30 May, 2011

The Political Values of the Different Democracys

An Essay










         Within democracies, political dissent and different views are welcomed as a part of the political system. We see many different values and beliefs when it comes to different aspects of society. In this essay, I will begin to explain the differences between three different democracies. I will analyze the democracy of America, the UK, and France on four different levels. The areas include economic values, religious values, foreign influence and the relationship between government and religion. The study where they polled these nations comes from the text 'Cases in Comparative Politics', (O'Neill, Fields, Share) and the study was done in 2007. It is important to state these differences and study these nation’s values, because it reflects the way in which these nations go about governing themselves. It’s crucial to figure out the way these values have been shaped through not only a historical lens, but a contemporary lens.
        All three of these nations have different forms of governing when it comes to their economy. The UK has a more socialist economy with the government providing many jobs and services, but also has a mix of private enterprise and a free market system. They tend to value their economic success based on how their government controls spending and the amount of jobs the government can or cannot provide at a given time. This leads many citizens to believe that their economic success is within their grasp and can easily be managed through government intervention. This is why the UK lists #3 in their confidence of their control over their economic success, with 56% of the population believing economic success is in their control. This shows a broad confidence among citizens in the UK that their government can control the economy effectively with intervention mixed with a free market.
        The U.S. ranks #1 on the confidence in their ability to control their economy with 64% of the population agreeing that it is in their control. This seems odd in a system where government intervention is seen as overbearing and the market is to basically fend for itself in rough economic times. There is an explanation for this though. Americans believe that economic success is in their control because American’s tend to believe that anybody can succeed in the free market system. They thrive on the idea that opportunity to succeed financially does not discriminate against anyone regardless of class or social status. Although this has been proved to be a fallacy with many social and economic restraints on many in the lower class, it is a fundamental value and part of the American dream. The idea that anybody with enough will and determination can succeed co-insides with the idea that the American economy as a whole is controllable. Through American society’s collective grouping of successful entrepreneurs and businessmen, they believe economic success is not out of grasp. It’s the idea that one’s economic success is controllable therefore the nation’s economic success can only mirror this.
          France ranks #4 on this list with 48%, right under that of the UK. The economy of France is much like that of the UK, but maybe even a little more socialist and government regulated. There is a very strong state in France and confidence that the government is there to take care of the disenfranchised and the overall handling of the economy is strong. This is reinforced with the long standing history of strikes and mass protests French citizens hold upon any piece of legislation or program that’s unpopular. This gives many citizens great confidence that they have the power to control and shape their government economically and their own economic success. Through the public’s powerful influence over the government’s policies and it’s politicians, they view economic success as something that is quite manageable.
          When it comes to the foreign influence of these countries, both Britain and France have no history of foreign influence, while America was colonized up until the American Revolution. All three of these countries were imperial powers, colonizing and controlling much of the world before the mid 1900’s. They were the foreign influence then and today remain to be among the most influential actors in the international scene. This is reflected with the percentage of their population’s fear over foreign influence. All three rank in the bottom half of the list, with the United States at 62%, the United Kingdom at 54%, and France at 52%. The fact that the United States was once a colony itself is reflected in it being the highest in ranking over the fear of foreign influence among these three nations. What attributes to America’s confidence in autonomous governance and lack of foreign influence is the fact that America is a world superpower and still today remains to be influential over much of the world. This would make it hard for many American’s to truly fear their role in the world when it comes to their international stance.
           When it comes to religious values, all three of these nations have varying positions. The United States for example is #5 on the list with 57% of the population believing that one must believe in God to be moral. This is a reflection of the deeply religious values that pertain much of the south and the rural areas in America. The idea that religion and morals go hand in hand is one that’s been a part of American culture since those escaping religious persecution came to America during its founding. Many American citizens believe that faith is a vital part to one’s character, with 3 out of 4 people saying they would not vote for a president who did not believe in God. This shows the deeply religious foundation America has and wants to maintain for future generations and its leaders.
             Now the UK and France both rank at the bottom two on this list, with the UK having only 22% of the population and France taking dead last with 17% of the population believing that one has to believe in God to be moral. This shows a fundamental difference between these two nations and that of America. This can be attributed to that both countries having a long standing history of being ruled by a Monarchy, with a Queen or King that derived their power from ‘God’. While in the UK, gradual deterrence of the Monarchy’s power can be seen through passage of legislation like the Magna Carta and other various increases in the Prime Minister and government’s power, France’s history was much more violent. The French Revolution which resulted in the mass majority of French citizens revolting against the King and the Monarchy’s power, and the Reign of Terror all attest to the French citizen’s lack of trust in religious institutions. This is reflected in France having a lower level of faith in the morality of religion, showing that only 17% of the population having a belief in the moral guidelines religious people hold.
             These statistics above are paralleled with the surveys done on the amount of people agreeing whether or not religion and government should be kept separate. While in America only 55% believe that government and religion should be kept separated (ranking #8). France tops the list with 72% of the country believing likewise. The UK ranks fifth, with 66% of the population. With the historical backgrounds of violent religious uprisings, and the general ideals of democracy and self government, both the UK and France show a larger percentage of citizens supporting the idea of the separation between religion and government. America on the other hand, even with the founding fathers basing the entire American constitution on the idea of separation of church and state (due to fear of the rule of another King like the rule that they had under the British), we see a much lower percentage believing likewise. This in my opinion is because Americans see less of a threat of religious institutions due to the lack of historical conflict between religion and the state. Americans tend to trust their religious figures and institutions much more than France or the UK, which is completely understandable based on the differences in their nation’s histories alone.
             All three of the nations today are world leaders, being widely influential around the world through politics and culture. Their legacies and histories will be studied for centuries to come as the founders of contemporary and civil democracy. Their political, religious and economic values may differ, but all in all, each nation has proven the capability of becoming world leaders in finance, industry and power. To understand and to analyze their past gives us a key to perceiving their modern day situations with greater ease and comprehension. Without understanding these nation’s histories, it’d be impossible to understand their present, and difficult to predict the guidelines in which these nations would pursue in the future.

