A Historic Moment Seized

The United States House of Representatives passed the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R.3962) by a vote of 220 to 215. The passing of the legislation marks a milestone in American history. For 97 years health care reform has been debated in the United States and in those 97 years  17 Presidential administrations have passed, two World Wars have occurred, the Great Depression came and went,  and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union was recorded in the history books. Despite those nine decades of debate, inaction has been the only product, no longer is that the case. The House of Representatives, led by a Democratic majority, have finally broken that pattern.

The “Affordable Health Care for America Act” will, among other things, do the following:

• Create a national public option (no triggers or state opt-outs)
• Strip health insurance companies of their anti-trust exemptions
• Bar health insurance companies from denying coverage, and raising rates based on pre-existing conditions
• Decrease the federal deficit by 100 billion dollars (CBO statistic)
• Extend coverage to about 30 million Americans
• Mandate that most companies offer health insurance (exemptions will exist)
• Mandate that every citizen buy health insurance (exemptions will exist for those who can’t afford health plans)
• Create a National Health Insurance Exchange which will allow citizens to buy plans at lower rates
• Increase taxes for those making over 250,000 dollars
• If a full time college student is covered under their parents health insurance plan, the insurance plan must cover them until they are the age of 27

Does the passage of this bill mean the debate over health insurance reform is over? No, not at all. It signals that massive health insurance companies, despite their lobbying efforts, can not prevent reform. It shows that the United States is moving on a progressive course. But most of all, It signals that health insurance is becoming a right, not a privilege.  The House has seized this historic moment for the better. Now, this long-fought and just cause falls on the shoulders of the United States Senate.  That 100 member body can either kill this momentous and historic moment, or seize upon it for the good of all American citizens.

When God Gets Away with Murder

When the founding fathers included our right to the freedom of religion, could they have foreseen that it would have been perverted to protect murder? That is the situation in Wisconsin, where faith healing parents refused to provide their child with medical services, resulting in her death. Thanks to their religious defense, they have skated by with a mere 6 months in jail, which they are appealing.

Why such compassion for people who watched their 11 year old daughter die a slow and painful death from a completely treatable illness (diabetes)? According to the judge they are “very good people…who made a bad decision, a reckless decision.” Perhaps, but when that reckless decision causes a child’s death, why should it matter that they were acting in good faith?

In 1974, states were required to adopt legislation that makes exemptions to child welfare laws on religious grounds – 40 complied. Though the mandate was overturned, 30 states still have religious exemptions for child abuse. This means a majority of U.S States have legal protection for faith healing- parents who choose prayer over medical services can’t not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for what happens to their children as a result of their religious belief.

Does this philosophy go too far? While our freedom of religion is uniquely important to American history and culture, does it have no limitations? Certainly I can’t go on a murdering spree and claim god told me too, or choose obscure bible passages about stoning non-virgins as an assault defense. So why do we tolerate such an easy attitude towards religious child abuse?

We should have the freedom to believe in whatever god we want, and worship that god as we see fit- to an extent. Once your worship endangers the lives of others, the legal system should not be there to protect you, but to condemn you. While these Wisconsin parents were indeed convicted, their light sentence is proof of the societal and legal pass we give to religious belief, no matter how unreasonable it seems in a modern context. The question is, how many more people will die before we stop?

(Pic via : http://tr.im/B3MP)

Is Healthcare a Human Right?

Is Healthcare a Human Right?

Human rights are at the cornerstone of any nation’s advancement. Throughout history people have fought and died for concepts that we categorize as such, like freedom, liberty and equality. As the healthcare debate heats up in America, many of us are left asking a crucial and historically significant question- is health care a human right?

In America we refer to the constitution with regard to these types of issues for both a historic and legal perspective. While the constitution may not say anything specific on the subject, it is interesting to note that the opening statement emphasizes the intention to “promote the general welfare” of our citizens. In addition, the first amendment guarantees us the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”- a right we have had to use many times throughout the course of U.S history. There have been many amendments made to the constitution to more clearly define our freedoms, rights and who they are applied to.

