved.
J.D. Salinger wrote a few Great Novels - which were lovingly read by me as a teen. He chose a life apart from nearly all. I'm glad to have been touched by his writings and they will live on well beyond his death.
Salinger was a great writer who chose to be "apart". While he wasn't a "bad" person, he also wasn't "of this world" in many ways and certainly lacked greatness as a "person".
C. - my old buddy - is working hard at recovering from his surgery. He's my one friend who I could count on to know and appreciate both of them. If he'd not been of necessity focusing upon his surgery and subsequent recovery, I suspect he might have had significant feelings (different from mine no doubt) about both of them.
C. - has had some of the drive of Zinn and some of the creativity of Salinger.
May the memories of the first two live on in us and those who follow us and may C.'s recovery be smooth and as comfortable as is possible.
Thanks!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Haiti - Incredible Sadness
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/01/12/GA2010011203712.html?sid=ST2010011302017
The images are horrific to see! I'm very sad! Haiti had so many problems related to being such a poor country and now...
The images are horrific to see! I'm very sad! Haiti had so many problems related to being such a poor country and now...
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Those Poor Democrats and the Big Mo
Yesterday Senators Byron Dorgan, D, N. Dakota and Christopher Dodd, D, Connecticut announced that they would not seek new terms in 2010. The news media immediately talked of the perilous times for President Obama and Democrats as they might now lose their 60 vote - "super majority".
While first of all "duh"! Did anyone really believe given how bad the economy is and the 47% approval rating of President Obama that Democrats were likely to keep all their senate seats in 2010?
It also is questionable whether this 60 seat majority is that significant - as shown by healthcare reform legislation when one recognizes how - impotent the Democrats have proven to be at dealing with both the intransigence of the Republicans and the Democrats "moderate" members such as Senator Nelson who hold healthcare captive to their support.
Let's go back to the "landslide" election of President Obama. President Obama's election was won with about 41-42% of the White vote. People of Color elected Barack Obama with a lower percentage of White Voters than elected Reagan in 1980.
The "Democratic Mandate" of 2008 if there ever was such a thing was a reaction to the Republican failures and a statement of - "no - not this" - not "yes, we want Democrats".
Pundits earlier talked of the Big Momentum shown by governor losses by the Democrats in 2009 in Virginia and New Jersey. Few looked at the facts that Governor Corzine in New Jersey had alienated the populace and that in Virginia without a Strong Black Vote - the Democrat had little chance of winning.
Let's finally look at the candidates. Dorgan - might have been a slight favorite to win in 2010. Republicans are likely to win without him - in a heavily Republican State. Dodd was in big trouble and the Democratic candidate seemingly has a better chance at winning in 2010.
This is hardly - a landslide for the Republicans. The Democrats may well lose seats in 2010. This will though be a result of both their failures and the successes of the right-wing forces at fighting against Democratic leadership.
Thanks!
While first of all "duh"! Did anyone really believe given how bad the economy is and the 47% approval rating of President Obama that Democrats were likely to keep all their senate seats in 2010?
It also is questionable whether this 60 seat majority is that significant - as shown by healthcare reform legislation when one recognizes how - impotent the Democrats have proven to be at dealing with both the intransigence of the Republicans and the Democrats "moderate" members such as Senator Nelson who hold healthcare captive to their support.
Let's go back to the "landslide" election of President Obama. President Obama's election was won with about 41-42% of the White vote. People of Color elected Barack Obama with a lower percentage of White Voters than elected Reagan in 1980.
The "Democratic Mandate" of 2008 if there ever was such a thing was a reaction to the Republican failures and a statement of - "no - not this" - not "yes, we want Democrats".
Pundits earlier talked of the Big Momentum shown by governor losses by the Democrats in 2009 in Virginia and New Jersey. Few looked at the facts that Governor Corzine in New Jersey had alienated the populace and that in Virginia without a Strong Black Vote - the Democrat had little chance of winning.
Let's finally look at the candidates. Dorgan - might have been a slight favorite to win in 2010. Republicans are likely to win without him - in a heavily Republican State. Dodd was in big trouble and the Democratic candidate seemingly has a better chance at winning in 2010.
This is hardly - a landslide for the Republicans. The Democrats may well lose seats in 2010. This will though be a result of both their failures and the successes of the right-wing forces at fighting against Democratic leadership.
Thanks!
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Swiss Healthcare System - a "Free Market" Option
Swiss health-care system might serve as model for U.S.
By The Dallas Morning News Sunday, February 26, 2006
BERN, Switzerland -- Karl Zbinden's hospital room overlooked the snowy banks of the Aare River on a bleak January afternoon. The gaunt, 53-year-old biologist was in bed with pancreatitis, a serious condition that emerged after a kidney transplant.
Like all Swiss citizens, Zbinden has health insurance. And, like all Swiss, he pays for it himself with no help from his employer.
An American in his situation might face tens of thousands of dollars in expenses. But under the Swiss health-care system, individuals pay about a third less on health care than the average American, in part because of government-enforced price controls.
President Bush is pushing for health care reforms based on individual choice. The Swiss system offers some of those choices, and some health economists say their system works better.
