Saturday, April 28, 2012

The Violence Against Women Act; Is the Wellbeing of Thousands of Women No More Than A Political “Cheap Shot”?


             The U.S. Senate passed a revised version of the Violence Against Women Act Thursday, April 26, commencing the latest stage of a Congressional battle between Democrats and Republicans that is sure to be a factor of this year’s election season.  Although Republicans have introduced their own versions of the bill, which are largely the same as the original, the Democrat’s version would expand protections to cover illegal immigrant, lesbian, transgender, and Native American women.  Although the Democrat’s version passed the Senate by 68 votes, 31 Republicans voted against it, and one Republican chose not to vote.  This impasse between the two parties is now expected to persist to the House, where this bill may have a rough time making it through.

Many Republicans have argued that the Democrat’s version is merely a political ploy, designed to feed the growing accusations of a war on women.  By putting in provisions that they know no Republican will vote for, Conservatives say that Democrats are trying to corner them into making a politically disastrous move.  This is part of the reason that Republicans proposed their own versions of the bill, so as to try and diffuse this effect.

            In the words of Rep. Kristi Noem: “Unfortunately in Congress, there are some who’d like to make this a political play. They’d like to make cheap shots and try to politicize it in an election year.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers also said that “House Republicans are committed to protecting the true victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

            However, the question must be asked as to why they would not want to protect these women too.  Are their lives and wellbeing less valuable, and is their pain any less real?  Do they not count as “true” victims?  Is their wellbeing no more than a political “cheap shot”?  Although there are other differences between the various versions of the bill, this seems to be the leading point of contention.

            I would like to think that there is a grand justification behind the opposition, yet it seems that some may be against this bill for no other reason than because it would help people that they do not like.  However, why should we discriminate?  If someone was hurt, and there is a program out there that could help them, who has the right to pick and choose which “kinds of people” are eligible?  It is disgusting enough that some people would think it morally permissible to deny service to a woman based on her sexual orientation, but so too is it wrong to suppose that we can deny care to Native Americans or illegal immigrants.  Either way, if an injustice has taken place on our soil, it is our job to avenge it, and to help those who have suffered.

            The same argument exists for medical care.  Some say that illegal immigrants should not be able to use our healthcare system.  Yet, would we as a nation be prepared to stand by and watch people die just because they don’t happen to be a legal citizen?  Would any of us be proud to say that we are a citizen of such a country?  Most likely, no.  We can proudly say that we live in a country where anyone, even if they are illegal or unable to pay, has the ability to enter an emergency room and receive care.  In this country, we don’t allow people to die on the hospital floor just because they don’t happen to meet some predetermined “criteria”.  We are better than that.

Extending the protections and services granted by the VAWA to all women, no matter their sexual orientation or legal status, will help thousands.  Also, in addition to the aid given to women who have been abused, resources would be used to fund investigations and ensure that there are fewer criminals on the street who are able to go on and hurt other women and, possibly, their children.  Overall, the more women that can be helped, the better our country will be.

It is time to look past hatred and to step around the roadblocks of partisan politics.  Some issues are too important for us to neglect them based on fringe political ideals.  Reform needs to happen, and this is but one example of a place where our government can make a difference in the lives of thousands, many of them already disadvantaged.

I would like to congratulate the fifteen Republican Senators who sided with Democrats on this most important issue.  Their ability to make the right decision, regardless of arbitrary party lines, is commendable.  Let us hope that more people will be able to do the same as this bill makes its way to the House.

Please take time to contact your local representative and tell them why you think they should vote to pass this bill.  Show them why you believe that America can, and should, protect all women from abuse.

Perhaps, together, we can work to make a difference.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

U.S. International Aid: Misconceptions and Our Patriotic Duty


            While the importance of foreign aid cannot be understated, it seems that every time people talk of trimming the U.S. budget, such programs are one of the first things to be put on the table.  Yet, would this really be a wise choice?  How much money do we spend of foreign aid and what is the per-dollar impact versus other areas of government spending?  Some say that it is unwise to send money to other countries while our own people bear so many burdens, but is this opinion justified?  Ultimately, what is the answer?