The Declaration of Independence famously states that we are “endowed by [our] creator with certain unalienable rights … Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Can – and should – this right to life apply to health services? The idea that we have a natural right to live our lives has been echoed many times by different countries and cultures; because of this, it was also repeated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the documents the United Nation uses to advance human rights all around the world. While not a legally binding, the document is meant to be, in it’s own words, “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.” Article 3 of the declaration confirms our “right to life”, but much more interesting and relevant is Article 25, which clearly asserts:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Does that mean the United Nations, and by association, the countries who are part of it, view (or should view) medical care as a human right? Yes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights could really not be more clear on this issue- health, well being, medical care, social services and security are all fundamental human rights. In 1986 legislation called The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act went into effect in America, which stated that no person can be denied emergency services regardless of ability to pay, citizenship or immigration status. Though controversial, it gives legality and recognition to this notion that medical and health care services are, in fact, human rights in the United States.

Do people have a right to healthcare? Absolutely. Moreover both the government and the citizens of the United States have a responsibility to the millions of our neighbors, friends and countrymen who die each year due to lack of medical care and health services; to protect their unalienable right to life.  In a recent address, President Obama said “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.” It is time for America to change it’s perspective on healthcare and once again become a leader and model of human rights progress.

(Pic via : http://tr.im/zLau)

Iran: My American Experience in Revolution 2.0

At 8am (est) there was very little news. CNN anchors seemed to patiently waiting for information, perhaps a bit shamed into constantly covering Iran after their #CNNfail on Twitter a few days ago. Ah yes, Twitter, I thought! That’s where the news on Iran will be – blogs and social media sites had been a main source of information on the election fallout the entire week. Today, despite Iran’s attempt at a “media blackout”, social media did indeed provide a literally endless stream of information that even the news outlets were forced to use as sources, despite having little to no information about their origin.

“The protests are still on!” Tweets and retweets shouted across the endless webaverse. “Riot police surround the squares!” came others, and soon after the first pictures from a foreign land- rows of men and motorcycles lined the street with shiny helmets and black body armor.

Not long after that, pictures and video were finding their way onto the internet. People in the streets, defying authority, fighting for freedom. At 25 I’m painfully ignorant about Iran but all of a sudden I stood with it’s people, I was part of their revolution. I collected pictures of their suffering, I spread their videos across the world, I tweeted them first aid information and maps of Embassies that would treat the wounded. I set up an information hub on Current.com with every video or picture I could find that could be (somewhat) verified as happening on Saturday. Bearing witness, I decided, and helping others bear witness, was the least I could do for people who would shed blood for their cause.

And they did shed blood. In the most referenced moment during Saturday’s protests, one woman’s blood has become the symbol for the revolution itself. I’m talking of course about Neda, who’s name and story already sound legendary. In the much retweeted Her name was Neda… we are told that Neda was an innocent bystander, in the streets with her father, it is even said that “a Basij sniper shot her through the heart, simply to see her die.” Her name means  “voice” or “call”, and the graphic image of her death- the fall as people rush to her, the eyes rolling up and to the side, the blood as it pours from her facial openings into her hair on spills onto the concrete…it will stay with me and countless other people forever. Neda, and many other Iranian citizens died on Saturday, June 20th, 2009, all seeking change and freedom.

I didn’t think of the term Revolution 2.0, but it works well to describe what happened today. At my age I feel a certain inclination to record history from my generation’s perspective, and more than that, participate and change history as well. Perhaps that feeling is at the root of our common ground with the mostly young, educated and frustrated population of Iran. We live in extraordinary times where information is everywhere and things seem always on the cusp of transformation- at least, that’s been my experience. What’s yours?

Doing Health Care Reform the right way

Health care reform, it’s a tricky and heated issue. By far a majority of Americans feel the system is broken. But can the system be fixed and if so, how? Well, President Barack Obama (D) and his Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives have an answer. Pass a bill that would create a publicly funded government health insurance option. Ban companies from adjusting rates or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and create a focus on preventative medicine. Sounds great, right? Sadly not all agree with this plan, and many won’t even consider it.

Obviously the plan is being criticized by the Republicans, however, that’s expected (sadly). The real problem comes from absolutist minded liberals. Many are complaining that the bill isn’t enough; that profit should be taken out of the system entirely. I’ve even heard comments that Democratic party members and President Obama are “selling out” the American people. Of course that notion is ridiculous. This bill could easily be considered the largest health care reform bill in US history and any large amount of dissent among absolutist liberals could damage the bills chances.