"I think we're going to get there soon, not eventually," said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who's studied the Swiss system. "The major reason is, most people agree that employer support for health insurance is just not going to continue."
Every resident of Switzerland is required to buy health insurance. If they don't, they pay stiff monetary penalties. Companies have no role. Health-care plans are chosen at the kitchen table, not through employee benefit departments.
And the plans can be costly. A family of four in Switzerland pays an average of $680 a month in premiums. Government assistance helps pay premiums for those less well off.
Health-care prices are set each year after negotiations between insurance companies and medical providers. The fee schedule has to be approved by the Swiss canton (or state) governments -- an approach Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University compares to the doomed health-reform plan drafted by the Clinton administration.
Drug costs also are subject to price ceilings, but they still seem fairly expensive, at least in the minds of Swiss consumers.
"Within Europe, we are almost the only country left with a strong drug company sector," said Swiss congressman Felix Gutzwiller, a medical doctor who also heads the University of Zurich Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine.
"The public has a very peculiar attitude about that. They want a high level of innovation, but there is a permanent discussion about the cost of medications."
The Swiss approach insures everyone while eliminating the headaches and costs of health care for companies sensitive to global competition.
"People in Switzerland realize what these costs do to American business, and they don't want to add to the anti-competitive burden of Swiss businesses in the global economy," Gutzwiller said.
"Also, people do not want employers to get so much into their private life and lifestyle."
The Swiss think the quality of their medical care is among the best in the world. They spend more of their national income on health care, at 11.5 percent, than anyone except Americans, who spend 16 percent.
The Swiss have the freedom to see any doctor in their canton, and they don't have long waits. And Swiss health-care providers have much less paperwork than their U.S. counterparts.
In 2003, Switzerland spent an average of $3,781 per person on health care. The United States spent $5,635 per person, according to an October report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Herzlinger said consumer choice accounts for Switzerland's lower costs.
Bush and market-oriented health economists are all for consumer choice. They're urging Americans to start health savings accounts and buy high-deductible health care plans. Bush gave those ideas another push in his State of the Union Address. Critics call it health-care rationing by income, where only the wealthy have health savings accounts big enough to cover medical expenses.
While everyone in Switzerland is obliged to buy insurance, the 87 Swiss health insurance companies also have to offer a basic health-care plan priced without regard to risk.
The companies can't make a profit on this basic plan, and they compete for profits by offering high or low deductibles and supplemental benefits. A healthy 24-year-old living in Bern pays the same premium as someone like Zbinden (300 Swiss francs a month, or about $242).
Swiss insurers charge a premium for each family member. Children have a lower premium than adults, but for a family of four, insurance premiums for the basic coverage plan are about $8,167 a year. An American family with employer-provided health insurance pays an average of $2,713 a year in premiums, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Deductibles and co-pays are comparable to those paid in the United States.
Swiss cantons subsidize health insurance premiums based on income. With premiums climbing an average of 5 percent a year over the last decade, subsidies now go to nearly a third of Switzerland's 7.5 million residents.
Swiss health insurance premiums are lower than the U.S. average when employers' costs are added, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey. For an American family of four, employers contribute an average of $8,167, for a total of $10,880 a year. That's up 73 percent since 2000, according to the Kaiser survey.
And fewer American companies are offering health insurance. In 2000, 69 percent of workers got health insurance as a benefit. In 2004, that dropped to 60 percent.
Small companies in particular are finding the costs too high, and the number of uninsured Americans is climbing, said Drew Altman, chief executive and president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance.
"Americans have a clear sense of what they are paying out of pocket, and they're really upset about it," he said. "But as health-care premiums have gone up sharply, employers have eaten a significant share."
Devon Harrick, a health economist with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, said employers got into the business of paying health insurance premiums when they couldn't compete for workers by offering higher wages.
"The only reason our current system exists the way it does is because of the tax laws in the 1940s. Price controls prohibited wage hikes, but you could attract employees with health insurance," he said. And, unlike payroll, health care benefits are not taxed.
"In the end, employees pay their own health-care costs," Harrick said. "A lot of employees don't understand that's really not a free benefit. It's part of their compensation."
In a consumer-driven health-care system such as Switzerland's, employers freed from health insurance obligations pay higher wages, said Herzlinger.
A health-care system based on choice would, in theory, also give consumers a way to compare the prices charged by doctors and hospitals. Those prices are hard to come by in the United States. But in Switzerland, they are all pretty much the same.
"Price (in the Swiss system) doesn't matter, because it's set by these negotiations," said Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
U.S. health care providers fiercely oppose that approach, said Altman.
"Government regulation to control costs of a kind practiced in every other developed country is opposed by our health care providers," he said, "so we are stuck in a bunch of half-measures."
Not all Swiss citizens are happy with the system. They complain that prices are getting too high, that their system encourages patients to stay in hospitals longer than necessary and that the insurance companies, trying to find ways to make money in a regulated market, offer such a bewildering mix of plans that most consumers aren't making informed choices.
"Theoretically, it's consumer-driven. But practically, no," said Gaudenz Silberschmidt, head of the international affairs division of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.