26 May, 2011

Universal Health Coverage- An Extended Look at the Most Politicized Issue in America

"...We finally are able to make real the principle that every American should have access to affordable health care, and no one should go bankrupt just because they get sick" - Democratic Party  

  

         The debate over whether or not a universal health care system should be implemented in the United States has divided politicians for decades. Health care being seen as a right to every citizen has been fundamentally engrained in the historical context of Europe. Even in some recently developing countries do we see health care being seen as a right endowed to all citizens. With America being one of the only industrialized nations in the world without some form of universal health care, it seems that we are the anomaly among prosperous countries. The causes behind this are purely political, as we see partisan battles and inter-party squabbles over the very thought of a government run health care system, which many on the right would deem as socialist, while many on the left would deem vital to the progress of our society. Whether or not these two sides are right or wrong is purely trivial. It is more important to dive into the world of public policy to truly understand what undermines the ability of our government to enact such a social program. With the heated debates seen recently in 2009, or even the upheaval caused by former President Clinton's attempt at reforming health care in 1993, it is not too far of a stretch to say that public discourse is often muddled with ambiguity, propaganda, and more often than not, false claims of the consequences or benefits of such a system. It is very easy for us as a society to take synecdoche’s and metaphors to heart, as they are the simple means to the policy maker's defined end, a way to pin point their ideology to sell right back to you. The arena of politics is all too often a war zone of ideas, and until the politicians in Washington take a more rational and pragmatic approach, the passing of a universal health care system may never come to fruition.
          As we hear in the public arena the political jargon of talking heads and elected officials, we must put all this aside to look at the true goals of passing health care reform. What is it that the proponents of health care reform seek to accomplish by enacting such a large social program? What would be the benefits and the costs? Is the fight purely political or is there an actual social motive that is genuine and altruistic?
            There are many goals proponents of universal health coverage aim to achieve, and the first goal that is obvious to almost anybody is to ensure that everybody in this country has equal access to affordable quality health care. It's the idea that being a member of a civilized industrial society, we as citizens have an equal right to obtain care if we are to fall sick. How this care is supplied to the public is usually the question. As Deborah Stone notes, much in the public policy arena when it comes to equity is based on her "Concepts of Equality" (Stone) . In her Concepts of Equality list, she talks about the complications of the Polis model, and the different ways in which programs or services end up being divided in society. One of the ways in which goods are distributed in a society she says is Rank Based distribution, which states that there are internal subdivisions of society, with different people who have higher ranks receiving larger slices, while people with lower ranks receive the smaller slices, basically equal ranks/equal slices, unequal ranks/unequal slices (Stone) . People who argue about the problems with privatized health care will say in this case rank would be determined by the amount of wealth you have. The more wealthy you are, the more likely you are to have no problem in affording the health care necessary for you and your family. On the other side, if you are poor or lower middle class, you are likely to be at a disadvantage because of such high premiums and co-pays. One organization that espouses this view is the Physicians For A National Health Program or PNHP. They did a recent study that found that there was "a 25% higher risk of death among uninsured compared with privately insured adults." (Andrew P. Wilper) . This shows the lack of equity in the free market system. The study also goes on to say 
"Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease (42,868). The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance. Despite widespread acknowledgment that enacting universal coverage would be life saving, doing so remains politically thorny" (Healthmortality).
This is an argument liberals will talk about, saying that this is turning into class warfare against the poor, because while the rich can afford everything, the poor can hardly afford a thing. They use this as a symbol of the injustice and inequality that is perpetuated by a system of health care for profit, in which the means of denying people health care because they cannot afford it only benefits the C.E.Os running the health insurance company.
               People who are for health care reform or universal health care would most likely agree with Deborah Stone's idea of Membership Based distribution, citing that we as members of American society deserve an equal distribution of the resources. They will say that as citizens of a first world country that is so prosperous, we have a right to be taken care of if we are sick, no matter what our wallets have. It is argued that the way the current system works only favors those members of society that have the funds to participate in health care programs, and that leaves millions to fend for themselves in the private market place. The idea of Membership based distribution would purport that as members/citizens of this country, we should have a system that takes care of us, that is unbiased and a system where cost is irrelevant. The public necessity for such a program is too large, and the issue is too grave to be ignored, as millions are forced into bankruptcy, and countless people have died due to denials by private health insurance companies for coverage or treatment (David U. Himmelstein) .
            With these goals of providing affordable health insurance and creating a more equal and just society, it is hard to see how anybody could object to such benevolent proposals. How is it that anybody can say that people should not be covered when they are sick? How can anyone honestly say that by supplying health insurance to everyone would actually be detrimental to society? Just because people don't agree with the passing of a universal health care system does not make them amoral as much as it makes them skeptical of the benefits of a large system like this, and this is where the politics come in. Once the people who are trying to better society for the disenfranchised espouse these selfless goals, the distant drums beat as free market libertarians and dogmatic capitalists come in to denounce the system in what they call a 'socialist takeover'. Groups like the Tea Party and private health insurance companies have all done well in their efforts to paint a harmful image of what could be beneficial to the public, but here is where the real debate begins (Jacobs) . Whether or not the system would truly be beneficial for society as a whole, or would be the stepping-stone onto the path of an intrusive government. It's these values that are put to the test in the public policy discussion, as we will see once we discuss the actual politics behind health care reform.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Giving A Speech in 2009
Claiming President Obama's Health Care Reform Would