            Whether one believes that we should increase or decrease foreign aid, recent public opinion surveys show that most Americans grossly overestimate the amount of money that our country sends overseas.  One poll shows that Americans estimate foreign aid to make up, on average, about 21 percent of the federal budget.  When asked what a suitable amount would be, the average reply was 10%.  Yet, when one looks at the actual amount of foreign aid that we give each year, this number is far below the estimated twenty one percent of our budget.  Surprisingly, it is even below the recommended ten percent level. [1]  So, one might ask, how much do we give to other countries?

            Although America is the greatest foreign aid donor in the world, that is only because we are such a large, rich country.  In reality, only about one and a half percent of our budget is devoted to international aid; far below most developed countries.  In 2010, out of every hundred dollars that each American made, only about 21 cents was given to international aid by the federal government, with a little less than a dime of private charity added on top.  Compared to countries like Norway, who’s government gave 110 cents per hundred dollars, we are woefully behind. [2]

            To put everything in perspective, it is estimated that Americans spend more money on sodas, or coffee, than on international aid.  In looking at these numbers, one has to wonder why the rhetoric to cut aid is so strong.  Yet, at the same time, when our economy is ailing and people are hurting, do we really have any business sending money overseas?

To answer this question, we must remember that Americans are not the only inhabitants of this planet.  We are all people here and we are not the only ones hurting.  Each of our lives is valuable, and we must not forget this.

U.S. aid money helps millions of people and likely saves thousands of lives.  From the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, to funds to end famine, prevent malaria, provide basic education, build infrastructure, respond to humanitarian crises, provide credit to farmers and small businesses, and to promote environmental preservation, our money can go a long way.  At only one and a half percent of our national budget, to say that America ought to cut all foreign aid in the interest of saving money sounds, at the very least, quite selfish.  Where these resources can go to help millions abroad, their impact here would have an almost negligible effect on domestic wellbeing.  A dollar spent in America buys you a tea at McDonalds, but a dollar spent in some parts of Africa can feed a family for a day, or much more.  Which ultimately helped a human being the most?

            Naturally, a pragmatic approach needs to be taken when dispensing aid.  We all know that simply throwing money at a problem will rarely fix it.  However, this does not mean that we have to turn and give up.

            Ultimately, it comes down to the marginal benefit (benefit per each additional dollar given) of any given aid program.  In some areas, where aid is desperately needed, a dollar can go a very long way to help, producing far more benefit than the initial cost.  However, there are other areas, particularly in richer countries where much aid is already given, that each additional dollar may have only a very small benefit.  In this case, for every dollar spent, there might be, for example, only eighty cents worth of benefit.

Additionally, where excessive aid is given for too long, communities may become dependent on it, thus losing the ability to support themselves.  In some cases, giving too much food aid, for instance, can undermine the local agricultural economy, ultimately making a problem worse.

            Shown these difficulties, some might say that we should halt aid for fear that it may be wasted.  However, we can’t simply take a flamethrower and blindly burn programs.  The job before us, instead, is to evaluate our expenditures and to decide where money should best be given.  We can’t spend without caution, yet, we cannot turn our back to the rest of the world.

            America truly is a great nation and I am proud to be one of her citizens.  When a mother and her starving children receive food, medicine, and clothes; whose name and flag do they see?  What do they remember about the nation who gave them these things?

By giving aid to other countries, we are showing that we, as a nation, can go above and beyond.  We show the world that we can be leaders, and that we are a great people.  To me, it seems that few things could be more patriotic.

Yet, some say that we should take this away; that we should think only of ourselves and that we should show the world selfishness.  I am not one of those.  To say that we should discontinue this service to the world, that our nation is incapable of giving, or that we should shirk our moral responsibilities is, in my opinion, unpatriotic.  It is an insult to America.  I have more faith in our country than that and I know that we are capable.   This is the nation that can, not the nation that could, but which chooses not to.

America is too great a nation for some to say that we should turn away.







Monday, April 2, 2012

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Explained - The Insurance Mandate


            By far, one of the most protested components of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be the insurance mandate, which requires that all Americans must purchase insurance by 2014 or else face a penalty.  Criticisms have ranged from its constitutionality to questions over whether the government has the right to enforce such a requirement.  However, too often it seems that people misunderstand or ignore the potential benefits of this most important piece of legislation.  It is time that we put an end to the doomsday dogma surrounding this bill and take a clear, unbiased look at it.

            To start, it must first be said that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is, in fact, not a Socialist bill.  Socialism would entail something like universal healthcare.  However, this is really not the case with the PPACA as it does not provide free healthcare, nor does it involve action such as nationalizing the hospital system.