The complicated nature of the system is partly the fault of the insurers, he said. "They offer thousands of different premium plans, and when it's that many, it means it's not transparent."
"There is no best health-care system, no gold standard," he said.
There does seem to be a standard for what countries want to avoid, however.
"It's a sad thing, but when I go to international conferences, there's no question the U.S. health system is the bogeyman everywhere," said Reinhardt.
Zbinden's wife, Katharina, says the couple feels fortunate. "We are very grateful to have the Swiss system, even though it's expensive. We could not afford this in the United States."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_427691.html
By The Dallas Morning News Sunday, February 26, 2006
BERN, Switzerland -- Karl Zbinden's hospital room overlooked the snowy banks of the Aare River on a bleak January afternoon. The gaunt, 53-year-old biologist was in bed with pancreatitis, a serious condition that emerged after a kidney transplant.
Like all Swiss citizens, Zbinden has health insurance. And, like all Swiss, he pays for it himself with no help from his employer.
An American in his situation might face tens of thousands of dollars in expenses. But under the Swiss health-care system, individuals pay about a third less on health care than the average American, in part because of government-enforced price controls.
President Bush is pushing for health care reforms based on individual choice. The Swiss system offers some of those choices, and some health economists say their system works better.
"I think we're going to get there soon, not eventually," said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who's studied the Swiss system. "The major reason is, most people agree that employer support for health insurance is just not going to continue."
Every resident of Switzerland is required to buy health insurance. If they don't, they pay stiff monetary penalties. Companies have no role. Health-care plans are chosen at the kitchen table, not through employee benefit departments.
And the plans can be costly. A family of four in Switzerland pays an average of $680 a month in premiums. Government assistance helps pay premiums for those less well off.
Health-care prices are set each year after negotiations between insurance companies and medical providers. The fee schedule has to be approved by the Swiss canton (or state) governments -- an approach Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University compares to the doomed health-reform plan drafted by the Clinton administration.
Drug costs also are subject to price ceilings, but they still seem fairly expensive, at least in the minds of Swiss consumers.
"Within Europe, we are almost the only country left with a strong drug company sector," said Swiss congressman Felix Gutzwiller, a medical doctor who also heads the University of Zurich Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine.
"The public has a very peculiar attitude about that. They want a high level of innovation, but there is a permanent discussion about the cost of medications."
The Swiss approach insures everyone while eliminating the headaches and costs of health care for companies sensitive to global competition.
"People in Switzerland realize what these costs do to American business, and they don't want to add to the anti-competitive burden of Swiss businesses in the global economy," Gutzwiller said.
"Also, people do not want employers to get so much into their private life and lifestyle."
The Swiss think the quality of their medical care is among the best in the world. They spend more of their national income on health care, at 11.5 percent, than anyone except Americans, who spend 16 percent.
The Swiss have the freedom to see any doctor in their canton, and they don't have long waits. And Swiss health-care providers have much less paperwork than their U.S. counterparts.
In 2003, Switzerland spent an average of $3,781 per person on health care. The United States spent $5,635 per person, according to an October report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Herzlinger said consumer choice accounts for Switzerland's lower costs.
Bush and market-oriented health economists are all for consumer choice. They're urging Americans to start health savings accounts and buy high-deductible health care plans. Bush gave those ideas another push in his State of the Union Address. Critics call it health-care rationing by income, where only the wealthy have health savings accounts big enough to cover medical expenses.
While everyone in Switzerland is obliged to buy insurance, the 87 Swiss health insurance companies also have to offer a basic health-care plan priced without regard to risk.
The companies can't make a profit on this basic plan, and they compete for profits by offering high or low deductibles and supplemental benefits. A healthy 24-year-old living in Bern pays the same premium as someone like Zbinden (300 Swiss francs a month, or about $242).
Swiss insurers charge a premium for each family member. Children have a lower premium than adults, but for a family of four, insurance premiums for the basic coverage plan are about $8,167 a year. An American family with employer-provided health insurance pays an average of $2,713 a year in premiums, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Deductibles and co-pays are comparable to those paid in the United States.
Swiss cantons subsidize health insurance premiums based on income. With premiums climbing an average of 5 percent a year over the last decade, subsidies now go to nearly a third of Switzerland's 7.5 million residents.
Swiss health insurance premiums are lower than the U.S. average when employers' costs are added, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey. For an American family of four, employers contribute an average of $8,167, for a total of $10,880 a year. That's up 73 percent since 2000, according to the Kaiser survey.
And fewer American companies are offering health insurance. In 2000, 69 percent of workers got health insurance as a benefit. In 2004, that dropped to 60 percent.
Small companies in particular are finding the costs too high, and the number of uninsured Americans is climbing, said Drew Altman, chief executive and president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance.
"Americans have a clear sense of what they are paying out of pocket, and they're really upset about it," he said. "But as health-care premiums have gone up sharply, employers have eaten a significant share."
Devon Harrick, a health economist with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, said employers got into the business of paying health insurance premiums when they couldn't compete for workers by offering higher wages.
"The only reason our current system exists the way it does is because of the tax laws in the 1940s. Price controls prohibited wage hikes, but you could attract employees with health insurance," he said. And, unlike payroll, health care benefits are not taxed.