'Pull the Plug on Grandma'
            In order to understand the problems associated with passing legislation that would enable a system that would cover the 32 million uninsured Americans and drive down the overall costs of health care, we must look at what the politics surrounding health care reform really entail. It is important to understand that politics is just the middleman between the idea and the implementation, as ideological battles break out everywhere from the senate floor to town hall meetings. As we saw in 2009, heated debates broke out all over the country, with politicians like Sarah Palin and Lindsey Graham claiming Obama's health care reform would create death panels. Sarah Palin went on to say "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil" (Huffingtonpost). There was also Chuck Grassley, the Senator from Iowa who said, "You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma” (iowaindep). These little tag lines or synecdoches are used as a figure of speech to encompass the entire debate down to one line that is easily disseminated to the mass public and understood almost immediately by anyone listening. The claims of socialism taking over America, and the all powerful overreaching government would actually decide whether you have the right to live or die scared and shocked millions across the country, and brought rise to anti-government political movements around the country. While these all may be clever, they are simply products of public discourse, the weapons used by politicians and fear mongers alike to push a particular agenda in their own favor.
Protesters Against Universal Health Coverage
         Opponents of health care reform also look to current government run programs and deem them as inefficient and too costly as it is, claiming that both Medicare and Social security, two of the largest government run programs are going bankrupt. They believe the government cannot run as efficiently as the free market, especially when it comes to providing goods. Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN) said in a speech to a small group of constituents in February 2010, "We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all" (thinkprogress). Other opponents of health care reform will agree, saying government ran programs have never worked the way that they should, and by creating another large government run program you're only adding to the problem. These are all simple taglines used by the opponents of health care to symbolize their disapproval of a government run health care system. It is very appealing to a broad section of the public to hear 'less taxes, less government', as it should, because not many people are actually for higher taxes. Whether or not creating a government run health care system would actually infringe on the free market is a whole other question, as proponents of health care would like us to believe.       
         Proponents of health care reform tend to use some of the horror stories that come out of the privatization of the health care industry. They often look to statistical data to show how inefficient, low quality and lacking in coverage private health insurance companies actually are. An example of this is on Barack Obama's website, where he actually has an entire page dedicated to the stories of bankruptcy, denials of health insurance, and complications caused by the bloated and inflated private health insurance market (Obama). One story submitted by a man named Randy from Kansas City, MO says
"I have no health insurance and I am considered uninsurable because I take anti-depressants. I have taken this medication for nearly 25 years now with incredible results... I'm a success story here. But it keeps me from getting health care coverage now that I am self-employed. If I have to go to the hospital for an operation tomorrow, I will be bankrupt! I will lose everything I have worked the past 49 years to achieve. I live everyday in fear that I will get sick and I will be left with nothing but debt and despair. You must fix this problem for the American people. We cannot continue to live this way. It eats away at me everyday. Please help us!" (Obama)
Protesters For Universal Health Coverage in 2009
This is a great example of some of the stories we hear from around the country. It shows how Democrats, liberals, reformers, and average citizens alike believe the necessity to reform health care is an imperative. It is because of stories like this that Democrats and policy makers can depict an image of how free market capitalism has halted the advancement towards a socially just society. This means of political gain noted by Deborah Stone as “stories” gives progressives and social-minded justification in calling for universal health care, to prevent tragedies like this from occurring (Stone).
            They claim the free market does not fill in the void aka the 32 million Americans left uninsured by health care companies because it is not profitable for the businesses to cover these people. They look at the private industry as only working in their favor and not for the good of society as they are a for profit business. Liberals will bring in people who testify before congress the tragedies them and their families suffered, with stories of the inability to pay off mounting health bills, the lack of coverage for medication, and the too often denials handed out by health insurance companies based on pre-existing conditions. They will say 'if it was not for the profit motive, the sick would be cared for, and nobody would be denied coverage'. They will also look to the fact that because of such burdensome costs, many don't go to the doctor to get their routine check ups, which could prevent the sickness they would eventually get in later years.
            Proponents also believe that some things just shouldn't be privatized like health care. Their political mantra is that government is a necessary institution in order to provide a just and prosperous society (intellecttakeout). Organizations like the "Intellectual Take Out" share this progressive ideology, referring to the "New Deal" proposed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the platform in which society began to look to the government to provide public necessities (intellecttakeout). Intellectual Take Out and other liberal minded think tanks believe the government is there to provide for the common good and to help people in an altruistic way with no profit motive behind it. This leaves government as the watchdog of society and is there to ensure the well being of society (intellectualtakeout). They look to the government to cure the woes of society and see government as the impartial body, while the private companies are in it for the money. While all this may be true in some aspects, it is hard to say whether or not government is truly impartial. In defense of the liberals, at least the government can be held accountable by the people, while many health insurance companies are not held accountable for their actions, for they are not receiving tax payer dollars.
         Physicians for a National Health Program will cite increasing rates in bankruptcies as a result of burgeoning health care and hospital costs as a primary causation of the current dilemma in privatized health care (PNHP). Physicians for a National Health Program recently did a study that purported that "As recently as 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy did so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem. By contrast, our 2001 study in 5 states found that illness or medical bills contributed to about half of bankruptcies" (bankruptcy). Meanwhile bankruptcy rates as a whole have gone up almost seven times the amount they were in 1980 (intellectualtakeout). The graph below shows the dramatic increase in bankruptcies since 1980, provided by the Intellectual Takeout organization.