So why should someone support this bill if they don’t think it’s enough? It’s very simple. To not support this bill at all, yet want reform that’s stronger, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Nothing can be accomplished with such an absolutist additude and health care reform is no exception. Progress takes time and a certain President learned that very well, the hard way.

During the 90s President William Jefferson Clinton (D) pushed for something bold, something progressive and pushed for it the entirely wrong way. What did he push for? a full, universal health care system. Clinton did not try to inform the public ahead of time, nor did he personally stump for it. Those were mistakes, very large ones. As they do today the Republicans trashed the bill, saying that people would die waiting for surgery, that quality care would decrease and that the government has no business in socialized programs. Consequently the idea of a government health insurance program faded. However, President Obama and the current Democratic party have learned from Clinton’s mistakes.

Unlike former Pres. Clinton, President Obama is going the correct, and practical route. He realizes that the American public is not ready for a single payer health care system. He realizes that fear tactics would prevail In addition, he understands that in all practicality it’s an impossibility to get a single payer bill through Congress. So he’s learned that setting the foundation, ie a government optioned program, is the best way to go. Furthermore, the President is constantly traveling around the country and making speeches about the program. Even more astounding is the fact that he’s gotten permission from ABC to make a speech on the matter without any interference and without any immediate retort being reported. President Obama has obviously studied the past quite well, he understand that gradualism is a reality and all or nothing politics end with failure.

The Democratic party’s health care plan isn’t perfect and reform should not end with this bill. But the bill lays an essential foundation to a broader universal health care system. To not support this bill, yet support a universal health care plan is counterproductive and damaging to the country as a whole. We’re in for a brutal fight with the Republicans my fellow progressives, so let us unite and fight for health care reform the right way.

Note: If you support having a public insurance option please sign this petition formed by Senate Majority whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill)

Upcoming Posts

I’ve been slacking when it comes to this blog and I don’t like that one bit. Starting Friday night I will have five straight days of updates and commentaries. Libertarianism, book burning, gradualism, North Korea and other topics will be discussed. I promise that the articles you read in the coming days will be better written, more interesting and hopefully much more thought provoking. I’ll be going down to Washington D.C. and up to NYC starting next Thursday…so I won’t be available to post many updates. However, I do plan to make this blog more active, more interactive and more interesting. Thanks for reading! If you’re interested in becoming an occasional columnist for this blog, just contact me via email-democrat1989@comcast.net

Iran election: Breakdown and Time-line

Currently a historic political/social struggle is occurring in Iran. The tumult began when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Moussavi. Prior to Ahmadinejad being declared the victor all political polling indicated a Moussavi victory. Not only did Ahmadinejad win, he supposedly crushed Mr. Moussavi. This led many to believe the election had been rigged from the very beginning.

Mr. Moussavi ran as a reformer, his supporters are mostly the youth, intellectuals, city dwellers and women. He represents a growing, changing Iran, an Iran that wants to be a positive player in world relations and discourse. During the campaign Moussavi scolded Ahmadinejad for his hardliner positions on western nations. Furthermore he said it was ignorant of Ahmadinejad to deny the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad on the other hand ran as a fundamentalist. His supporters consist of rural dwellers and hardliners.

Western Capitals from Washington to London were eying the results of the election hoping that Moussavi, the moderate, would win. After Moussavi lost both the United States of America and the Republic of France issued statements of concern over the election results. The U.S. State Department even asked the social networking site Twitter to delay its scheduled maintenance; protesters have been using twitter as a form of communication since other sites have censored by the Iranian government.

Below you will find a brief time line of the events that have occurred in Iran.

June 12th-Ahmadinejad announced as victor in election. Massive voter turnout. Election results seen as dubious. The Government has never counted and confirmed ballots so quickly. Usually it takes until the next day to finalize results. Also, the results are contrary to most political polls.After Moussavi calls for his supporters to resist a dictatorship of lies over 100 reformist politicians are detained.

June 13th-Protests begin, mostly peaceful.

June14th-Pressure mounts, protests increase, police have skirmishes with protesters. Fires started, tear gas used.

June 15th-1,200 lecturers from the University of Tehran resign. 7 killed. 100,000+ at protest. Iranian reformist Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice-president, is arrested.