"In the end, employees pay their own health-care costs," Harrick said. "A lot of employees don't understand that's really not a free benefit. It's part of their compensation."
In a consumer-driven health-care system such as Switzerland's, employers freed from health insurance obligations pay higher wages, said Herzlinger.
A health-care system based on choice would, in theory, also give consumers a way to compare the prices charged by doctors and hospitals. Those prices are hard to come by in the United States. But in Switzerland, they are all pretty much the same.
"Price (in the Swiss system) doesn't matter, because it's set by these negotiations," said Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
U.S. health care providers fiercely oppose that approach, said Altman.
"Government regulation to control costs of a kind practiced in every other developed country is opposed by our health care providers," he said, "so we are stuck in a bunch of half-measures."
Not all Swiss citizens are happy with the system. They complain that prices are getting too high, that their system encourages patients to stay in hospitals longer than necessary and that the insurance companies, trying to find ways to make money in a regulated market, offer such a bewildering mix of plans that most consumers aren't making informed choices.
"Theoretically, it's consumer-driven. But practically, no," said Gaudenz Silberschmidt, head of the international affairs division of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.
The complicated nature of the system is partly the fault of the insurers, he said. "They offer thousands of different premium plans, and when it's that many, it means it's not transparent."
"There is no best health-care system, no gold standard," he said.
There does seem to be a standard for what countries want to avoid, however.
"It's a sad thing, but when I go to international conferences, there's no question the U.S. health system is the bogeyman everywhere," said Reinhardt.
Zbinden's wife, Katharina, says the couple feels fortunate. "We are very grateful to have the Swiss system, even though it's expensive. We could not afford this in the United States."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_427691.html
Friday, January 01, 2010
Avatar - some impressions
We went to see Avatar at an Imax theater last night. Prior to seeing the movie I'd heard:
1.) It's an incredible movie, one of the best ever seen - great insight into racism, environmental issues and how we relate to them,
2.) 2 1/2 stars - local newspaper - spectacular visual effects - but weak, stereotypical plot,
3.) Blasphemous movie - which is strongly counter to "Good Christian Values".
In some ways the movie was all of these things and perhaps more. It certainly had an appeal to it as it portrayed the importance of us being "with" nature and respecting others. It strongly, strongly put down the Zenophobia and "might is right" mindsets that we can best see in our U.S. Government-Military-Corporate culture. It could be seen as empowering confronting "the establishment" and not feeling disempowered by the Powers one faces in activism.
The mythical planet and its people and animals were portrayed in an incredibly beautiful way. Watching the movie for its images alone could result in one feeling incredibly enriched. The "education" of the hero can show a viewer how our life realities are rigidly ethnocentric. We can see how important it is to understand others as they are and how they view themselves.
The movie also is "very Hollywood" in some of its worst ways. The "good" are stereotyped as "very good" and the "bad" are "very bad". While there are surprises and unexpected nuances much of the movie is Very predictable. Perhaps more troubling is the naive, limited view of how change is brought about.
A few allies of the "hero" join him in taking on the rest of the "bad guys" from whence they came. It is not difficult to see how well-meaning people could take from such a movie - if they viewed it "directly" how we can for example use technology to help "those poor people" in Africa or wherever. While the movie pushes an image of "respect" and understanding our ethnocentricity, it also has an underlying image of "we can use our knowledge for good" which is limited.
Building systemic change requires grassroot organizing and building support to avoid cooptation and insignificant change which doesn't help (much) and may hurt things in some instances. We need significant campaign finance reform in the U.S. and our failure to end corporate dominance infects us over and over again - as can readily be seen related to healthcare reform legislation. It is no coincident that Connecticut has major insurance company "strength" and that Joe Lieberman looks out for the insurance companies' interests.
The movie is certainly a nightmare for rightwing Christians who believe in "the Lord" and "the natural order" of both the environment and private enterprise. It does strongly confront these stereotypic views and indicate that we need to respect the environment and people who are different from us.
I'm glad I saw the movie! I'd recommend it to others. It can "help" in some ways. To me it isn't "the answer", though that is a next-to-impossible thing to have. To reach "the masses" the message can't be 'too deep' or in some ways 'too radical'. I'd give the movie either a B+ (if looking at it's weaknesses) or an A- or even an A - if looking at its strengths and beauty.
Thanks!
1.) It's an incredible movie, one of the best ever seen - great insight into racism, environmental issues and how we relate to them,
2.) 2 1/2 stars - local newspaper - spectacular visual effects - but weak, stereotypical plot,
3.) Blasphemous movie - which is strongly counter to "Good Christian Values".
In some ways the movie was all of these things and perhaps more. It certainly had an appeal to it as it portrayed the importance of us being "with" nature and respecting others. It strongly, strongly put down the Zenophobia and "might is right" mindsets that we can best see in our U.S. Government-Military-Corporate culture. It could be seen as empowering confronting "the establishment" and not feeling disempowered by the Powers one faces in activism.
The mythical planet and its people and animals were portrayed in an incredibly beautiful way. Watching the movie for its images alone could result in one feeling incredibly enriched. The "education" of the hero can show a viewer how our life realities are rigidly ethnocentric. We can see how important it is to understand others as they are and how they view themselves.
