Here was my commentary on the editorial praising President Obama for addressing those ‘conscientious’ objectors to medical care for the masses. Perhaps ‘conscienceless’ might be a better term.

**************************
23. Barbara Rubin, Ca.
March 2nd, 2011
10:03 am

President Obama is severely hobbled by a corrupt system. He has shown a great talent in allowing the nature of that system come to the attention of every American citizen. His campaign and subsequent election led to a far more revealing dialogue with those in charge of running and defending a flawed system. Perhaps ‘dialogue’ is too generous a term. We’ve been privileged to hear the ‘diatribes’ that continue to obstruct our march towards a more civilized country honoring its constitutional foundations.

During the years in which we had a CEO in charge, rather than a President, the United States of America became America Ltd. Our congress and governors became our board of directors. We citizens were demoted to the level of mere consumers, chattel to our nation-states as federalism became reviled. Labor, as demonstrated in the latest legislative agenda of the Wisconsin state house, is just another commodity.

Health care is either a right or a commodity to be purchased by those with the means. President Obama presumes it is part of the federal constitutional promise that we have the right to life. Unable to block the bill, conservatives settled for turning it into a less efficient form than existing single-payer options would offer in order to convince Americans to refuse it. I once heard Rush Limbaugh compare the various tiers of his dog’s veterinary services plan with his ideal for human care – just pay for the level of coverage you can afford. Of course, he didn’t specify which level covered the charges for having Uncle Ed ‘put down’ if you couldn’t afford his chemotherapy. However, the very analogy makes us wish for the old title of ‘consumer’, rather than ‘pet’.

Americans must decide if they want health care. If the answer is yes, demand your elected leadership repair the current law for the benefit of all United States Citizens. If repealed, there won’t be another one. America Ltd. won’t permit it for their pets.

Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Recommended by 36 Readers

My personal favorite is that ever-popular show of gladiatorial heroics in which grandstanding politicians state their intention of taking health care away from Obama!

Obama and his family have guaranteed health care coverage. I checked.

It isn’t really news reporting if it strictly adheres to the scripts of the actors and actresses over-playing their parts as elected or appointed government officials. If it were actual news, the effects of each statement and action would be described in real terms. Isn’t it already ‘sensational’ that we live in a country having huge numbers of uninsured and under-insured Americans suffer severe medical problems for lack of physician services?

What are the actual implications of the rash statements in our headlines today?

-Health care is a commodity to be bought and sold rather than a practice steeped in tradition. The obligation to heal the sick, as per the Hippocratic Oath, must be restricted to insured individuals, wealthy patients or recipients of charity in free clinics.

-Health care is a rationed service for employed Americans with employers willing to reduce their own profits by varying amounts to supply such insurance. In return for these health benefits, employees are basically tied to their jobs in a feudal manner because health care insurance isn’t particularly portable.

-In reserving health care to the tender mercies of the private sector, an unofficial governing body in the form of provider associations, determines what will be offered to consumers along varying tiers of coverage. The public has a choice of that privatized ‘government’ making such choices without their input or of our elected, public government making such choices with their input. There will always be a government of some type to ‘ration’ care based upon costs.

-In reporting claims of impassioned actors that over-usage of services is to blame for high health care cots, where are the statistics defining this position? Are healthy individuals making physician visits part of their recreational agenda? Monday – Grand Canyon. Thursday – Mayo Clinic. Why not report over-usage as a situation in which the actual number of services necessary for control of a particular conditions like diabetes or cancer are actually exceeded? Overuse is a term requiring a context.

Of course, that would require reporters to ask public figures to define terms like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism’. Our representatives in Congress would have to explain the meanings behind their simple slogans. It would also require journalists to comprehend the adequacy of the responses their questions received. Attendance in school is compulsory in America. Unfortunately, acquiring an education is another matter entirely.

The New York Times and the Associated Press (as published on NPR) both discussed the effort by the Republicans to repeal ‘Obamacare’ as part of their war on the President. Any and all legislation which might seem positive in the eyes of the voting public must be rendered as distasteful as possible prior to enacting it. Then repeal is indicated, lest his reign be favorably remembered some day whether or not this presidency is restricted to a single term.

In the real world, all actions lead to other actions or reactions. Journalists need to inquire into the intentions of ‘actors’ who compartmentalize positions with such broad strokes. If they feel health care is a form of socialism, they should be asked if dropping health care is a prelude to repealing social security in their vision for the country. The public needs to know the path their current legislators are mapping for them unless assured this is an issue independent of all others. Again, it requires some degree of preparation on the part of the interviewer. All insurance is a form of socialism.