            In fact, you could very well characterize the PPACA as a largely Capitalist bill.  Instead of relying on the government to provide healthcare, it uses the private market of insurance to distribute this service.  A much better example of Socialism within this country would be programs such as unemployment benefits, Medicade Medicare, and Social Security.

            Additionally, mandating insurance was originally a Republican, not a Socialist idea.  This theory can be partially traced to a 1989 Heritage Foundation report. [1]  Back in the 80s and the 90s, the Conservative idea was that everyone should be responsible and pull their own weight.  In their opinion, it was not right for some people to go through life not taking care of themselves, and thus putting their burden onto others.  Their proposed solution to this problem (explained in the Heritage Foundation report) would have been to mandate that everyone purchase insurance and to subsidize policies for those who could not afford to pay the full costs.

            However, all of this aside, in analyzing the insurance mandate more directly, it seems that those Reagan-era Republicans were correct in their original support of this idea.  The mandate can benefit society in a number of ways, some of which are not at first apparent.

            In addition to the fact that the mandate will lower most people’s insurance premiums by alleviating cost-shifting from one person to another, there will also be a decrease in the total amount of money that our country spends on healthcare.  By mandating that everyone has insurance, and that all insurance plans must cover preventative care, a number of long-term benefits will arise whereby more people are able to treat illnesses before they progress to more serious and expensive to treat versions.

            As you may well know, back in 1986, president Ronald Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which mandated that hospitals must admit and treat all emergency-room patients, regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay.  Now, you will probably agree that this was a good and necessary bill.  Do we really want to give hospitals the right to let patients die in the waiting room?

            However, EMTALA does have a number of complicated side effects.  All too often, people go to the ER for emergency care, but then are unable to pay for the procedure.  Since the hospital was not paid, they loose that money and have to raise prices for other procedures in order to cover expenses.  This, in essence, is the basis for cost shifting.  The higher that prices get, the fewer people who can afford to pay their medical bills.  The more people who are unable to pay their medical bills, the higher prices get.  It is a downward spiral of built in inflation.

            Now, let us turn to some of the long-term benefits of this bill.

Right now, too many people forgo simple procedures (such as checkups and cancer screenings) because of the expense and the fact that they are not covered by insurance.  However, because insurance policies will now be mandated to cover preventative care, more people will be able to treat relatively minor illnesses (such as the early stages of diabetes or high blood pressure) before they develop into much more serious, and expensive to treat diseases (such as heart disease, or the advanced stages of diabetes).

I have personally seen the results of this situation and how horrible it can be.  One of my dear friends has spent the last five years in and out of the hospital due to a range of different illnesses stemming from diabetes related complications.  Now, due to his illness, he is currently on disability.  Yet, this need not be so.  If there had been a system to help prevent him from getting sick, he would likely be in a very different situation.

My friend worked all of his life, and he has been a productive member of society, but back when his illnesses first started to worsen, there were no programs to help him.  No insurance company would cover him so that he could get the care that he needed to remain healthy, and he was told that he would be ineligible for government assistance until after he progressed to a point where he was disabled.  As a result, because he was unable to afford the relatively cheap preventative care that would have helped him, he now no longer works and must rely on disability and Medicare to pay his enormous hospital expenses.  Is this the kind of situation that we, as a nation, want to promote? 

Our country needs to take steps to prevent situations like this from developing.  We are better than that.  If all Americans have access to preventative, and the ability to pay for it, fewer people will develop serious illnesses, thus reducing the total GDP that our country spends of healthcare.  However, more importantly, we will have a healthier, more productive population.  Fewer people will be sick, more people will be happy, and we will have even more reason to be proud of our great nation.

            Currently, medical expenses are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this country, and something needs to be done.  When some common procedures can cost more than a hundred thousand dollars, no amount of financial preparation can ever give full security to the average person.  So many people say that we should get rid of this bill, but do they have an alternative?  Our nation desperately needs to change, but until we can look across the aisle and compromise, nothing will happen.  You can argue that the PPACA is not perfect, but rather than working for its destruction, why don’t we all work together to make it better?  Would this not be the better alternative?






[1] Butler, Stuart. The Heritage Lectures - Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans. Heritage Foundation. 2 Oct. 1989. Web.