The movie also is "very Hollywood" in some of its worst ways. The "good" are stereotyped as "very good" and the "bad" are "very bad". While there are surprises and unexpected nuances much of the movie is Very predictable. Perhaps more troubling is the naive, limited view of how change is brought about.
A few allies of the "hero" join him in taking on the rest of the "bad guys" from whence they came. It is not difficult to see how well-meaning people could take from such a movie - if they viewed it "directly" how we can for example use technology to help "those poor people" in Africa or wherever. While the movie pushes an image of "respect" and understanding our ethnocentricity, it also has an underlying image of "we can use our knowledge for good" which is limited.
Building systemic change requires grassroot organizing and building support to avoid cooptation and insignificant change which doesn't help (much) and may hurt things in some instances. We need significant campaign finance reform in the U.S. and our failure to end corporate dominance infects us over and over again - as can readily be seen related to healthcare reform legislation. It is no coincident that Connecticut has major insurance company "strength" and that Joe Lieberman looks out for the insurance companies' interests.
The movie is certainly a nightmare for rightwing Christians who believe in "the Lord" and "the natural order" of both the environment and private enterprise. It does strongly confront these stereotypic views and indicate that we need to respect the environment and people who are different from us.
I'm glad I saw the movie! I'd recommend it to others. It can "help" in some ways. To me it isn't "the answer", though that is a next-to-impossible thing to have. To reach "the masses" the message can't be 'too deep' or in some ways 'too radical'. I'd give the movie either a B+ (if looking at it's weaknesses) or an A- or even an A - if looking at its strengths and beauty.
Thanks!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"Responsible" Corporate Leadership?
It is interesting to listen to President Obama (and occasionally others) talk of "corporate responsibility". He talks as if bankers should be "socially responsible" and doing their best to help our economy. Companies selling health insurance are somehow expected by many to be "responsible".
It seems very strange to me! Corporate leaders have a responsibility to maximize profits and to minimize the possibilities of having financial losses. Where helping the "better good" is not perfectly congruent with maximizing profits, why would anyone expect that a CEO or corporate board would try to help you and me?
I can easily understand the perspective of the corporate leadership. It seems less clear to me why anyone else would either be naive or talk as if they were naive. It seems obvious to me that if we wish corporations to act in certain ways there need to be laws or regulations which force them to do so.
Thanks!
It seems very strange to me! Corporate leaders have a responsibility to maximize profits and to minimize the possibilities of having financial losses. Where helping the "better good" is not perfectly congruent with maximizing profits, why would anyone expect that a CEO or corporate board would try to help you and me?
I can easily understand the perspective of the corporate leadership. It seems less clear to me why anyone else would either be naive or talk as if they were naive. It seems obvious to me that if we wish corporations to act in certain ways there need to be laws or regulations which force them to do so.
Thanks!
Monday, November 23, 2009
William Kunstler
The new documentary of William Kunstler, directed by his two daughters from his second marriage, is an excellent movie. It tells the story of a remarkable, yet far from perfect man, who really came of age during the trial of the Chicago Seven circa 1970. His eyes had been awakened defending Freedom Riders in the South in 1961. Kunstler defended the unpopular - often of Color - defendants through much of his later life.
In general one could say that he notably defended "the underdog". This image contrasted minimally with his desire for being "Visible" and perhaps "notorious" - which was most notably vividly portrayed as defended and embraced the Mafia chief John Gotti - who could hardly be portrayed as a "working class hero".
Despite his faults, Kunstler clear was a great person and did a lot of good in his life. His daughters have done a great job of portraying him as the real person that he was.
Thanks!
In general one could say that he notably defended "the underdog". This image contrasted minimally with his desire for being "Visible" and perhaps "notorious" - which was most notably vividly portrayed as defended and embraced the Mafia chief John Gotti - who could hardly be portrayed as a "working class hero".
Despite his faults, Kunstler clear was a great person and did a lot of good in his life. His daughters have done a great job of portraying him as the real person that he was.
Thanks!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Learning From History/Reality vs. Ideology Alone
It is instructive to look at how we in the U.S "as a nation" act internationally. Recently I heard snippets of President Obama's words while in China. Listening to How he spoke I would have thought that the U.S. was repeatedly doing favors to China and that they were very much in our debt. We allow China to provide us with goods and services as well as to invest in our economy helping keep it from collapsing. It would seem to my naive self that we logically would be Thanking China and acknowledging that gradually China is becoming much more economically powerful and we are weakening greatly.
We can perhaps in part blame our most recent past president for foolishness in Iraq and Afghanistan. We loved Saddam Hussein as a strong opponent of the Fundamentalist regime in Iran in the 1980's and early 1990's, but Hussein refused to simply be our puppet and he became our enemy.
Our repeated naivete in not understanding that Al Qaeda is strongly Sunni means issues with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but not Iran which is Shiite. Though Saddam Hussein was Sunni, rather clearly his leadership was secular based. When we push (majority) Shiite leadership in Iraq, inevitably it helps tie Iraq to Iran - a Shiite nation - and to built up Iran. Now, we cry in our beer about Iran - well we asked for it.
