7/31/2009

Yes to Government Involvement

Posted by Andrew |

Below is a good article by Krugman on why we need government involvement in health care - so the insurance companies do not deny all claims for needy medical procedures.

The original link can be found here.

Op-Ed Columnist

Health Care Realities
By Paul Krugman

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program — but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, “wasn’t having any of it.”

It’s a funny story — but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. It’s not just that many Americans don’t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people don’t understand the way American health care works right now. They don’t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldn’t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You don’t know when or whether you’ll need treatment — but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctor’s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.

And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.

Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.

Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.

And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.

So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.

Which brings us to the current debate over reform.

Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.

Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.

7/28/2009

Palin

Posted by Andrew |

I realize this is shameless and unfair to everyone... but I couldn't resist. A Canadian showed me this video today...

Yes, but...

Posted by Andrew |

I made it to Sarajevo, Bosnia yesterday evening after a rather enjoyable eight-hour bus ride between Belgrade and the outskirts of Sarajevo. The terrain on this trip was absolutely beautiful - lush green mountains, winding rivers and innumerable hamlets dotting the hills and fields. The buses from Belgrade seem to reflect the political leanings of the country's inhabitants, with eight buses a day running to the Serb side of Sarajevo, south of the Miljacka River, and only one bus running daily to the Bosnian side, north of the river.

After a quick tram ride and a brief walk downtown I entered the Hostel City Centre, which I must say is quite possibly the best hostel I have ever seen in my travels. The layout is fantastic, with the common areas conducive to socializing around the couches and television, travel library or outdoor patio. Something about the vibe of the place is right on. Unfortunately, they were full, so I was transferred to a neighboring house attached to a different hostel, and then moved again to the hostel, which happened to be full. I slept on the living room couch at a discount rate, yet still slept like a baby.

Despite my best efforts, I am utterly incapable of not discussing politics with people when I meet them in the streets, hostel or cafes. This was the case in both Serbia and here, and it has been interesting to hear two vastly different sides of the same conflict. The one thing consistent throughout the discussions however, is the phrase, "Yes... but..." Each person, no matter if he is Serb or Bosnian, will usually start a statement with: "We just want peace, and we have no problem at all with the ______ people, religion does not matter. Yes... but the real problem is _______, they are ignorant and love war/ they just want to exploit us / they started the war and still do not want peace..." Certainly this style of discourse can be found throughout post-conflict regions of the world, but it is interesting to hear the different versions, specifically as the conflict between Bosnia and Serbia is still rather fresh, yet at the same time growing more distant each year.

I look forward to gaining some more insight into the different perspectives of the communities, and hope to not elicit angry reactions. Regardless of the geography however, I have found both the Bosnian and Serbian people to be extremely friendly, hospitable and receptive to Americans, something I expected with Bosnia, but not with Serbia due to the Clinton years.

7/25/2009

Birthday in Belgrade

Posted by Andrew |

So, I indeed I entered into the late-20s today around 11am. By late-20s, I mean past 25 years of old, which just sounds ungodly old to me. A bit hard to believe, except for the fact that I still feel young, both physically and at heart, so I really can't complain. There seem to be no upside to growing older, after the final hallmark of renting cars for cheaper once you reach 25 years of age.

It has been a rather unconventional birthday, and birthday eve for that matter. I caught an Egypt Air flight from Cairo to Istanbul on the evening of the 23rd, arrived in Istanbul at 8pm and hopped on a 10pm overnight train to Sofia. After an entertaining night of drinking bad Greek wine with a number of European and Canadian travelers, I arrived in Sofia with six minutes until my next train heading to Belgrade... I made it, despite this six minutes requiring the exchange of money and the purchase of a ticket.

Serbian countryside is beautiful and actually reminded me a bit of Colorado mountains. Rivers run alongside the train tracks and the scenery fluctuates between farmland, forest and mountains. Since arriving in the city yesterday evening, I have found everyone to be extremely friendly and helpful. Multiple times today people thought I was Serbian. Purchasing a new journal at Mamut, a bookstore downtown, the cashier spoke a few words to be, which I didn't understand. Only after I said "Sorry?" did he say, "Oh, you aren't Serbian? You look really Serbian. Welcome to Serbia."

I woke up this morning, and the cute attendant at the hostel wished me a happy birthday. She had apparently seen the birthday on my passport. After a leisurely breakfast of Nescafe 3 in 1, yogurt, and pastry, I walked around downtown and then around New Belgrade looking for the Contemporary Art Museum. When I did find it, it was unfortunately under renovation. Instead, I headed back downtown, saw a few churches, took photos of random graffiti, and hung out in cafes reading Orphan Pamuk. All in all, an exceptional and random birthday. I enjoyed it however.