Combined premiums cover some of the insured subscribers who suddenly need help (car repair from a fender bender; cost of having your gall bladder removed, fixing up the house after a broken water pipe floods the basement etc.). Who’s paying for it? All the subscribers who don’t need help. Insurers are gambling that fewer people will need help than not while unused funds become profits in a stunning screenplay we might title, “Karl Marx runs off to Las Vegas to Marry Dr. Welby.”

So, when you read the typical news stories covering these subjects, ask yourselves what the reporters are actually telling you. We are seeing stories being played out before our eyes but it isn’t news.
————————————– 

Commentary left on these news stories:

GOP Sending Obama A Message On Health Repeal
by The Associated Press

Barbara Rubin (agasaya) wrote:

You are doing the American public a great disservice by writing/publishing articles which makes vital legislation even more removed from the voters. By labeling it a battle between Obama and legislators, it makes it seem as if health care was passed without a mandate from the voting public which overwhelmingly sent the President and many legislators to Washington for the purpose of passing it.

Please tell the news accurately and state that the Republicans intend to take universal health care away from Americans. Make it personal and help keep citizens interacting with their government. How else will change occur unless the public demands legislators actually govern, rather than commit sedition by halting these processes and keeping the same questions in play year after year.

Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Monday, January 03, 2011 6:43:18 PM
Recommend (22)
 
GOP Faces Uphill Climb To Undo Health Law
by Julie Rovner

Barbara Rubin (agasaya) wrote:

Health care isn’t socialism if one defines it as a right and not as a commodity. No society operates in any pure system of politics or economics. We aren’t a democracy but a constitutional republic – does that frighten anyone? We don’t practice capitalism because that is a ‘trickle-up’ form of economics, not our ‘trickle-down’ mode in which corporations determine what we buy and how much we pay for it. We aren’t allowed to know what is in our products either. Funny, but consumers in Europe are offered full labeling. The continent which offers free health care practices a more honest form of capitalism, without having children dying of brain infections because they can’t afford to get abscessed teeth extracted.

Don’t worry,there will always be a ‘tier’ for a premium level of health care with no waiting -just as there is today. But 43,000 people won’t die for lack of it in 2014 as they do presently. I refer you to the statistics of what this nation has to pay out in lost productivity and disability benefits for those who become too sick to work. Health care will pay for itself in such savings.

It isn’t Obama that congress is depriving of health care. It is US.

Barbara Rubin
www.armchairactivist.us
Tuesday, January 04
Recommend (60)

One of the major reasons for my support of candidate Barack Obama for president, was that he taught constitutional law. I had my doubts that the other candidates had both read and understood that document. It’s easy to slap a bumper sticker of an American flag on an SUV, but that doesn’t turn us into educated citizens, aware of our privileges and responsibilities. Love of country isn’t enacted through the repetition of mindless slogans or assumptions based upon frequently expressed opinions. It takes effort, just as the love of family drives Americans to work more hours than other industrialized nations. It takes logic, which is entirely lacking when members of the Supreme Court convening to protect the constitution, permitted its privileges to be extended to non-human constructs called corporations back in the 19th century. Conferring the rights of ‘personhood’ upon them, separate and apart from the rights of their owners, created a new class of citizenship. In deciding the recent Citizens United case, a modern Supreme Court allowed the constitution to be turned into a prospectus. Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion eloquently details how that decision placed our elections in the hands of businesses (corporate persons), which do not even pay taxes or have any allegiance to the U.S. That decision ratified the transition of this country from an independent nation called the United States, into America, Ltd. Businesses were now allowed to sway our political system from foreign shores and leave the public ignorant of which ‘paper citizens’ were making such an investment in our government.

Competition used to be for the betterment of business entities, trying to outdo each other in building a better ‘mousetrap’, and capturing the largest market share of consumers at home and around the globe. This turned into a competition among states for who could get the largest piece of the federal ‘pie’, while denying the importance of the other states contributing the monies to bake it. Montana’s Representative Baucus noted how his state depended upon the federal funding of special projects (earmarks) to cover close to half of that state’s annual budget despite professed concerns about the deficit. Our ‘union’ has become dis-united because of a misconception that competition, the basis of capitalism, somehow dictates the nature of nationhood. George W. Bush had referred to himself as the CEO of American Ltd., although the members of his board remained in the shadows, meeting in secret with his COO, Cheney.

We can’t be governed by people who have no idea how the United States of America works, yet they appear to be in the majority. The change in government two years ago was largely a reaction to the loss of jobs and health care benefits. Concern was also rising about deficit spending due to our involvement in a war and the enrichment of select corporations through expensive reconstruction contracts.