We didn't read our history book right!
Afghanistan - has a strange history. It is a very decentralized country that strangely doesn't like "foreigners" to try to control its destiny. We helped build up the Fundamentalist Moslem forces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - because we wanted to weaken The Soviet Union - who were trying to control their neighbor.
We don't seem to understand that just because Afghanis may dislike the Taliban does not mean that they will welcome the U.S. in Their Country. Thankfully our ambassador in Kabul seems to understand the dilemma. Oft times it seems that for every life or dollar we spend fighting in Afghanistan - multiple "militants" join the fight against us. It also seems farfetched at least to me that terrorist actions in the U.S. - are going to build up out of Afghanistan, an impoverished - decentralized nation.
Of course we don't see the powers that "Big Oil" and other business interests have in controlling U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps - naively - I think and hope that more of us in the U.S. will understand how we can be friends and allies of the Moslem World and others who oft times seem to be our enemy. It requires a rather simple thing - Respect. It requires a more complex thing of us - introspection and "reality checking".
We could in a perfect world - work seriously at solving our internal problems - racism, poverty, healthcare - in "people positive" ways. At the same time we could be an active part of the rest of the world in new ways - listening to both our allies and "enemies" and working with others. It would be a radical change! It also might save us from being another fallen empire as well as more importantly making us into being "good people".
Thanks!
We can perhaps in part blame our most recent past president for foolishness in Iraq and Afghanistan. We loved Saddam Hussein as a strong opponent of the Fundamentalist regime in Iran in the 1980's and early 1990's, but Hussein refused to simply be our puppet and he became our enemy.
Our repeated naivete in not understanding that Al Qaeda is strongly Sunni means issues with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but not Iran which is Shiite. Though Saddam Hussein was Sunni, rather clearly his leadership was secular based. When we push (majority) Shiite leadership in Iraq, inevitably it helps tie Iraq to Iran - a Shiite nation - and to built up Iran. Now, we cry in our beer about Iran - well we asked for it.
We didn't read our history book right!
Afghanistan - has a strange history. It is a very decentralized country that strangely doesn't like "foreigners" to try to control its destiny. We helped build up the Fundamentalist Moslem forces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - because we wanted to weaken The Soviet Union - who were trying to control their neighbor.
We don't seem to understand that just because Afghanis may dislike the Taliban does not mean that they will welcome the U.S. in Their Country. Thankfully our ambassador in Kabul seems to understand the dilemma. Oft times it seems that for every life or dollar we spend fighting in Afghanistan - multiple "militants" join the fight against us. It also seems farfetched at least to me that terrorist actions in the U.S. - are going to build up out of Afghanistan, an impoverished - decentralized nation.
Of course we don't see the powers that "Big Oil" and other business interests have in controlling U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps - naively - I think and hope that more of us in the U.S. will understand how we can be friends and allies of the Moslem World and others who oft times seem to be our enemy. It requires a rather simple thing - Respect. It requires a more complex thing of us - introspection and "reality checking".
We could in a perfect world - work seriously at solving our internal problems - racism, poverty, healthcare - in "people positive" ways. At the same time we could be an active part of the rest of the world in new ways - listening to both our allies and "enemies" and working with others. It would be a radical change! It also might save us from being another fallen empire as well as more importantly making us into being "good people".
Thanks!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Afghanistan - Obama's options - What's Best?
It is interesting that now the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, a former high level military leader there has spoken out against sending more troops there.
Juan Cole in his amazing book: Engaging the Muslim World - has a good relevant quote on page 190 of his book:
"Until the United States and NATO give up their counterproductive search-and destroy tactics and until they instead invest heavily in reconstruction, they will make no progress in winning Pushtun hearts and minds. There is even an increasing danger that the massive numbers of foreign troops in the country will make it a magnet for radical vigilantes; already foreign volunteers are being found among the neo-Taliban, from places such as Chechnya and the Arab world. That is, the immensity of the U.S. and NATO footprint in this fiercely proud tribal Muslim region may actually be creating the threat it ostensibly seeks to avoid: the reconstitution of al-Qaeda and the revival of the 1980’s discourse on holy war that proved so deadly to the Soviet Union."
Thanks!
Juan Cole in his amazing book: Engaging the Muslim World - has a good relevant quote on page 190 of his book:
"Until the United States and NATO give up their counterproductive search-and destroy tactics and until they instead invest heavily in reconstruction, they will make no progress in winning Pushtun hearts and minds. There is even an increasing danger that the massive numbers of foreign troops in the country will make it a magnet for radical vigilantes; already foreign volunteers are being found among the neo-Taliban, from places such as Chechnya and the Arab world. That is, the immensity of the U.S. and NATO footprint in this fiercely proud tribal Muslim region may actually be creating the threat it ostensibly seeks to avoid: the reconstitution of al-Qaeda and the revival of the 1980’s discourse on holy war that proved so deadly to the Soviet Union."
Thanks!