This is an example of how consumer bankruptcy rates have multiplied seven times over the past 25 years and is accelerating. According to PNHP, 50% of these bankruptcy claims were due to piling medical bills, as costs in hospitals have gone up while worker wages have remained stagnant (PNHP). On top of this, the 32 million Americans who do not have health insurance are even more at a loss, as all of their expenses come out of pocket (PNHP). As Deborah Stone said "Every number is an assertion about similarities and differences. No number is innocent, for it is impossible to count with making judgement about that characterization (Stone P. 167). PNHP and people who support a nationalized health system will judge these numbers as the primary cause of poverty in the country, inadequate access to resources, lack of quality care, and ultimately the problems associated with the free market based health insurance industry.
           Another problem that has been addressed by policy makers is the high costs of medical coverage and the lack of quality that is actually given despite the expensive price tag. According to PNHP, "Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 51 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered" (pnhpsinglepayer). This is a concern as we see the inadvertent causes that come from this; bankruptcy, lack of preventive care due to lack of affordability, and an overall rationing of resources because of such inflated prices in which hospitals and tax payers end up bearing the burden of.
            These problems have left millions in America to offer solutions to the looming debt crisis due to medical bills. The fear of a society that is indebted to the banks because of medical bills, and the idea that C.E.O's of a multi-billion dollar corporation deciding the treatments you can or can not receive based on your financial situation is one that progressives and the public are beginning to resent. It's the tug of war between Republicans and Democrats that have stymied progress in what seems to be a common sense solution to a very serious problem.
            One solution that has been proposed by policy makers is the idea of a single payer health care system. According to PNHP, a "Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private" (singlepayer) . This would essentially create a system that is still largely privatized, meaning the production of hospital tools and machines would still be privatized, but the way in which hospitals or private corporations would be financed would be through a public agency ran by the government. This would in turn keep those who aim to profit in the business of producing medical machines and tools for hospitals to remain a privately owned business. The difference would be that the middle man, the health insurance industry, would be ran by the government, hindering the private insurance companies from manipulating the price at which the public pays for their coverage. One senator who has been a leader for the fight of a national single payer system is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont's. His recent proposal in the form of a bill called the American Health Security Act of 2009, would create a single payer system that would cover the currently uninsured 46 million Americans, would eliminate co-pays, and restore free choice for physicians (sanderspnhp).
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
1. Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice.
2. The program is paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes amounting to less than what people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Comprehensive benefits, including coverage for dental, mental health, and prescription drugs.
4. While federally funded, the program is to be administered by the states.
5. By eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians, hospitals and other providers, the plan saves at least $400 billion annually – enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.
6. Community health centers are fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.
7. To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, the bill provides resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals. (sanderspnhp).
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
This solution seems common sense to many, but others like Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) would propose an entirely different approach, revamping the entire way Medicare currently works, and effectively privatize it (Bloomberg). "The budget crafted by Ryan would slash U.S. spending by $6.2 trillion over a decade by cutting Medicare and scores of other programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, farm subsidies and Pell college tuition grants." (Bloomberg). Many on the left and even the President have challenged this solution. Barack Obama said in a response to Paul Ryan's proposal, this would  "Put simply, end Medicare as we know it" (rueters). While both sides of the aisle have challenged this solution by conservatives, the appeal of the free market solution in America usually prevails. Many would argue this would further enhance our liberties but at the same time would reduce our security, as millions of uninsured senior citizens would no longer be covered by Medicare, and would be tossed into a system of uncertainty as they search for an affordable plan in the free market.
           Health care is one of the most personalized political issues in American public policy, as it affects each and every one of us on a level that frightens most people; the uncertainty of life and death. It's this instinctive fear that drives millions of otherwise politically apathetic people into overnight political activists the moment health care is brought into the debate. It is something that we as Americans will have to decide in the coming years in how to approach such current large-scale problems posed by the private health insurance industry, and the future dilemmas we will face as a nation if it is not addressed soon. The imperative placed on reforming this system only comes about once every decade and then ends up dying down once some other large issue comes into the public policy arena. When the issue does arise again, emotions are poured out from both sides of the aisle as to the moral implications of the current system, and the fears of an overly intrusive system that reformers try and propose. Until civil discourse can come to a conclusion to this very personal debate over the way we as a society should take care of our citizens during their dying days, we will see millions still left uninsured, others falling into bankruptcy, and many receiving inadequate care that could ultimately lead to death. The burdens these issues place on society are tremendous and when it comes to domestic issues, health care reform should be a top priority. We can only hope that within the public policy debate we can come to a consensus to put to rest this debate that raises doubts about our values as a country. Until then, America will be seen as one of the most prosperous nations in the world, but just couldn't come to terms with the idea of providing a public service that is viewed as an inalienable right by many. How will history judge America if we are to deny our citizens the basic rights the rest of the world seems to offer unquestionably? Progress is inevitable, and I do believe that one day we will create a system that will cure the ailments of a faulted system, and in turn, better American society, and the world as a whole.