Back home, the phrase ‘secure employment‘, became an oxymoron while health care insurance costs spiraled out of control for the unemployed and those working for small businesses. Large companies saw no reason to reduce the incredible salaries and bonuses given to executives in order to fairly compensate a disposable workforce. Like so many broken toasters, it is cheaper to replace a worker than to offer raises in a culture which has labeled workers as commodities (much like health care). Why pay higher premiums for workers who will need to use their health care plans as they age? Americans are routinely classed as laborers, patients and consumers. It is time to return to our legal status as citizens. Why worry about illegal immigration when those of us who are legal residents aren’t exercising our rights and responsibilities?

While industry fuels the fears of unemployed Americans that any regulation of commerce will restrict job growth, the public should be able to see through such ploys when the justice system itself is taken out of citizen’s hands. NAFTA attempted to place business interests in the hands of corporate tribunals while the crimes of terrorists were removed from our jurisdiction into the hands of the military. The New York Times has been following the failure of government to support the constitution through the avoidance of jury trials for terrorists. They’ve described the obstruction of legislative activity by elected officials who boast they can shut down our government—merely to discredit a sitting president‘s historical record. And they can, in ways that damage progress in addressing the financial infrastructure that led to our economic meltdown.

Obstruction of justice and refusal by salaried officials to govern. This brings to mind the old saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”. I posted the following comment on the New York Times editorial praising the results of the first civilian trial of a terrorist who had been detained at Guantanamo. No matter the rhetoric of extremists, the constitution triumphed.

135. HIGHLIGHT (what’s this?)
Barbara Rubin
Ca.
November 19th, 2010
6:18 pm

The disrespect for citizens is what has brought us to our current status quo. In America, legislators defraud their constituents by refusing to govern. They hold the government hostage in defiance of their sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution. Jury trials are a constitutional right. If we don’t protect the constitution by honoring its provisions, there is no America.

We are not a democracy but a constitutional republic which elects politicians to make our decisions and laws FOR us. Presidents are made by electoral colleges so the “One Person, One Vote” system doesn’t exist. The right of non-corporeal entities (businesses) to infuse unlimited funds to sway those elections means political campaigns spend (your) millions of contributed dollars merely to counteract messages funded by corporations. Of course they don’t want juries to make these decisions. We don’t make any of the others. Didn’t we demand health care which our ‘leaders’ now swear to dismantle? So much for citizenship.

This jury deserves a congressional medal of honor. They put away a criminal (probably for life – how many convictions do you need?), using legal methodology. Legislators need to stop twisting the purpose for having a military. They guard citizens so we can promote justice.

Thank you NY Times editors.

Certain cultural premises cannot be hidden although they may be dressed in the finest of linen. Certain terrifying realities about how women in society are viewed have come shining through the writings of two nationally prominent columnists in the NY Times – Nicholas Kristoff and David Brooks. While this blog concentrates on issues affecting health, the fact remains that women are disproportionately harmed by the corporate domination of research which develops and promotes the sale of environmentally and biologically harmful products. The decline in women’s health is considered more of an inconvenience and expense than a national indicator of misogyny. It is all disguised as being a necessary evil if you wish to reap the rewards of a of free-market economy. However, it is hard to call such an economy ‘free’, when it takes so many prisoners among the most vulnerable of consumers. These next three posts discuss columns written about violence involving women. I was shocked at what these columnists said–and failed to say– about my culture.

I came late to feminism due to a combination of inherited and earned privilege, which can sharply skew perception (and acceptance) of reality. A happy, lower middle class childhood meant luxuries were limited, but life was sweet, as loving parents sheltered me from their day to day struggles. There was sufficient food, a roof over my head and an education sharply monitored and reinforced by them. A second generation American, I grew up among those who escaped terrible persecution to come to the US. The worked in factories and even sweat shops, while going to night school, so their children would have better lives. Next to my chair in synagogues would sit elderly women with tattooed wrists. They were treated well in their families so my realization of how women are actually regarded in society was delayed.

That background prepared me to be more accepting of the observations and information that later came my way about hardship and its relationship to class and race. I learned about gender-privilege when faced with it again and again on the job. Reading the writings of anguished women thriving, or barely surviving, in the face of such obstacles led me to begin examining my own privilege. It became easier to recognize just how the inclusion of women within a culture is a gift bestowed upon us by men. It is just as swiftly withdrawn by men for any real or perceived infraction of their codes. As these columns reveal, women are actually held responsible for rectifying the failures of men which perpetuate the oppression of women.

Sisyphus , that mythological King who was condemned to spend all eternity pushing a boulder uphill, must have been a woman.

In war, you know the identity of your enemy. Nicholas Kristoff asks an excellent question in this Op Ed piece for the NY Times, “Do We Really Want the Status Quo on Health Care?“. It identified lack of health care as part of the current status quo. The next question to ask here is just who or what is the enemy, taking out so many non-combatants each year? Is it health care costs? Certainly a single payer system would go far towards cost containment since the private sector is guilty of price fixing in setting values upon products and services – be it a mortgage or an MRI. Health care constitutes more than 17% of our gross domestic product for other reasons.