I'll try to post some photos soon and offer some more entertaining travel stories involving 4am border crossings and the sort.

7/16/2009

Off to the Beach

Posted by Andrew |

I'm off to the beach for the long weekend. Leaving ridiculously hot Cairo for three days on the Sinai Peninsula in a lazy beach town called Dahab.

I won't be checking email, but if you need to get a hold of me, you can call me on my cell phone.

Technological Panoptican

Posted by Andrew |

For an updated analysis of Foucault's Panoptican in a technological world filled with surveillance and increasingly invasive technology, see the following article. It is a dense read, but worth the effort. Below are a few excerpts:


Foucault described how surveillance disciplined people in enclosed spaces – the prison, the barracks, the hospital, the factory, the school. Design and techniques (the institution’s daily ‘regime’) eventually made bodies docile.

To participate in consumer society, you have to be watched. It’s not so much that resistance is futile. It’s more that you wouldn’t if you could.

Surveillance no longer reforms bodies, but rather grants physical access.



7/05/2009

How to Support the Hardliners in Iran

Posted by Andrew |

"Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," - VP Biden

If you truly want to support the hardliners in Iran, and give Ahmadinejad all the excuses he needs to stay in power, do what Vice-President Biden did today - give Israel the green light to bomb Iran. With US objections out of the way, Netanyahu will have the ability to attack Iran and to scuttle any peace prospects between Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine - all in one fell swoop. Two birds with one stone, so to speak. Netanyahu has made abundantly clear that he has no desire to actually seek a resolution to the continued occupation of Palestine. Israel is doing just fine having all the military power, all the economic power and the support of the world's sole superpower.

By bombing Iran and its various nuclear facilities, Netanyahu will partially set back the unsubstantiated nuclear ambitions of Iran, at least for a short time. He will also effectively destroy any chance of Syria and Israel reaching agreement on the Golan Heights, which gets closer every month. In addition to scuttling any chance of further peace talks with the Palestinians or Arab countries in general.

Unfortunately, it is the long-term consequences which Israel has never been any good at foreseeing (See Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the creation of Hizbollah, as well as Israeli support for Hamas to counter the PLO). Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will only reaffirm the opinions of the hardliners in Iran, that Israel really is their mortal enemy, and that only with nuclear weapons will Iran have an effective deterrent against arbitrary Israeli attacks on their sovereign territory. Any Israeli attacks will also cause a rally-around-the-flag effect, as seen in the US after 9/11, where all discourse except the hegemonic and jingoistic views of the hard line regime will be pushed to the margins.

Essentially, if Israel bombs Iran, all liberal politicians and dissenters will be silenced. This will leave the regime with greater room to maneuver, as well as with a greater drive to arm Hizbollah, Hamas and any other group capable of striking at Israel - resulting in a less secure Israel in the long run.

See the article on Biden's interview here.

7/04/2009

Before the US-Russia Meeting

Posted by Andrew |

I've recently been following the reports and recommendations of the Center for American Progress, a progressive yet pragmatic think tank based out of Washington DC and California. While I find some of their foreign policy priorities a bit too realist at times, the center offers idealistic, yet practical advice on a number of policy issues.

For a six page executive summary (.pdf) on the CAP's recommendations for future US foreign policy toward Russia, click here.

"High-end Prostitute"

Posted by Andrew |

I'm attaching below an intriguing article by Robert Fisk in which he examines the use of cliches in the mainstream media and in the general public. The very words we use, whether consciously or unconsciously, shape the way in which we see the world, we see ourselves and how we categorize "others" into manageable little boxes.


July 4, 2009

Tanks roll and guns fall silent, but the clichés go on for ever

Catholics are always ‘devout’, Protestants in Northern Ireland inevitably ‘staunch’

Clichés are poison. They seep into our language like defoliants, pesticides that reside in our imagination, slowly destroying our power to express ourselves by dehumanising language, by industrialising speech. Newspaper and television reporting are to blame. We are all guilty. So why do we insult you, reader? And why do you put up with this?