Signing Out- John Thomas


Works Cited

/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ef8c4d792691ee3e431a7caf23b3d9dda13a94710a56ad7ff91c4eda15b9830ac&fmt=C Light, D. W. Historical and comparative reflections on the U.S. national health insurance reforms. Social Science & Medicine v. 72 no. 2 (January 2011) p. 129-32http://libproxy.cortland.edu:2292/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ef8c4d792691ee3e4cf83b32327721de23020adc529438c29002748bd03e9386c&fmt=C Gray, V., et. al., Incrementing Toward Nowhere: Universal Health Care Coverage in the States. Publius v. 40 no. 1 (Winter 2010) p. 82-113http://libproxy.cortland.edu:2292/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ef8c4d792691ee3e4e841e7a106aaa852798e17a6e7a3ba842e87f62f6b988772&fmt=C Jacobs, L. R. What Health Reform Teaches Us about American Politics. PS, Political Science & Politics v. 43 no. 4 (October 2010) p. 619-23
Physicians for a National Health Program
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/what_government_does.php
http://www.counterpunch.org/jonik01182008.html
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/august/consumer_reports_on_.php
90293http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html
http://iowaindependent.com/18456/grassley-government-shouldnt-decide-when-to-pull-the-plug-on-grandma
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/about
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/27/sen-bernie-sanders-introduces-single-payer-bill/]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-usa-budget-obama-medicare-idUSTRE73C69S20110413
Deborah Stone- Policy Paradox