It’s a bit ridiculous to claim it is ‘overuse’ of services as we hear from the ‘party of No’. The last time I checked, people in the market for entertainment chose Disneyland over a visit to an orthopedist. Services are certainly not ‘overused’ by those without insurance and the many people who are ‘under-insured’. The latter individuals forgo many exams and medications due to co-pays and the need to cover that next health insurance premium which is really retained for catastrophic coverage. Nor are services ‘overused’ in the quest for a proper diagnosis in a culture of health care that is oriented to the control of symptoms instead identification of their source. Drugs may be ineffective for their intended purpose and many lead to serious adverse effects as well. Seeking out multiple physician opinions to obtain health care with a good outcome is not ‘over-use’ but a necessity until medicine matures sufficiently to return to cure-oriented treatments. This is well understood – and feared – by many Americans. I personally know one, very well insured person, who suffered a stroke rather than see a physician for check-ups to learn about having chronically high blood pressure and silent kidney damage.

If it is ‘just’ about sickness, then we need to utilize the renewed Patriot Act in order to force Congress to legislate universal health care. The enemy must find it incredibly comforting to know that Americans require huge amounts of health care because we are an exceedingly ill nation.

• One quarter of children have a chronic health condition.
• Nearly half of all adults have a chronic health condition.
• Our seniors, comprising more than 12% percent of our population will predictably require care and ‘end of life’ services. Medicare exists to provide them with a considerable degree of coverage for their conditions without the attendant blame for needing health insurance which is accorded to younger Americans without the funds to pay for it.

We are a nation of patients. Debating about caring for the sick is entirely based upon a premise that our country is first an economic system rather than a constitutional entity. The health care debate centers around the notion that offering a cost-effective public system of medical coverage to its citizens is unfair to industry because it removes a share of potential consumers from the marketplace. All discussion of competition between insurers (not even providers of care) relegates the science of medicine to an equal rung on the marketplace ladder with, say, that mysterious metal coil we call a ‘Slinky’. Are these really products and services we wish to consider identical to the marketing of toys within the marketplace?

If you can’t afford bread, it will be provided to you. However, you may have to ration those loaves carefully to last you for the requisite period necessary. Can a lesser tier of insurance provide a ‘half-cure’ for a disease? Ask any physician if you should take seven days of antibiotics for an infection which requires fourteen days of medication to achieve a cure. Patients have been known to cut short the length of treatment time for many infections in the hope that rationing their medication for their current illness will save costs for new prescriptions for their next illness. We know now that this approach merely leads to the growth of antibiotic resistant infections and far greater illness (not to mention costs) than had we assisted them with the full price of earlier treatments. Seizures are quite difficult to control in many patients without a minimum level of drug support and often combinations of drugs. The nervous system may not recognize the notion of ‘compromise’ based upon income. Should the acquisition of seizure medications be dependent upon the same economic system that markets Slinky toys? Does our national identity become so lost if medical care is provided to all that it is better to consign 45,000 people each year to death for lack of medical insurance? Any war with that level of annual casualties would have the public taking to the streets in protest. Of course, this figure doesn’t even factor in deaths due to being ‘under-insured’. Again, how much compromise can one safely make with costly high blood pressure medications?

As with most issues which appear to be full of contradictions, philosophy dictates that we must check our assumptions. The ‘right’ side of the legislative debate (or the wrong side for purposes of this blog post) relegates the art and science of medicine to a commodity instead of a life preserving or life-saving practice. If medicine is strictly a commodity then it will remain available only to those with sufficient income for a comprehensive tier of medical insurance. The minimum wage only offers sufficient income to deprive earners of federal medical coverage granted to the ‘legally’ poor. The majority of insured Americans will eventually find themselves ‘under-insured’ in a marketplace where every buyer is guaranteed to need their full investment back when they get sick. With the escalating numbers of sick and disabled Americans, no insurance company can be considered a sustainable entity as fewer healthy people purchase their policies.

Since capitalism invites unsustainable businesses to go out of business, should medical care be considered part of that process at all? Medical care for humans isn’t a ‘choice’ as it is with veterinary care for pets. One can put down a sick Doberman or withhold treatment but is that option open to you with Aunt Edith? It would seem that regarding medical care as a commodity is the surest way to create death panels based upon income levels alone. Only the poorest, the elderly and the wealthy will be able to access care unless the insurance risk pool grows to include everyone AND we begin to deal with the excessive rates of illness. Controlling environmentally induced ailments will not just slow the rate of inflation but reverse it.