Some of this claptrap has been around for years. Catholics are always "devout", Protestants (the Northern Ireland version, at least) inevitably "staunch". Bitterly hostile antagonists are always "foes" or "arch-foes". New dictatorial laws – the new press laws in Iran, for example – are always "draconian" (poor old Draco), while secret policemen (the Gestapo, the Shah's Savak, the Afghan Khad, the Syrian mukhabarat, the present-day Iranian Etelaat) are always "dreaded". Needless to say, the Israeli secret police – who also torture and murder – tend to be "elite" or (my favourite) "second to none". The point about all these words, of course, is that we do not use them in conversation. We never ask a Catholic if they are "devout" or describe a vexatious next-door neighbour as an "arch-foe". If we are discussing the Syrian secret service, nobody says: "Yes, they're fairly dreaded, aren't they?" We just don't talk like that.

Alas, we have been given a new set of tranquillisers to use on our fellow human beings. Unable to ask our friends if they are religious – a gross infringement of our privacy, of course – we ask them if they are "faith-based". "NO, BY CHRIST!" is my reply.

Our relationship with our neighbour may now contain a lot of "negativity" or "negative energy". If we get on well with our neighbours – or business partners or family – then there's a lot of "synergy" in the air.

I notice that most Muslims are now described by us reporters as "practising", though I'm still not sure what that means. That the men go to the mosque five times a day? Or say their five daily prayers at home? That their wives wear hijab? Or, mini-skirted, just believe in God? Or are they preparing to be suicide bombers? Note how we never refer to "practising" Christians – probably because there aren't many left. Christians, I mean. No, a "practising" Muslim is also a code word for "terrorist" – just as the accusation of being "pro-Palestinian" means that the accused is actually a supporter of terrorism. Likewise "pro-Israeli" has become a synonym for "Zionist" or "anti-Arab".

The same goes for less sinful clichés. In real life, do we really call borders "porous" – even when, like the Durand line which divides Afghanistan from present-day Pakistan, few of the people living on the frontier believe it's real? In ordinary conversation, do ever refer to "iconic" or "defining moments", even though speech-writers like to sprinkle them around the lexicon of third-rate politicians? Indeed, politics provides some of our most woeful clichés. Presidents and prime ministers like to demonstrate "soft power" – a descendant of the old "hitting above our weight" – when they are not on the "campaign trail". I have a special "AAAAAGH" for "campaign trail". It was presumably coined in the United States (the "trail" being a giveaway) but it now applies to any election anywhere on earth. MPs or US senators or French presidents are always "fighting for their political life", their arguments often "compelling". Which means what, exactly? Every newly inaugurated American president since Truman, it appears, has "hit the ground running".

Last week, in a self-regarding address which I had the misfortune to attend, our dear Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister, Jack Straw, invented an entirely new word: "justicability". His audience of Australian lawyers was as bemused as I was by such claptrap. Is the political descendant of Sir Thomas More – he of Utopia and a head loss to Henry VIII – trying to persuade us he's an intellectual?

Sometimes, clichés turn into real speech. How many times have we heard UN officials, business leaders and US generals – always keeping an "anxious eye" on "seemingly intractable" problems – tell us that "time is of the essence"? When Middle East leaders – either "hawks" or "doves" or "moderates" or "conservatives" – speak, their words often escape "under the radar" of us Westerners.

I won't go into "war-torn" – yes, Afghanistan, it's pretty war-torn right now, isn't it, we might say to a friend – or "embattled", but some clichés are like glue. Not long ago, I wanted to write about a South-west Asian country that was so shattered by war and corruption that it was no longer economically viable. I knew the old cliché: "poverty-stricken". But I wanted to express myself clearer, so I wrote that the country was – quite literally – "poverty-broken". But of course, a sub-editor changed it back to "poverty-stricken". He wanted to keep within the cliché code. Poverty-broken was offensive because it did not fit into the dictionary of clichés, that essential volume – it is in our brains, not in our libraries – that is supposed to safeguard all journalism from unorthodoxy.

I love new clichés, however, albeit for only a few days. One of Italian prime minister Berlusconi's latest women is now described by journalists, I notice, as a "high-end prostitute". Who dreamed up 'high-end'? Her pimp, I suspect. It means, presumably, that she's very expensive and thus available only to men with money and power. And be sure that we shall never – ever – refer to "low-end prostitutes", a phrase that would dehumanise "sex workers". But wait – the cliché has already begun to sink into our subconscious. A reader of Canada's National Post, writing a letter to the editor, last week described the newspaper as a "high-end publication" – which, I suppose, tells you a lot about the paper.

So do we just sit back and roll about in this shitty language? After all, it's not "rocket science", is it? Tanks may "roll" but the guns will always "fall silent". Now back to Canada for a moment. In New Brunswick, it seems, parents are not amused with the new French "immersion" course offered their children in local schools. Apparently, they are not actually taught the French language any more, merely told about France while, occasionally, an anglophone teacher drops by the classroom to sing a French song to the kids. "Experiential modules" is what their teachers call these courses. Modules indeed.