19 May, 2011

Bush Vs. Obama; Unilateralism Vs. Multilaterlism

 "Unilateralism and dictation will only add to the complexities and will not solve problems"- Saeb Erekat




         President Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 prompted a hailstorm of opposition from nearly every country, organization, and institution around the world. America's invasion of a sovereign nation that had little to no ties to Islamic extremism led many to denounce the United States as the world's policemen, who do as they please without international assessment or approval of such a large scale operation. Little did the Bush administration know, this plan of operation only weakened national security further, as Islamic fundamentalists had a new fuel for their fire. President Bush did exactly what the terrorists wanted which was to portray America as the imperialistic western nation that seeks to impose it's values on Muslim countries, exploit their resources, and to further it's geopolitical strength in the region. The window of opportunity for the Bush administration to handle the war effectively was lost, as a lack of oversight, research about the area, and a one sided view of how the world works ultimately hindered the Bush administration's attempts at bringing democracy to the Middle East.
          As this article will show, the attempts of the Bush administration to dismantle and destroy terrorist operations in the Middle East was severely encroached upon by the administration's own lack of foresight. The differences with the way the war is being handled now and how it was handled under the Bush administration has a strong contrast. President Obama's strategy of comprehensive intelligence sharing between Afghanistan and Pakistan and other international agencies, his decrease in resources administered to Iraq and brought back to Afghanistan, and the revamping of the military's operations have all proved effective in countering terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. These differences will be shown as I go over the Bush adminstration's policies and the Obama administration's policies towards these two wars that have lasted over a decade now. While not everything that both of these administrations have done have been significantly effective, it is easy to show the differences between the two administrations and how the path of specific, intelligence gathering and diplomatic engagement rather than old fashioned military invasions and ground units have bettered our position in the Middle East.
          When America invaded Iraq in 2003 the thoughts from the Bush administration was that by toppling the Saddam regime and installing a western style democratic government, the Iraqi people would finally be liberated from the dictatorship they live under and this would ultimately better the security of Americans at home. Despite calls from international monitors to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation into Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons, President Bush pursued a policy of unilateralism, which ultimately undermined our legitimacy in the region and produced instability throughout the region. Foreign Affairs published an article entitled "Re-making the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives", which looked at the effects of the policies enacted by the Bush administration on the people or Iraq and Afghanistan. The article goes on to say
Anti-America Protests in the Middle East
"Several of the premises for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be false or misleading, and the U.S.-led coalition was unprepared for the massive postwar challenges of occupation, reconstruction, counterinsurgency, and political transformation. Anti-Americanism and radical militancy in the Muslim world seem to have intensified in part because of events in Iraq... And the Iraqis' feelings toward their liberators turned out to be more ambivalent than Washington had assumed, the regional ripple effects less extensive, and the diplomatic damage of the whole episode worse and longer lasting" (Foreign Affairs)

Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for the
Counter-terrorism Unit at the Department
of State

This lack of collective agreement by the international community, the unilateralist policy of policing the world by George W. Bush, and the lack of strategy by the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of such a war had created a large scale opposition towards America from every corner of the world. This in turn undermined our political strength and continues to hinder our ability to compromise with other countries. It's this 'my way or the highway' sort of policy which has driven America into a decline and has helped foster Anti-Americanism around the world, only worsening the security of our country.
           Daniel Benjamin is the coordinator for the Counter-terrorism Unit at the Department of State and he echoes this sentiment, as he has actually experienced first hand the results of Bush's policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan. "America's image in the Muslim world has never been more battered, and the jihadist's claims that the United States seeks to oppress Muslims has never seemed more plausible -- no matter how noble we view our own sacrifices in the liberation of Iraq. There is, as has so often been said, a war of ideas going on, a battle for hearts and minds. Unfortunately, America has wound up on the wrong side" (foreign). We have stepped on our own feet by killing numerous civilians, violating international law, and have spent billions of dollars in our efforts to combat terrorism abroad. President Bush has sabotaged American security by providing terrorists a platform from which to denounce America. The invasion of an autonomous Muslim country that had no ties to terrorism, all for the sake of military expansion and oil resources is now the new talking point for ever Islamic extremist from Yemen to Pakistan. This was the final nail in the casket, as thousands joined the loosely organized terrorist organizations in a fight against American imperialism initiated by George W. Bush. Not only does this jeopardize our missions in these countries, it puts our citizens at risk abroad and has cost the federal government billions in providing the security necessary to combat these terrorist threats.
           The United States alone since 2003 until 2007 had spent over $400,000,000,000 dollars in Iraq, whether it was to re-build infrastructure, house/feed refugees and soldiers, or various other projects that need to be completed during a time of war (International 2007). Now, the Bush administration’s thought was if we throw enough money at the problem, it’ll go away. This is not a plan of substance, due to the Bush administration’s failure to regulate this system of money throwing, which led to corruption, embezzlement, bribery and inefficient programs/failed projects. A problem that stems from this lack of oversight was that the Bush administration did not allocate the proper resources to the funding of newly trained soldiers. This led to bribery and corruption, as security forces took money from various groups like the Mujahideen Shura Council, Al-Qaeda and others to allow them through borders and provide safe-havens for these terrorist leaders/groups due to shabby wages. This is a threat to not only America’s security, but the security of the Iraqi people, and the international community as well. This never ending cycle of wasted money, corruption, deference of responsibility and lack of regulation paved the way for this war to be handled ineffectively and ultimately discredited the international community’s efforts in this nation. The significance of creating, maintaining, and training an effective, efficient, non-corrupt Iraqi security force would not only have been beneficial to the progress in Iraq, but would have brought about a much quicker end to the war. Without the Iraqi security forces put in place to ensure self-sustainability and to keep Iraq secure from terrorist groups after we leave, we’ll end up leaving Iraq in worse condition then it was before. At least Saddam’s regime kept Iraq in line, but with the way the Bush administration ran Iraq it was more like the wild west, with terrorist groups bribing their way into the country to take strongholds over different regions, thus undermining our attempts to bring democracy and peace to the nation.
           Another serious problem with Bush's approach to the two wars is how the Department of State was instructed to fund the various Warlords that hold power over many of the various regions in Afghanistan. These Warlords are basically thugs who have murdered thousands of innocent civilians in attempts to control the countries resources, from opium to lithium. These Afghan mobsters extort, kidnap, torture, murder and anything else that needs to be done to get their way.  