Let’s move on to another radical assumption about ourselves as Americans. Requiring a basic level of wealth in order to access health care services says that we are first and foremost consumers, rather than citizens. Our last administration was fond of terming us, “consumers” and the presidency as akin to the CEO of America. As consumers, we become subservient to corporations which claim they must not be required to compete with a government capable of offering the same essential medical services to its legal residents at a lower cost, i.e. Medicare. Why can’t they compete? Is there some reason corporations are supposed to be underwritten by the government to ensure the availability of customers or a particular profit margin? If the products and services of a company are out of range of most consumer’s wallets, wouldn’t any company naturally diversify or go out of business? Isn’t it corporate welfare to consign American citizens to the mercies of private insurers with no other options? Does that even guarantee any level of competition will exist?

By the time G.W. Bush left the gubernatorial chair of Texas, medicaid payments were so reduced that doctors could not afford to maintain a practice in poorer areas. United States ‘consumers’ were crossing the Mexican border to obtain services from clinics in Mexico. The government failed to meet even the meanest corporate standard of payment for essential services and certainly health care professionals are entitled to a living wage! A definite end to any government challenge to business.

No economic system should be confused with determinations of basic morals and ethics. Canada and European nations don’t classify medicine in the same category as other commodities. For the average commodity such as housing, food and clothing, one budgets according to one’s income. Those who can’t own, rent. Those who can afford to do so choose lobster over tuna. The cost differences between various brands of clothing is quite broad. Consumers choose accordingly but still remain housed, fed and clothed for the most part. Citizens in dire straits however, do receive food, clothing and housing. Why then is medicine assigned a lower rung on the ladder of necessary products and services? National identity is at the heart of this debate, not capitalism and competition. Further erasing the notion of competition being at the heart of this debate – revealing as such a position may be – true competition no longer appears to be part of our major industries. Price fixing is common today, as I recently found when looking at independent and assisted living facilities. Astonished by the notion that a small room in such a facility was deserving of a monthly, $2,100 price tag, even with a meal plan. I was informed by one manager that it was only fair not to undercut the prices of their competition too greatly. The presence of government options with little or no profit margin restores an absolute value to such products and services once more. All we’ve known in recent decades is relative value – the minimum profits agreed upon by trade associations without regard for demand in relation to production costs (varying according to quality).

Price fixing is the purposeful undermining of capitalism in order to restrict ‘fairness’ to corporate entities instead of the consumer. It restricts efforts to promote increased quality among similarly priced services wherever there appears to be sufficient numbers available to feed at the shared trough. Only when the numbers of ‘consumers’ available to take these small rooms in senior communities decreases, can a fall in charges can be expected. These ‘homes’ have many rooms going empty which is not, apparently, a threat to their continued operation. This is not a function of competition but of tacit agreement between corporate entities that one must take every last penny from a consumer’s wallet before declaring one’s profit to be at an acceptable level. Rooms go empty rather than be accorded an actual value which would be within the means of far more consumers and still be profitable for the vendor.

I had a similar experience with used car dealers. None would disclose what a car was worth until they learned of how much money I had to spend – carefully calculated by them according to my income. The worth of the car appeared to change with each successive journey the salesman made into his boss’s office during negotiations. I believe Saturn became a popular car based upon its sales policy of one price for all customers. Imagine that – a product with a singe value accorded to it regardless of consumer income. Comparing that view to that of the salesman in that assisted living facility is the best illustration of how capitalism has mutated into a form of gangster capitalism. When politicians begin expounding about maintaining a ‘free marketplace’, we must remember that the marketplace is never free when profit margins are pre-determined by official or unofficial trade associations. Instead of increasing quality and advancing new technology, vendors band together to break any newcomer so foolish as to actually exceed their level of service quality for the money in a sustainable manner.

Capitalism was supposed to spur the pursuit of excellence in industry. Progress depends upon it instead of solely relying upon tax incentives for industry to embrace new developments as older – and often hazardous – products and services are banned.

We must further go to the nature of our justice system which promises injuries can be redressed. With so much illness either known or suspected to be the result of pollution – a byproduct of industry which is largely ignored by government regulators – how can we permit it to go untreated? How can we wrest the costs from the victims of pollution? We’ve seen lead removed from paint and the outrage over of imported toys possessing that toxic ingredient. We’ve seen anti-smoking legislation reduce cardiac events by one third in participating municipalities. Pollution emanating from many uncontrolled sources is also causing asthma, heart disease, autoimmune disorders and cancers among other disorders. Why is the individual held responsible for their medical treatments when causation goes undeterred? This is an issue of justice as much as it is one of national identity. Are we citizens or consumers? If the elderly are allowed medical care, it is ageism to declare younger citizens to be dispensable in all matters medical.