June 16-Iran’s Guardian Council says it is ready to carry out a partial recount of ballots. Almost all social networking site in Iran are blocked. Foreign media barred from reporting. Security forces head toward reformist protest chanting “protesters must be punished.

It’s unclear as to how this will all turn out, though it does seem that the protests could become incredibly violent if Iranian security forces open fire on the reformists. Hopefully that will not occur. To be realistic, it’s unlikely that a massive upheaval in the Iranian government will occur. Nonetheless, the events taking place in Iran are historic when put into context and will surely mark some shift, even a small one, in the way Iran operates.

Personally, I hope that Mir Hussein Moussavi and the “Green Revolution” prevail. I hope that justice prevails and honor restored to the government of Iran. My thoughts are with the reformists. May the winds be at their backs.

Atheists: Let your Voice be Heard

Here comes the New American Atheist Army, outfitted with copies of The God Delusion, ready to take your spirituality away from you! You are an ignorant fool for believing in a higher power- we shall convert you to our religion of Nothing and model our Government system in the way of Fascist oppression against religious freedom! All Hail Science!

As atheism grows in the United States, I hear more and more sentiments like the one expressed above. There is a consistent misunderstanding of what atheism actually is and why atheists would want to organize. Although recent statistics suggest non-believers make up about 12% of the population (about equal to the African American voting demographic) there is only one openly atheistic member of our country’s government. What does this mean? Simply speaking, it means the growing numbers of people in America who are not religious have little to no representation in the system. In this diverse country where nearly every point of view and cultural attitude is expressed, atheists are still stereotyped as untrustworthy, ignorant for not believing in supernatural powers and dismissed as “whiny” when we push for change.

“Atheist” is a term used to describe someone who doesn’t believe in gods, deities or supernatural phenomenon. People are quick to say that Atheists have the same arrogant stance as religious fanatics; how can you know 100% that god doesn’t exist? We don’t. To be an atheist is not to proclaim anything with absolute certainty, it is rejection of the dogmatic teachings of organized religions and wait upon actual evidence to justify the belief in god.  Not one atheist I know would be willing to state that they have proof there is no god, and the concept of “proving a negative” leads to the same talking points over and over again. Let’s finally drop the subject: You can’t prove god exists, we can’t prove god doesn’t exist. Fair enough! Atheism is not equal to the “belief in nothing” either- that is called Nihilism, and while some atheists may be Nihilists, there is no predetermined philosophy for atheists. Spiritual attitudes and ideologies are at the whim of the individual, not built into atheism itself.

Since atheists are typically against organized religion and church mentalities, why in the world would we want to organize? Aren’t we becoming what we rally against by encouraging group mentality? I don’t think so. The benefits of an organized atheist movement are political- we are NOT here to take god away from anyone. Atheists may argue and debate the subject of god a lot, and personally I like to engage in such discussions to gain a deeper understanding of people’s faith and belief systems. However, your personal feelings on god, though interesting and/or as enlightening they may be, do not belong in our government. The United States should be a secular nation, yet it clearly shows preference to Christianity on a daily basis. Everything from our money to political speeches to our national holidays evoke the Christian god.  Religious people are happy to point out that we are a “Christian Nation”, but this idea is highly debatable in many aspects. Our founding fathers were not specifically Christian nor did they intend for religious belief to enter into the government (or visa-versa!) , hence the First Amendment of the Constitution ;  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The majority of people considering themselves Christian does not make us a Christian nation either- President Obama himself has said “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” He understands that the government of the United States is not supposed to just represent the majority view, but represent the sometimes lost voices of minorities as well.

There is a wide spectrum of believe and non-belief in America and the world. There are evangelists, moderates and apathetic people from all walks of life as well as cultural and philosophical backgrounds. We all have to work together to benefit society, and the atheist viewpoint is a valid one that shouldn’t be dismissed or demeaned. As the number of non-believers grow, so will our struggle for representation and the demand to have our voice heard.

Can you have “Faith” in Science?

When spiritual people speak of faith, they talk about an experience, a sense, a feeling that lives deep inside of them. Faith is what bridges the gap between belief and logic- when no material evidence can be found for the existence of god, faith is there to take over. Indeed, this trust and conviction has been respected even more when there is little reason to continue it; we can look to the familiar story of Job for an example. Job’s entire life is stripped from him- wealth, health and family, yet Job remains faithful to God, and God rewards him. Faith is a spiritual necessity for those who believe in god; it is the beginning and end of confidence in something that can not be proven in a scientific sense.