 Donald Rumsfeld standing next to General Peter Pace
vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staf
Under Donald Rumsfeld the U.S. policy towards these warlords had not been to eradicate them, but rather to actually fund and strengthen them, giving them political participation in the government, allowing bribes from D.C. to Warlords for safe passage of resources for soldiers, and protecting the Warlords from various rival factions. A report done by the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, along with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stated that "...In short, the Department of Defense designed a contract that put responsibility for the security of vital U.S. supplies on contractors and their unaccountable security providers. This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials, and perhaps others. Not only does the system run afoul of the Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan" (boston). Not only does this breed an environment of corruption, this will only further lead to the instability of these regions, providing rival warlords simultaneously with almost unlimited funds, which they will surely use to buy weapons to wage war on each other once America isn't there to stop it.
         As the Bush administration's term came to a close, it was left to the next administration to pick up the pieces left by the former incompetent military strategists. As we can see the attempts made in previous years failed miserably, with billions of dollars wasted, countless lives lost, and the decline of American prestige around the world. When President Obama was elected in 2008 on the platform of reconciling with America's enemies, commitment to international law, and his belief in bringing back America's honorable image to it's allies and skeptics left many grateful for a President who actually understood this new age, where productive use of diplomatic engagement is much more beneficial rather than military confrontation.
         Barack Obama looked over the military strategies employed in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has changed the system in a way that is producing results. His attempts at ridding the corruption of the Afghan government under Karzai has brought many in Afghanistan to actually trust the American occupation, as they see that America is acting in their best interest rather than creating a puppet government under Hamid Karzai. Obama's emphasis on training Afghan security forces that can take over after we have left has provided more security for the region and Afghanistan seems to be on the path towards autonomy. His re-allocation of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan has showed his commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan, while simultaneously leaving Iraq to govern itself which Iraqi's already have experience with. Obama understands that Afghanistan can not fall back to the Taliban and this is why he has increased security forces and resources towards the region in an attempt to produce stability.
U.S. Military working with local Afghans
      Obama's diplomatic nature has opened up relations that were previously closed under the Bush administration and has led to much more international cooperation when it comes to operations deployed by the U.S. abroad. Barack Obama in his speech in 2009 said "My Administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions. " (cfr). This policy of strengthening Afghanistan's political institutions is something that the previous administration had ignored, while it's main priorities were eradicating terrorist cells and hideouts. Because of Obama's policies of employing opium farmers with an alternative livelihood and compensating for damages lost by the destruction of poppy fields, the terrorists no longer have funding for their Jihad inspired operations. It's these factors that have actually helped progress towards a path of ending this war, while the Bush administration had only helped accelerate the decline of the standard of living for the afghan people, and the increase in terrorism around the world.  
        Any political scientist can tell you the main cause for terrorism in these regions is the amount of political instability in which the terrorists can take advantage of for their own benefit. By creating a strong government free of corruption, training and funding Afghan security forces, and by fostering democratic values from the ground up the terrorists are now slowly becoming an illegitimate alternative to the stable government. President Obama's policies of compensating families for their losses during the war, the strengthening of Afghanistan's security forces and it's government, and by slowly leading the way for these countries to govern on their own has actually helped strengthen the security for American citizens abroad and domestically. It's these attempts to relinquish our responsibilities in the region and hopefully hand them over to international organizations, and then eventually give that responsibility to the Afghan people has helped foster pro-American feelings among Muslims who now see America as acting in their interest. The world is much safer as almost every poll shows anti-American sentiments have declined while faith in America's genuine intentions in the region have increased under Obama's watch.
       Terrorism is a war of attrition based on ideas and values. If we as the western powers are to espouse democracy, value the rule of law, and abstain from abuse the of human rights, we should also act that way too. By violating a countries sovereignty, legitimizing torture as an interrogation technique, and by destroying the lives of civilians all across these already impoverished nations, we will in turn destroy ourselves. The terrorists will win if we continue the self destructive policy of undermining our own values and morals to ensure security. The irony is that by actually strengthening our values and morals and actually abide by them, we would in turn strengthen security, because the terrorist organization's ideology would be proven wrong. President Obama understands that by exposing the terrorist's ideology as false claims and that America actually does appreciate the rule of law and the values of democracy, the terrorists will be left without reason to cry foul, and therefore will have no audience who would sympathize with their complaints. 
       President Bush and his administration were widely flawed in their views towards the rest of the world, and their belief that unilateralism would actually strengthen America in the long run was a fallacy. Obama understands that by obtaining international support for America's operations would legitimize our actions around the world. By actually helping re-build Afghanistan responsibly with oversight, the projects started years ago are actually getting done. While not everything Obama has done is perfect and not everything that Bush did was wrong, it is easy to see the results that have been rendered by both administrations. Under President Bush America's approval rating around the world declined dramatically. Allies and international organizations denounced and even revoked it's ties with America. Iraqi and Afghan society were thrown into upheaval as warring factions were funded by America to maintain stability in the region which actually did the exact opposite. Billions of dollars were wasted as projects had no oversight and money was spent recklessly in a hasted attempt to end the war which has in turn only prolonged it. President Obama's commitment to international cooperation, his attempts at exposing and dismantling the corruption in the Afghan government, and his regulation and oversight of the funds allocated to Afghanistan and Iraq has brought the region more stability than has been seen in recent years. It is the Obama administration's policies which have actually bettered the lives of Afghan and Iraqi people while simultaneously providing security for the American public. It's policies like this that are needed for progress in today's age of international terrorism, as 20th century tactics to fight 21st century battles have been proven to be fruitless. While there is no definitive solution to the many problems we will face in the future with Afghanistan and Iraq, I can easily say that Obama's policies have only strengthened the security of our country, and have brought America's reputation abroad to new heights.