Obviously, the real enemy is sickness. We have consistently failed to meet it on the honorable battlefield of medicine because – that’s right – we left the field of battle to lobbyists and their corporate sponsors telling dying people that it is better to be dead than participate in ‘socialist’ medicine. What, pray tell, should we do when reaching retirement age? Commit hara-kiri rather than accept evil, government-sponsored Medicare?

We know that voters began demanding universal health care, preferring a single payer option just one year ago, before slogans and tea parties began to frighten the average person into believing they are better off without health care than with an incomplete plan of action – as if any taxes paid towards that effort would ever even approach the charges of the average health care plan in America. That would not be the case if healthy Americans were paying reasonable premiums to, say, Medicare instead of a private insurer where overhead would automatically be greater lest an American CEO be left behind. Paul Krugman gives an excellent synopsis of the insurance game lest anyone remain in denial of how this process works.

Sickness may be the enemy but ignorance and denial leaves us without the weapons to fight it. We are thus far unarmed in a battle which is not about life. It is about ideologies which are counter to both the ideological basis upon which we are governed and to capitalism, our presumed economic system. There isn’t much more you can get wrong in politics.

Once the public realizes that freedom of speech does not ensure accuracy of content, we may begin to take our personal responsibilities more seriously, having fiddled while the District of Columbia burned. But don’t expect treatment at your local ER for your wounds unless you have great insurance. When Massachusetts voters decided that, having attained universal health care for their fellow Bay Staters, the remainder of the country could go without lest any part of that cost devolve upon them, it was clear that Americans no longer wondered about what was to happen the day AFTER tomorrow.

Perhaps the new conservatives they elected will be happy to suspend their health care once their state’s allotments no longer cover their citizens. Pretending you aren’t part of a larger nation is always a mistake. It takes an entire nation, not a village. Villages are razed all around the globe daily by the bullies and their minions- who also don’t think about the day after tomorrow.

Public perception of today’s societal burdens is largely the product of media presentation. Objective reporting goes out the window when the tactic of appealing to the ‘human interest’ readership portrays abusive viewpoints as legitimate (e.g. blowing poisonous fumes into communal airspace). Would you expect reporters to present a ‘side’ by a serial killer about why his victims ‘made him do it’? Does it honestly matter that smokers don’t like leaving a nice warm bar to smoke outside before returning to their fun when non-smoking patrons and bar employees will live to enjoy a new dawn because of such bans? My comment at that site contains links to mainstream research which should help the hapless victims of drifting tobacco smoke to explain the urgency with which the non-smoking public requires protective legislation.

Enforcing it would be nice, too.

117. B.R.
January 2nd, 2010
4:40 pm

The media is contributing to the continuing confusion on the part of the public about the crucial nature of anti-smoking legislation. It wasn’t intended to reduce the number of people who are addicted to smoking but to first protect citizens from bearing the costs of smoking-related illnesses and to prevent the unnecessary disability and death that smoking causes in millions of non-smokers. Stories of this nature require simple citations of why the laws were even put on the books.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/health/main5385879.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/09/28/heart_attack_rates_fall_after_smoking_bans/

The data as summarized by the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine indicates that over 125 million non-smokers are enjoying unprecedented relief since this legislation was implemented in so many communities without incurring financial losses to businesses. University of California (San Francisco) researchers pooling data found that in just three years, cardiac events were reduced by a third in participating communities. That translates into huge societal benefits. The debate presented in these articles should be about how to accommodate the needs of smokers since the practice is legal and quitting is an impossibility for so many. However, their addictions don’t’ warrant a death sentence – or death tax via medical costs – being assigned to non-participants in the practice.

The data on asthma indicates it is the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity (and largest cause of missed school days in children). With over twenty million asthmatics in the country, how would any employer find it financially rewarding to allow smoking in their facilities?

The dramatics of wealthy bar patrons agonizing about being deprived of nicotine while indoors is simply not news but a sad commentary on a society disinterested in human suffering. The real drama of bar employees having to choose between their jobs and their health is news – not that they are free to complain if they want to retain their jobs.

Lest the smokers continue to feel put upon in this matter, recall the 2001 attempt by Phillip Morris to lobby against legislation of smoking restrictions in the Republic of Czechoslovakia. Government officials were told of the fiscal benefits they might enjoy by permitting smoking to continue. Their statistics showed that the premature deaths of smokers reduced government expenditures in retiree pensions and health care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/

NY Times, some stories really don’t have ‘two’ sides.

—————————–
Update: New study indicates there is no safe level of second hand smoke exposure:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article

First is this column by Charles Blow of the NY Times. Mr. Blow read a blog entry by Tyler Perry, detailing his horrendous childhood experiences at the hands of a drunken father.  Reading the words of this survivor of child abuse made it clear that Perry lost his opportunity to escape his father’s influence because his fleeing mother had been returned to that abusive man, much like the other ‘property’ he’d declared stolen – the family car. Perry was additional baggage, not even separated from his mother during her incarceration while waiting to be ‘claimed’, and a witness to his mother being beaten throughout that endless drive home. 