However, we use the term faith a little differently in casual usage, to mean a strong belief or conviction in something. You can faith in yourself, faith in a friend, or faith in humanity- is this the same as religious faith? That would depend on your experiences; do you trust your friend despite the fact that they never make right decisions, or because they frequently do? That’s the difference between the connotations- in one case, as with spiritual matters, lack of evidence does not deter you from faith. In the other, evidence is the cause for it. This is why in discussions of science and religion, the idea that people have “faith in science” that is comparable to spiritual faith is so strange. In fact, if it can be said that people have “faith” in science at all, it is the exact opposite type of faith in god- the former occurs because of proof while the latter occurs in spite of it.

The argument of a religious type of faith in science starts by asserting that science rests on assumption- the main one being that the universe is governed by a set of laws. While there are many mysteries yet to be solved when it comes to the universe, certainly many of these laws can be observed, tested and proven here on Earth, gravity being the best and most obvious example. We know gravity works because we don’t float away from the ground, because when we drop something it falls, because by calculating proper mathematics scientists have been able to blast man and machine alike into space. However, these laws tend to fall apart in the curious world of Quantum Physics- but just the fact that we can deduce that from experimentation means once again that our conclusions are not based on “faith”, but evidence attained by observation.

So what of these mysteries in life yet unsolved, these questions so far unanswered- is it accurate to say one has “faith” if they believe science will eventually answer them? How could that be the case when again, that belief is based upon observation, experimentation and evidence? At one point in history, humans could not explain the stars in sky- now we can ascertain not only what stars are made of but how they are formed and what their life cycle is like. People would have been called crazy for thinking we could send a man into space; now we entertain the idea of colonizing other planets. Is it faith, then, that leads people to believe that science will eventually piece together the puzzles of the universe? No. It is a history of knowledge that is constantly questioning and correcting itself.
That’s the future- but what of the past? Some people, particularly Creationists, argue that the Scientific Method can not be applied when it comes to the history of earth’s creation and the animals who lived on it because it’s not based on direct observation. We were not there at the beginning of the Earth, so how can we assume to know how old it is or track the animals who have come and gone? In fact, we’re not assuming at all- we are deducing from a wide range of evidence and data in a multitude of scientific fields. We may not be able to directly observe the beginning of the Earth, but we can observe the Earth as it is now and use technology to paint the most accurate picture possible of the Earth’s history.

The most broad and puzzling argument that can be made against the validity of science is the idea that we truly can not “know” anything. This highly philosophical, agnostic concept may be fun for conversational ponderings but holds no practical applications for anything. In the example I used before regarding gravity, I spoke about using calculations to send people into space- clearly the success of such proves that (at least some of) our knowledge is accurate! Indeed, the idea that “we can’t know anything is true” doesn’t stop your car from working, your Facebook page from loading or your doctor from removing a cancerous tumor- clearly in spite of this theoretical ultimate ignorance, we’ve manage to advance our understanding of reality and continue to invent new technologies to help us in the search for truth.

Not all religious faith is baseless; people frequently cite cultural history, ancient writings and personal experience as reasons for belief in god-but the faith of the believer can not and should not be compared to having trust in science. We do not unwaveringly cling to beliefs like Job, we question the world around us. Science has no historical scripture to defend, only theories to correct and improve upon. Science has no dogma to attach to, only laws of behavior that are constantly tested for accuracy. Science has no god to worship, only the idea that the search for truth is a noble and important one. If there is faith to be had in science, it is a faith cultivated from a rich history of growth and knowledge that is still being written today.

Sweeping Health Care Bill Proposed

The Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives is planning a sweeping health care reform bill.  The bill contains major changes to the system:

• Affordable government insurance option.

• Companies would have to offer an insurance policy, or chip into a government fund.

• Insurers private and public would not be able to adjust rates or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

• Bill will cost approximately $340 billion dollars over ten years.

• Doctors will be rewarded if they focus on preventive medicine. i.e. encouraging patients to exercise more, quit smoking.

The bill is projected to greatly decrease the amount of citizens who can not afford health care coverage. Though conservatives will wine and cry about the bill’s massive cost, it’s clear that in the long run the United States will be better off.