Justicability I suppose. And as his Liege Lord Henry would have said of Jack Straw and his friends: "Off with their heads."

7/03/2009

Dynasty

Posted by Andrew |


Word on the street is that 2009 is the year in which President Mubarak will begin the era of the next Pharaoh, transferring power to his son, Gamal Mubarak through the usual faux elections. All the rumors are of course unsubstantiated, but the transfer will certainly happen in the near future as President Mubarak is not getting any younger.

Pasted below, and originally from here, is a BBC article discussing the merits of an additional military coup in Egypt.

Egyptians look to military 'saviour'

By Magdi Abdelhadi BBC Arab affairs analyst, Cairo

Nearly 60 years since the Egyptian army overthrew the monarchy, some Egyptians may be looking to the army again for a successor to 81-year-old head of state and former air force chief Hosni Mubarak.

On front of the podium where President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 while watching a military parade there is a huge frieze.

The gilded triptych glorifies the military and places it at the heart of Egyptian society from the time of the Pharaohs.

The central scene portrays soldiers, together with farmers, workers and students, carrying a plaque inscribed with 1952 - the year a group of army officers overthrew King Farouk and declared Egypt a republic.

Another attraction in nearby Heliopolis is the October Panorama, a permanent exhibition describing in epic terms how the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal in 1973 and destroyed Israeli fortifications.

School trips are organised to the Panorama regularly, to instil in young Egyptians pride and love of their armed forces.

The message is clear: the military injects dignity and pride into Egypt and deserves its privileged status - a status the officers have enjoyed since 1952.

But these privileges reached new heights during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, who took over after Sadat's assassination.

Officers' clubs boasting lavish sports facilities and restaurants; subsidised housing; military hospitals; these are just some of the most visible perks - the likes of which no other profession in Egypt enjoys.

The military has also been transformed into a veritable business empire, whose exact size, turnover and profit no-one is allowed to know. Not even parliament can scrutinise its affairs.

First step

No-one dares talk about the armed forces in public.

"We are not even allowed to mention the words 'the army' in our reporting", a young journalist tells me.

One man who broke that taboo, Talaat Sadat, spent a year in jail.

The MP and nephew of the assassinated president had suggested during a speech in parliament that the investigation into his uncle's murder was not thorough enough.

Nevertheless, a year in a military prison has not prevented him from viewing the army as Egypt's best hope after Mr Mubarak.

"We are waiting for the army to take the first step," he says "then we will support it... just like in 1952."

"I am fed up with businessmen-ministers, especially the princes of the ruling NDP," says Mr Sadat, in an apparent reference to the new business elite associated with President Mubarak's son, Gamal.

Mr Sadat is not alone.

Engy Haddad, a Harvard-educated publicist, once worked for the ruling National Democratic Party in the belief that reform was possible from within, but she was quickly disillusioned.

She then helped set up a group to monitor elections and another to fight corruption in state institutions.

She sees poverty as a ticking time bomb in Egypt and says there is no alternative but that the men in uniform intervene.

"We are all hoping that happens. And by 'we' I mean liberals. The game is no longer fair! The game is stacked against the poor. There is no future. The country is being eaten through by corruption."

She hopes that a patriotic figure from the army will see the unfairness and step in to put things right.

Warning from history

It is a dearth of coherent secular alternatives that presents such a problem to people like Engy Haddad.

To liberals and leftists alike, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, the best organised opposition group, is anathema.

So is what is known as the "hereditary scenario" - Gamal Mubarak being installed as president in a charade dressed up as a democratic vote.

For nearly three decades, say critics and opposition activists, Mr Mubarak has prevented development of a mature political system in the name of stability.

After hearing that even some liberals want the army to step in, I wondered what the officers would think of that.

But since the army does not talk to the media, I turned to one of the very few surviving architects of the 1952 coup.

I was granted rare access to Dr Tharwat Okasha, who is now in his late eighties, and has served as ambassador and minister of culture during the Nasser era.

He delivered a damning verdict on the consequences of the officers' involvement in politics.

Would he have taken part in the 1952 movement if he had known the consequences? The answer was categorical.

"I would never, never [have] participated. No," Dr Okasha responds in a defensive manner.

A warning from history then to those who think that soldiers can still sort out politics.

7/02/2009

Hunger is a Positive Motivator

Posted by Andrew |
Subscribe