Signing Out- John Thomas





Works Cited 

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/76825/us-money-going-warlords-afghanistan.html


http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/obamas-strategy-afghanistan-pakistan-march-2009/p18952


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59380/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives?page=3


Christian T. Miller, Blood Money,\

General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff,



 

13 May, 2011

How Education Has Become Corporatized

"Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get" - William Lowe Bryan


            Privatization of public goods has become a norm as we see an increasingly large movement against public institutions. A widespread belief among the American public is that the government is inefficient, and all economic woes can be solved by the privatization of public necessities such as health care, education, and media organizations. This approach can be beneficial if done right, but by privatizing one of the most important facets of our society, education, we have seen a for profit model that has morphed this once public institution into more of a corporation than a public good. While there are increasing tuition rates, an increase in people attending college, and the overall costs associated with these changing factors, the need for a change in the system to accommodate such changes is necessary. For profit colleges have been viewed as the antidote, with now nearly 7 percent of this country's 19 million students being enrolled in these for profit colleges (College Inc.). Many questions arise as to the consequences of creating a system where someone or some entity actually profits from providing somebody else's education. Is this a way of curing the ailments of a bloated college system, or is it just a detriment to the creation of a more moral and altruistic society? Should education morally be for profit? Is this system of for profit education actually bettering the economy as a whole, and whom does it benefit more? The C.E.O. or the student? Who gets to really decide in what ways the education is administered? An impartial body or the stockholders? Many of these questions have been raised and as our values are put to the test, we as a society must decide what programs or institutions should be based on a profit motive. As the stories of huge student loan debts, lack of accreditation for these schools, and predatory recruitment practices come to light, it is hard to defend such institutions that are sworn to educate our youth and lead them on a path of success. It seems that the only ones who benefit from such a system are those who have created the system and have sold it to us, the American public, as a viable alternative to the traditional university system.
            When we talk about the differences between a traditional university system and for profit, we must look at the ways in which both operate. Many will argue traditional universities aren't entirely non-profit, as the presidents of the public universities are paid large salaries, usually in the six figure range (New York Times par. 1). The difference between a president of a public institution, and a private institution, is who they are beholden to, and what interests they want to serve. A public university president is held accountable by the state, the students, and the academic world, and are expected to uphold a level of morality and ethics when administering new policies or curriculums for his students. A private university president is held accountable by the stockholders, the board of directors, and the private donations received by investment firms. This is what makes the priorities of the private, for profit university president much different than that of the public university president. The public university president must serve the needs of his student, while the private university president must serve the needs of Wall Street.
            We can already see how privatizing education and making it for profit perverts the motives of those in charge. When a person or an entity is to earn a profit off of somebody else's education, a conflict of interest arises. Mark Defusco, a former president of the University of Phoenix, the largest of the for profit institutions, begs to disagree. Defusco defends his stance on the need for this type of system in today's economic environment and how business and education do not create a conflict of interest, but rather the system fills the void left by traditional universities. Defusco says "I would suggest that in the practical world that we have to pay for things and that when we get scarce resources, as we have these days, that we have to make some decisions about where we use those resources. So I would say perhaps not a business, but certainly as a steward of resources, we ought to know what we do, and we ought to use our resources where we need them most" (Defusco par. 36). While this may be Defusco's defense and it sounds pretty good on paper, when you look at the facts and statistics, it is hard to tell whether the priority of these schools is in providing a quality education, or simply generating a high enrollment rate for the profit. The University of Phoenix spent over $130 million alone in advertisements in 2009, rivaling multinational corporations like Tide or FedEx (Wilson par 22).
            These for profit universities on average spend more on advertisement and recruitment techniques than the actual education itself (College Inc.). Much of the recruitment efforts these schools use border on being illegal, providing false information and unaccredited diplomas to students. High pressure tactics like incessant phone calls, creating a false sense of urgency for the students to apply, and promising degrees and diplomas the school does not actually offer have been alleged by various sources, from graduated students to former enrollment advisors. Some of these enrollment advisors are required to meet quotas of at least 150 calls a day to prospective students, and expected to close on at least 12 students a month (College Inc). This is troubling as it shows the significance the school places more on hooking the students in rather than providing them a quality education. It is said about 20-25% of what for profit universities spend their money on is advertising, meanwhile only 10-15% of their budget is allocated to the salaries of teachers, curriculum design, and the actual education of the students. Since the University of Phoenix and other for profit universities are actually sanctioned as private businesses, it is hard to get an exact figure on how much they actually spend on teacher's salaries and the education itself due to their right to privacy. This kind of secrecy also raises concern, because it shows their lack of public accountability to the public.
            Even with all these concerns being raised by the media and the public, the for profit sector of higher education is booming. In the past 30 years, enrollment rates for these schools have on average increased about 7% each year, while traditional public schools have averaged only about a 1-2% increase in enrollment (College Inc). For profit universities brought in a staggering $26 billion dollars into the economy last year (Wilson par. 16), meanwhile about 50-60% of the students who graduate from these universities end up defaulting on their student loans, which often go into the triple digit ranges, with $100,000-$200,000 worth of student loan debt (College Inc). This is the paradox of this capitalist version of education. It is benefitting those at the top while the ones who actually provide the monetary gains for these corporations are actually being scammed. This is a tool of oppression, as these students are often hustled into getting loans, either through the school or some form of financial aid, only to find out their diploma is worth less than the paper it is printed on. They end up becoming beholden to the loan industry and the school, while the C.E.Os at the top are profiting from the system. Often the recruiters at these schools are enrolling students who are not ready for college or do not meet college criteria, just to boost their own profits.
            This hierarchical system imposed on higher education is exactly what Paulo Friere talks about in his essay "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". He talks about how students in general are being oppressed by the education system in ways unseen by most people. He talks about the conditioning done on a mass scale, to train a work force of people who are indebted to the corporations and entities that aim to oppress the public for their own self interests (Freire). The same can be said about the for profit system of education, as we see those who run this system convolute the message to seem as if they are acting in the interest of the students, the same ones who end up getting the short end of the stick in this system of education in exchange for dollars and dimes. Paulo Freire says
            "Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in 'changing the consciousness of the
            oppressed, not the situation which oppresses them,' (1) for the more the oppressed can
            be led to adapt to that situation, the more easily they can be dominated. To achieve this
            the oppressors use the banking concept of education in conjunction with a paternalistic
            social action apparatus, within which the oppressed receive the euphemistic title of
            'welfare recipients'. They are treated as individual cases, as marginal persons who
            deviate from the general configuration of a 'good, organized and just' society. The
            oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy society which must therefore
            adjust these 'incompetent and lazy' folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality.
            These marginals need to be 'integrated', 'incorporated' into the healthy society that they
            have 'forsaken'." (Freire par. 11).
Freire is saying that the goals of these for profit institutions are manipulated by those who state them to seem almost paternalistic and self sacrificing for the interests of the student. It's sort of ironic for these businessmen and entrepreneurs to sit back and say they are doing this for the good of everybody else, when it is very clear the only thing this system is good for is for the pockets of those claiming benevolence.
            On top of it, those that do graduate with accredited degrees from these universities often lack the hands on experience or connections needed to obtain a job. In the documentary College Inc, Frontline tells the story of three women who attended Everest College. They claimed that Everest College promised to give them a licensed degree in nursing and right after college they would be immediately eligible for practically any job in the field of nursing (College Inc.). A 12 month program and $28,000 later, the three women could not obtain any legitimate job due to their lack of experience in the field, whether it was interning at hospitals or any sort of firsthand experience (College Inc.). The women claimed that the only hands on experience working in the field of nursing while attending Everest College was their psychiatric rotation held at a museum of scientology, and their pediatric rotation at a local day care (College Inc.). This shows the school's lack of emphasis on educating the students and the actual priorities of these for profit institutions. It's not the quality of the education, it's the quantity. The more students who enroll, the money in the pockets of the C.E.Os, the more shareholders invest, the better the company does. These three women and many others who attended this college remain unemployed, as prospective employers claim the student didn't receive the proper training required to obtain a position in their staff. These three women and 10 others in their class are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Everest College for fraudulent claims posed by the university that they would provide the students with the training necessary to start a career in nursing (College Inc.).
            These examples and more show the problems that such a system of privatized for profit education perpetuates. When money is thrown into an institution that is traditionally nonprofit, it perverts the ways in which the system was originally designed. It seems that certain sectors of society just aren't meant to be made profitable. Education is a primary service that is necessary to further the progress of our country. With massive student loan debts, predatory recruitment practices, and unaccredited universities claiming fraudulent credentials, we see a system that breeds corruption and injustice, ultimately undermining our higher education system. As long as we live in a society that values free market and capitalist values, we'll see almost any institution be made into a business. Whether or not these institutions will thrive is a question of whether or not those who run the system operate it ethically. It seems clear that the way for profit education is currently being ran is certainly not ethical, and definitely crosses the legal boundaries necessary to be deemed a valid alternative to traditional methods of education. Until this system is either adjusted or abolished, we'll see more and more students fall prey to the vultures of capitalist businessmen, looking to further their own interests while simultaneously selling to us that it is in our interest as well.








Signing out- John Thomas








 



Works Cited

College Inc., Frontline. PBS, 4 May 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/

Defusco, Mark. Interview with Frontline. PBS, 16 February 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/interviews/defusco.html#ixzz1L7pIPu2X

Lewin, Tamar. "Presidents’ Pay Rises Faster at Public Universities Than Private Ones, Survey Finds", New York Times. New York Times, 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/education/17college.html
Paulo, Freire. Pedadogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, 1993. 

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html
Wilson, Robin. "For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education's Landscape", The Chronicle on Higher Education (2010) Web. 25 April. 2011
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/