Remembering
Friday, November 13, 1964 – 45 years ago today – my brother and I were awakened about 6:30 a.m. by our mother saying: “Daddy’s dead”. I was an immature 13 year old. My father’s cancer and impending death had never been discussed with Dan and me as our parents tried to make our life “normal”. Strangely, perhaps, I had Never consciously thought of my father being terminally ill, but at the same time it also made perfect sense that he was dead.
I didn’t cry then – “being a man” – and in some ways became “the man of the house” in the coming months and years. In the early 1980’s when I discovered feminism I learned to cry. I then grieved the loss openly as well as discovered the anger that I felt towards him.
Now – a rainy Seattle day – it was rainy on my father’s funeral day also I think – I sit and feel a variety of emotions. I’m 58 years old. My father died at 46 and would be 91, if still alive.
I’ve been lucky so far in my life being healthy and not having major tragedies affecting me greatly. With an 87 year old step-father, an 82 year old mother and an 86 year old mother-in-law we will face losses together in the years to come.
I’m thankful that my brother’s chronic mental illness has been much milder in recent years so that he’s been able to be relatively happy. I feel lucky and happy at the successes and happiness of my 22 year old son teaching AP biology and freshman physics in an excellent Chicago public high school.
I’m sad for areas of my own immaturity and mistakes. I also feel happy that my life has become easier and more satisfying while being more challenging. My partner and her two sons push me to be a better person, which helps me, despite my resistance.
I wish that my father had had the opportunity to live a much longer life. I’m sad that his desperation to live pushed him to “fight death” and not accept the inevitable. I’m sad that in the world he knew death and illness were not discussed, so that his friends and allies witnessed his withering body, but were never were able to share with him and help him.
I’m sad – that we weren’t close – and didn’t have a deep bond, though thankful that I can now cry in this moment and simply be.
I didn’t cry then – “being a man” – and in some ways became “the man of the house” in the coming months and years. In the early 1980’s when I discovered feminism I learned to cry. I then grieved the loss openly as well as discovered the anger that I felt towards him.
Now – a rainy Seattle day – it was rainy on my father’s funeral day also I think – I sit and feel a variety of emotions. I’m 58 years old. My father died at 46 and would be 91, if still alive.
I’ve been lucky so far in my life being healthy and not having major tragedies affecting me greatly. With an 87 year old step-father, an 82 year old mother and an 86 year old mother-in-law we will face losses together in the years to come.
I’m thankful that my brother’s chronic mental illness has been much milder in recent years so that he’s been able to be relatively happy. I feel lucky and happy at the successes and happiness of my 22 year old son teaching AP biology and freshman physics in an excellent Chicago public high school.
I’m sad for areas of my own immaturity and mistakes. I also feel happy that my life has become easier and more satisfying while being more challenging. My partner and her two sons push me to be a better person, which helps me, despite my resistance.
I wish that my father had had the opportunity to live a much longer life. I’m sad that his desperation to live pushed him to “fight death” and not accept the inevitable. I’m sad that in the world he knew death and illness were not discussed, so that his friends and allies witnessed his withering body, but were never were able to share with him and help him.
I’m sad – that we weren’t close – and didn’t have a deep bond, though thankful that I can now cry in this moment and simply be.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
It's Amazing (and Annoying)
Today - a "new comment" - on an old blog entry I wrote on Gaza:
"RX Pharmacy Online. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/]Purchase Best Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic pills. Discount medications pharmacy"
I've written several times about my erectile dysfunction issues here. Spammers - latch onto - such writing -and perhaps will pick my words above up and do it again. I get an occasional response to my writings in general - I'd say on average one response for every 2-4 blog entries I write - but strange- the entries on ED- get like 13 responses - only 1-2 of which have anything to do with the topic!
That's life I guess - frustrating! It takes some Chutzpah - to write about ED - such responses aren't scary or unnerving - just annoying! Thanks!
"RX Pharmacy Online. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/]Purchase Best Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic pills. Discount medications pharmacy"
I've written several times about my erectile dysfunction issues here. Spammers - latch onto - such writing -and perhaps will pick my words above up and do it again. I get an occasional response to my writings in general - I'd say on average one response for every 2-4 blog entries I write - but strange- the entries on ED- get like 13 responses - only 1-2 of which have anything to do with the topic!
That's life I guess - frustrating! It takes some Chutzpah - to write about ED - such responses aren't scary or unnerving - just annoying! Thanks!
Monday, November 09, 2009
Healthcare Reform - and President Obama's Future
An anonymous reader wrote in response to my last blog entry:
"No, the "compromise" wasn't necessary. The same anti-choicers who insisted on the Stupak amendment voted "no" on the whole bill.
It'd be nice to see Democrats that stood up for women, rather than regarded our rights as expendable. "
I am aware that Most of the Democrats who pushed for the Stupak amendment, then voted against the bill. A few of them though voted for it. IF 3 additional Democrats had voted "no" (as easily could have happened), the bill wouldn't have passed. It is sad that standing up for women seemingly wasn't possible here - I'm not being facetious when I say that.
Passing healthcare reform legislation now - requires senate passage of a bill and then reconciliation between the two bills for a final law.
As of now Joe Lieberman has indicated that he'll block legislation coming to a vote as is now proposed which at best would give the Democrats 59 votes, assuming that they didn't lose any other "real" Democrats in the cloture vote.
