Keep calling me a coward.
by Jim Nichols
June 21st 2008
In 2002 and 2003 I joined with men and women of all and ages and walks of life–young and old, conservative and liberal, veterans and wide eyed college kids–together we worked hard to organize and educate on the catastrophic foreign policy of the Bush/McCain ilk. We spoke out on how their approach, their faith in bombs and war rather than diplomacy and calculated toughness, instead of blind force would undermine our national security, overextend our military unnecessarily, and strengthen our adversaries.
Beyond the policy itself, the fundamental principles, the essence of our American way of life: sound economic footing, respect for human dignity and the innate value of human life; would be at best strained beyond necessity and at worst fundamentally ignored and discarded. For our efforts to participate as an active citizenry that involves itself in public policy–something our Founding Fathers expected of us–we were labeled childish, naive, un-American...cowards.
Now the question must be asked–who was wrong on the policy? Who was truly putting American security, American lives, Americas future at risk? Who upheld the standard of our Founding Fathers and the millions of nameless hero's throughout our history who stood with integrity and fearlessness to protect our nation from those who want to take, waste or relinquish the gifts we have been blessed with? Is Iran not rising? Is the middle east more secure? Was Iraq producing the oil to pay for this war that was fought on slam dunk evidence that would cost next to nothing for American taxpayers?
The economist Joseph Stiglitz recent found that nearly 40% of our solder are coming home needing long term physical and mental care for the rest of their lives–and that we are not budgeting for these obligations we owe to them. The efforts of Republican Chuck Hegal and Democrat Jim Webb to get our solders the money they need to get a college degree was opposed by a shockingly large number of elected officials. Why were the likes of John McCain and my congressman Lynn Westmoreland deciding that we need to be stingy with the budget when it comes to our troops?
Osama Bin Ladin is still on the loose, Afghanistan is neither stable and secure, and Al queda is on the rise rather than on the run. America has lost its footing and the public has lost faith in the essence of American resolve. 6 years later I hope that others have learned what I have from this period, these policy, this environment. I no longer pause and question my own patriotism when I am challenged. I want to improve our way of life and I am proud of that fact. I stand my ground and work to organize an active citizenry who believes that our Government is supposed to protect and empower its citizens rather than divide the public and enrich the few.
Even though attacks on my character continue because of my belief that every American deserves affordable health care and that our solders deserve only the best after their service–one and only one tour of duty with no obligation to ever do more, is that too much to ask?
Keep calling us un-American, keep calling us cowards. American's aren't stupid, they see who is truly fighting for them and who is simply pandering fear and hopelessness–and it only makes people like me work that much harder. To those younger than I who wonder what their elders have handed to them. Don't let the talking heads and community curmudgeons fool you. Register to vote, participate in the process, and never say our people can't achieve whatever they put there sights on. And let us learn from our history so that we never ever repeat this sad chapter.
Jim Nichols lives in Stockbridge GA and is an undergraduate at GA State University.
Showing posts with label Jim's Op-eds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim's Op-eds. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2008
There is nothing funny about resource allocation
There is nothing funny about resource allocation
by Jim Nichols
Sep. 3, 2007
I wasn’t expecting parents struggling to pay health care costs across my district to be disrespected in a discussion of SCHIP. But in his piece entitled “Open up your wallet and say ‘Ah’ my Congressman Lynn Westmoreland made an analogy that did just that. In it he challenged the wisdom of spending when one is “in debt up to your ears and your credit cards are maxed out,” asserting that “a new credit card is not the answer.” First the “problems” he was citing were shortfalls in long-term budget projections. The combined budget shortfalls of Medicare and Social Security have more to do with health care cost inflation–which the rest of the industrialized world has learned to manage–rather than entitlement programs run amuck as Westmoreland infers. But more importantly it’s a question of tact; as my fiance stated to me after reading it, “if our child needed medical care we’d take out as many credit cards as we could to make sure they got treated.” Reading Westmoreland’s piece I felt the struggles of constituents being ignored.
SCHIP is a federal program designed to work in a targeted manner to capture low income children who do not fall within Medicaid qualifications, its one goal is to improve health care coverage of children–not end the health care crisis. Since 1997 the programs have reduced the number of children without insurance by about one-third. The best synopsis I can give of his position is that Westmoreland questions the wisdom of how the bill is paid for and sees it as a burden on taxpayers. I won’t waste space on the question of crowd-out rates or the claimed superiority of private health insurance, and would direct people to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Offices analysis for context on those issues
Beyond the rhetoric I question framing the $157 billion cut to Medicare Advantage as a cut to Medicare. A change that saves taxpayer money and increases efficiency–providing people the same quality of care–is a cut? This cut has been a recommendation of groups such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Medical Association; not to mention MedPac– the advisory body for the congress in charge of Medicare payment policy. According to MedPac the largest overpayments “average 19% more than it would cost to treat comparable beneficiaries under regular medicare, with half of these overpayments going to profits, marketing, and administrative cost.” This doesn’t devastate Medicare it creates a situation where more people get health coverage.