Being forced to witness abuse is also abuse. Children, by their egocentric natures, feel they are integral parts of the problems surrounding them, requiring tremendous reassurance of their blamelessness. That balm is simply unavailable in the face of overwhelming pathology. This leaves the children of such homes forever marked not just by fear, but the sense of shame and guilt accompanying inaction. That inaction on the part of all who know or suspect abuse extends that helplessness into an all-pervasive characteristic of society.

How convenient for those in authority.
 
Here was my comment (minor corrections added), posted in reply to the column, “No More Suffering”, by Charles Blow (NY Times, 10/10/09):

13. October 10th, 2009

Mr. Blow,

Law enforcement forced Tyler Perry’s mother to return to her violent husband. Violence against women is a way of life, sanctioned in nearly every society, if not actively endorsed. We have only recently seen an end to foot binding in the last century after billions were abused. Female genital mutilation remains a common occurrence in some cultures even where there has been specific legislation against such practices. Here in the US, with our culture of violence, women plead in vain for protective measures against known and unknown parties. Our own rape shield laws are one example of how pervasively society blames violence upon the violated, pursuing them into the court room on the rare occasions sexual assault cases make it to trial. Such assaults are a crime against society, not just the woman (or man) in question.

The CDC notes that a quarter of women endure partner violence, an overt measure of subjugation which makes no mention of the day to day mental cruelty endured prior to physical brutality. Children growing up in the climate of emotional and physical abuse may learn to accept it as normal and repeat the cycle. Those who manage to avoid passing on that legacy of violence are its only true survivors.

One factor is rarely included in the serious issue of violence being ‘under-reported’. Many victims do not initially consider remaining silent. Law enforcement personnel often refuse to record complaints by women of stalking, harassment and assault (never mind investigating or prosecuting them), automatically consigning them to nuisance calls. From there we move on to the insufficient availability of housing options for abused women and children to escape retribution and the need to endure in silence.

Additional benefits stem from ignoring violence. All of societal ills can then be blamed upon histories of self-reported trauma. It conveniently replaces the need for concrete social services with prescriptions of anti-depressants for adults and children (assuming the parties are insured). It continues to ignore a lack of parity in employment between the genders and access to safe, affordable childcare which can go a long way towards preventing and identifying child abuse.

Thank you for keeping this topic in the public eye but it is largely preventable if its roots in misogyny are recognized.

Recommended by 55 Readers

I went to a town hall meeting to see how the public both digested and regurgitated the facts being discussed by our Commander-in-Chief. Northern New England tends to be more disciplined than most places so the audience was politely divided into the usual ‘pro’ and ‘con’ camps. Only a very small minority were annoying us with completely fatuous fables about non-existent legislative bills, death panels planning to “off” grandpa, and complaints that more insurance means more pay for ‘baby-murderers’.

These spurious tales have been authored by the sharp minds representing extremely dangerous special interests, in a manner that ridicules genuine concerns by real citizens. End-of-life planning should not be considered a synonym for euthanasia. Access to birth control and decent pre-natal care should be celebrated instead of universal insurance being condemned as a cheap way to deliver birth control via abortion to every underage girl in America. These slogans can be dismissed with a view to basic common sense and were given short shrift by the representative running this particular town hall meeting.

On the other hand, fears of important legislative proposals can be eased with a basic review of their constitutionality. Having a President who used to teach constitutional law is quite a plus. Still, the media would have Obama spend every waking minute arguing with idiots who’ve likely never even read that document. There’s an old saying that one should never argue with a fool because observers have a hard time telling one from the other. Unfortunately, it makes for great entertainment and sells as another form of reality T.V.

Sorry, Frank but the summer was extremely educational. The public has now had a taste for the desperate lies of the rabid right. When Wilson called the President a liar while he was speaking, it exemplified the fact that reasoned opposition was now absent in this new theater of the absurd we refer to as government. Between Palin and Wilson, it is time for the American people to begin scrutinizing the educational resumes and behaviors of their candidates before voting. I certainly don’t want to vote for anyone who didn’t surpass my own educational achievements. And Wilson’s name isn’t even ‘Joe’. I like a representative who can remember his name even if I forget mine occasionally.

Please, media moguls! Bring back journalism worthy of the solemnity of the task of bringing the NEWS to the public so our representatives won’t need to act like reality T.V. characters to get attention. The President of these United States should not have to play to the 24-hour news cycle. The cycle should present what they have and let the networks offer reruns of Survivor during the remaining hours. It is preferable to turning the legislative process into a show where only the boring, smart and sane representatives get voted off the Island.