I really hope that the Democrats will do their best to come up with the bill that has the best consensus opportunities. I then hope that they will meet privately and try to agree to a united cloture vote - and then at least 50 votes in favor of the final legislation. I hope that - IF - anyone including Lieberman - will not (eventually) agree to this, that they will be stripped of all seniority and/or other perks that they now get (Lieberman chairs a committee - which he could easily be stripped of for 2010 - for example).
IF - healthcare reform legislation - is Not passed, I fear that:
1.) The Democrats will not succeed in most areas in passing controversial legislation that the Republicans don't support and
2.) In 2010 - the Democrats will take huge hits in the elections and
Again - the Democrats will have shown us all how they can "have it all" - but not do anything with it.
Obama - will then - obviously be greatly weakened and 2012 - may well be another bad year for the Democrats.
Healthcare reform is important now - in making a Start. It will Not be "good legislation". It will need improvements in future sessions of Congress. IF we insist on "good legislation" now - the Now will keep disappearing over the horizon. I think Single Payer is the answer - but obviously we aren't at its time yet!
Those who want to "stand on principle" - and "make a stand" now - are generally not those who lack healthcare coverage now and will really be hurt without such legislation. Personally I think that the Democratic Party is spineless and "not the answer" - but right now it's all that we've got. I'm more concerned that we now end up with the Republicans again either "in power" or able to block Anything from changing. They still are plenty Scary to me!
Thanks!
"No, the "compromise" wasn't necessary. The same anti-choicers who insisted on the Stupak amendment voted "no" on the whole bill.
It'd be nice to see Democrats that stood up for women, rather than regarded our rights as expendable. "
I am aware that Most of the Democrats who pushed for the Stupak amendment, then voted against the bill. A few of them though voted for it. IF 3 additional Democrats had voted "no" (as easily could have happened), the bill wouldn't have passed. It is sad that standing up for women seemingly wasn't possible here - I'm not being facetious when I say that.
Passing healthcare reform legislation now - requires senate passage of a bill and then reconciliation between the two bills for a final law.
As of now Joe Lieberman has indicated that he'll block legislation coming to a vote as is now proposed which at best would give the Democrats 59 votes, assuming that they didn't lose any other "real" Democrats in the cloture vote.
I really hope that the Democrats will do their best to come up with the bill that has the best consensus opportunities. I then hope that they will meet privately and try to agree to a united cloture vote - and then at least 50 votes in favor of the final legislation. I hope that - IF - anyone including Lieberman - will not (eventually) agree to this, that they will be stripped of all seniority and/or other perks that they now get (Lieberman chairs a committee - which he could easily be stripped of for 2010 - for example).
IF - healthcare reform legislation - is Not passed, I fear that:
1.) The Democrats will not succeed in most areas in passing controversial legislation that the Republicans don't support and
2.) In 2010 - the Democrats will take huge hits in the elections and
Again - the Democrats will have shown us all how they can "have it all" - but not do anything with it.
Obama - will then - obviously be greatly weakened and 2012 - may well be another bad year for the Democrats.
Healthcare reform is important now - in making a Start. It will Not be "good legislation". It will need improvements in future sessions of Congress. IF we insist on "good legislation" now - the Now will keep disappearing over the horizon. I think Single Payer is the answer - but obviously we aren't at its time yet!
Those who want to "stand on principle" - and "make a stand" now - are generally not those who lack healthcare coverage now and will really be hurt without such legislation. Personally I think that the Democratic Party is spineless and "not the answer" - but right now it's all that we've got. I'm more concerned that we now end up with the Republicans again either "in power" or able to block Anything from changing. They still are plenty Scary to me!
Thanks!
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Healthcare Reform - Maybe - Thank You!
I'm very glad to hear that the House of Representatives passed their healthcare reform bill! While the compromise related to abortions being covered is bad, obviously it was necessary to get the bill passed.
I can only hope now that the Democrats in the Senate will have 60 votes - to get their plan to a vote - and then at least 50 votes to then pass it. IF- opponents of reform - such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and our "dear independent friend" from Connecticut (Joe L.) - won't allow the legislation to get to a vote, I hope that they will be stripped of All Seniority - and similar by the Democratic Leadership.
Besides Healthcare Reform being very important, it also is necessary for the Democrats to recover from their woes, and move towards positive 2010 and then 2012 elections.
Healthcare reform - can be reformed in coming years. IF it isn't passed and put into law, it likely won't happen for another long period of time.
Thanks!
I can only hope now that the Democrats in the Senate will have 60 votes - to get their plan to a vote - and then at least 50 votes to then pass it. IF- opponents of reform - such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and our "dear independent friend" from Connecticut (Joe L.) - won't allow the legislation to get to a vote, I hope that they will be stripped of All Seniority - and similar by the Democratic Leadership.
Besides Healthcare Reform being very important, it also is necessary for the Democrats to recover from their woes, and move towards positive 2010 and then 2012 elections.
Healthcare reform - can be reformed in coming years. IF it isn't passed and put into law, it likely won't happen for another long period of time.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)