The context of the numbers, with claims of “staggering” and “upsetting” spending increases that create “Government-run health care” seem questionable as well. $130 billion over 10 years is $48.82 per-capita according to the budget calculator at Center for Economic and Policy Research website. To assert a better funded SCHIP would lead to government-run health care is a leap in logic. SCHIP and Medicaid are programs using private doctors and private health care plans where states negotiate the limits, rates, and package details. These are decisions made by people at the state level.
By cutting payments which typically go into marketing, administration, and profits; and increasing the cigarette taxes (which in-its-self is projected by the American Cancer Association to ‘prevent more than 900,000 Americans from dying prematurely because of smoking’) the SCHIP bill increases the number of children covered in this country. If one more parent is kept from needing to open an extra credit card to get the quality care their child needs, my $48.82 will be well worth it.
Mr. Westmoreland, please publicly clarify your position on SCHIP in a more precise manner. I will acknowledge that your criticisms on a point by point basis might be sound if the bill was intentioned as a long term fix to the health care crisis but the question at hand falls short of that framework. Claims that families of four with incomes above poverty are less deserving of reprieve and assistance than a family in poverty seems divisive–the nuances of government spending are not black and white questions of who works harder or which struggle is more burdensome. By using analogies about bad credit you frame it in that way. The problems with your piece–the representation, analogies, and logic—make the case that it will be the inability of those opposed to Universal plans to come up with workable solutions over the past 20 years that will give us universal health care... not Hillary Clinton.
by Jim Nichols
Sep. 3, 2007
I wasn’t expecting parents struggling to pay health care costs across my district to be disrespected in a discussion of SCHIP. But in his piece entitled “Open up your wallet and say ‘Ah’ my Congressman Lynn Westmoreland made an analogy that did just that. In it he challenged the wisdom of spending when one is “in debt up to your ears and your credit cards are maxed out,” asserting that “a new credit card is not the answer.” First the “problems” he was citing were shortfalls in long-term budget projections. The combined budget shortfalls of Medicare and Social Security have more to do with health care cost inflation–which the rest of the industrialized world has learned to manage–rather than entitlement programs run amuck as Westmoreland infers. But more importantly it’s a question of tact; as my fiance stated to me after reading it, “if our child needed medical care we’d take out as many credit cards as we could to make sure they got treated.” Reading Westmoreland’s piece I felt the struggles of constituents being ignored.
SCHIP is a federal program designed to work in a targeted manner to capture low income children who do not fall within Medicaid qualifications, its one goal is to improve health care coverage of children–not end the health care crisis. Since 1997 the programs have reduced the number of children without insurance by about one-third. The best synopsis I can give of his position is that Westmoreland questions the wisdom of how the bill is paid for and sees it as a burden on taxpayers. I won’t waste space on the question of crowd-out rates or the claimed superiority of private health insurance, and would direct people to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Offices analysis for context on those issues
Beyond the rhetoric I question framing the $157 billion cut to Medicare Advantage as a cut to Medicare. A change that saves taxpayer money and increases efficiency–providing people the same quality of care–is a cut? This cut has been a recommendation of groups such as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Medical Association; not to mention MedPac– the advisory body for the congress in charge of Medicare payment policy. According to MedPac the largest overpayments “average 19% more than it would cost to treat comparable beneficiaries under regular medicare, with half of these overpayments going to profits, marketing, and administrative cost.” This doesn’t devastate Medicare it creates a situation where more people get health coverage.
The context of the numbers, with claims of “staggering” and “upsetting” spending increases that create “Government-run health care” seem questionable as well. $130 billion over 10 years is $48.82 per-capita according to the budget calculator at Center for Economic and Policy Research website. To assert a better funded SCHIP would lead to government-run health care is a leap in logic. SCHIP and Medicaid are programs using private doctors and private health care plans where states negotiate the limits, rates, and package details. These are decisions made by people at the state level.
By cutting payments which typically go into marketing, administration, and profits; and increasing the cigarette taxes (which in-its-self is projected by the American Cancer Association to ‘prevent more than 900,000 Americans from dying prematurely because of smoking’) the SCHIP bill increases the number of children covered in this country. If one more parent is kept from needing to open an extra credit card to get the quality care their child needs, my $48.82 will be well worth it.
Mr. Westmoreland, please publicly clarify your position on SCHIP in a more precise manner. I will acknowledge that your criticisms on a point by point basis might be sound if the bill was intentioned as a long term fix to the health care crisis but the question at hand falls short of that framework. Claims that families of four with incomes above poverty are less deserving of reprieve and assistance than a family in poverty seems divisive–the nuances of government spending are not black and white questions of who works harder or which struggle is more burdensome. By using analogies about bad credit you frame it in that way. The problems with your piece–the representation, analogies, and logic—make the case that it will be the inability of those opposed to Universal plans to come up with workable solutions over the past 20 years that will give us universal health care... not Hillary Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)