This was my disappointed response to that article in the NY Times blog.

197. September 13th, 2009
1:38 pm

Mr. Rich,

While I normally applaud your columns, today’s statements are an example of why the media is undercutting President Obama’s agenda. This type of message is misinforming the American people of why our need for universal health care is not being addressed.

You are imbuing the office of the Presidency with powers it does not have. This is not the time for journalists and commentators to perform as theater critics, reviewing Obama’s manner and every other possible nuance of communication as if that alone can shape our legislation. Such an idea merely serves the conservative agenda. Conservatives, operating under the leadership and financing of special interests, are devoted to the least attractive aspect of our Republic. They know that decisions being made have nothing to do with the direct will of the people. Yes, the Democrats may control the House and Senate, but our representatives are all operating under the constitutionally mandated form of government we possess, which is that of a Republic. We, the people, elect others to think and act on our behalf. We place those individuals at a level of power in which they are free to ignore the wishes of their constituencies and do as they choose. They can choose ‘our’ will or that of corporate masters, willing and able to purchase the votes of the greedy or simpleminded. Those masters offer both the money and rhetoric necessary for their sock-puppets to justify abandoning the wishes of the voters and proclaim their choices in loud, meaningless statements about their love of country and their outrage at logical arguments which contradict their choices.

President Obama is ensuring that the people hear about our choices so that we can influence those responsible for seeing our will be done. He discusses governments like Iran and North Korea so that we pay attention to events there instead of reciting slogans about an ‘axis of evil.’ The corporate masters behind our health care system now hold sway by influencing the votes of our Senators and Congressman or by delaying action with yet another non-sequitur about death panels intending to knock off Grandma Rose. Obama can only remind us to look to our nation’s IQ level when there are those among us ready to believe that a public option in health care would transform us into a socialist country. Our current public option, Medicare, has been keeping many of us alive these past decades, including Grandma Rose. We are still a Republic.

President Obama can only remind us that each moment of delay means more dollars in someone’s pocket and another day of suffering for someone with a preventable or curable illness who lacks appropriate health care. The media can help guide us in sorting through the facts and trace the strings leading from the sock-puppets to the puppet masters.

Otherwise, it’s really about government and ultimately, up to us.

Fancy that.

The NY Times discusses it in their latest editorial, “Majority Rule on Health Care Reform.” It is past time our Senators were introduced to the concept that the people who voted for them actually hoped their will would be the guiding force behind the actions of the individuals designated to make our decisions for us.

The flaw in the process by which a republic operates is best demonstrated by the editorial’s quotation from South Carolina Senator James DeMint (referred to as ‘Jim,’ except that I have no intention of getting that informal with this character.) Apparently, his views take no notice of his constituents’ needs for medical services, but is solely concerned with ending any chance of Obama presiding over a nation that can actually consult a physician when the need arises.

Perhaps if such a privilege were called the “DeMint Prerogative,” we’d have a better chance of obtaining that goal with his extra vote? Hard to say, when elected officials only address issues one can not even call partisan at this point. The Republicans are no longer recognizable as a party. Instead, they appear to be buffoon-like caricatures of their former old boys’ network of well-educated, if exclusive (in all senses of the word), club of wealthy conservatives who once had some investment in the stature of their country in the world community.

Here is the comment left on the NY Times blog about this today:

153. B.R. August 30th, 2009

We should not attribute President Obama’s ‘efforts’ to obtain bipartisan cooperation in any area as naive or ineffectual. A man of his intellect and experience had to have known such efforts were destined for failure. However, that effort was the greatest source of enlightenment for a badly misinformed public. We have learned that our struggles with economic and health care issues are not based upon an unwillingness of reformers to reach across the aisle. It is based upon the determination of many elected officials to prevent reforms from ever becoming a reality for the American people.

Perhaps if the NY Times stopped paying people to publish obstructionist material in your paper, we might see an end to conservatives laboring in the service of industrial ‘dis’ interests, including the welfare of its own labor force. Perhaps we’d see an end to interminable debate and delay strategies by legislators being applauded and redefined as ‘incrementalists‘ by your own columnists.

President Obama had no choice but to parade this futile dance before our eyes to convince us once and for all that many of our representatives are busy representing something other than their constituencies. A show of reasonableness, and the offer of a clean slate for previous contributors to divisiveness, was a necessary step towards the political education of the American people. We must no longer be willing to be led down the garden path accompanied by slogans and waving flags as we sink into homelessness, under/unemployment, ignorance, poverty and disability. Just look at the plight of our veterans if anyone thinks conservatives today represent American values.

There are no conflicts – just incorrect premises. Thank you to President Obama for revealing those premises upon which so many of our political fiascoes are based.