Update on Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court

BREAKING NEWS:

At 3:18EST, the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear 2 cases on same-sex marriage!!!

After the Election: Why the Republicans Shouldn't Be So Surprised

The saying goes, “the winner takes it all.” The presidential election is no exception. Romney will be lost to the history books, quickly overtaken by the next GOP hotshot while Obama, his legacy already cemented with his election four years ago, will continue to make an impressive mark. But the election results did more than deny the GOP the position of commander-in-chief. They revealed that Party members are sporting a new accessory: earmuffs.

Yes, earmuffs.

In reading various articles after Election Day, much of the consensus reveals that despite their supposed shock, the Republicans would have seen the writing on the wall had they paid attention. Their reaction to Romney’s fairly decisive loss shows how much the Republicans were completely oblivious to the wants, expectations and actions of American voters. Michael Barone, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, predicted a 315-electoral vote win for Romney. George Will called 321 for Romney. Karl Rove showed he was no more mature than a five year old, blubbering and throwing a tantrum on Fox News. How could they be so misguided?

 Map of Tuesday's presidential election results in each state. Florida has since officially awarded its electoral votes to Obama. The Republicans claim to be "shellshocked" by the devastating loss but Romney lost by over 100 electoral votes. Even with California, that is no small feat. Of six major  swing states, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Iowa, Obama won 5, despite the many claims by Republicans to sweep the swing states. 

Photo credit: http://media2.abc15.com//photo/2012/11/09/electoral_map_cnn_20121109112711_640_480.JPG

I recommend two articles, the first a NY Magazine editorial and a NY Times blog (written by the Times ‘ Editor).

Both articles related that the Republicans’ isolated themselves in their own bubble, discrediting and faulting any source that predicted anything but a landslide win for Romney. By only acknowledging sources and reports that favored them, they tricked themselves into believing a fantasy. What I still don’t understand though is how this could happen on such a national level? The Republican Party is one of two main political parties in the United States. How could they be so out of touch with the 2012 voters?  

In googling images for the map of the electoral college by state, this came up. The author wanted to show the election results if white men, the key Republican demographic, were the only ones allowed to vote.. No surprise that forty-five of the fifty states went red, even die-hard blue California. Thankfully, white men are not the only ones allowed to vote. It's time for the Republicans to acknowledge that.

Photo credit: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/11/if_only_white_men_could_vote.shtml

One source I read immediately after the election described your typical Republican: white and male. The problem with targeting that particular demographic is that its control on political power is declining with the rise of women and minority voices. The shocking and completely infuriating dismissal of rape by Todd Akin in August, for example, was just one sign of how out of touch the Republican Party is. If he truly felt like he could openly say that and not start a riot (or more importantly lose him the election), then that shows the Republicans have a real problem. Guess what? He lost in Missouri to a Democrat.

It baffles me. Top party leaders are supposed to be astute, savvy and clued into the talk of the nation. We tried to inform them but the Republicans cut their communication lines. It’s not our fault they got handed a defeat. The voters did our job. Now, rather than whine like a group of preschoolers, they ought to re-evaluate who who today’s Republicans ARE. Plural. If the Republicans continue to limit themselves to the rich white man’s club, they’re going to keep losing. Maybe we’ll witness the a rise of new political parties.

My Thoughts on the Outcome of the Election

After months of intense campaigning, Obama emerged as the projected victor of the 2012 US presidential election. I care about the outcome of the presidential race, but there were three other contests, four including my own state’s senatorial race, whose outcomes worried and excited me almost as much as that for president. They were the ballot votes on gay marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington.

What is unique about this particular ballot vote is that it had never before succeeded. Massachusetts, Iowa and the other four states that currently allow same-sex marriage were not decided by a popular vote: their courts deemed such discrimination unconstitutional. When attempting to pass same sex marriage via the popular vote, even Maine shot the proposition down 53% to 47% several years ago (http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/maine-and-maryland-say-we-do/).

Now in 2012 things are starting to change. Obama is the first president to openly support gay marriage. Maryland and Maine passed gay marriage in their respective states with promising results thus far predicted for Washington (their submit their ballots in the mail so actual numbers take longer to determine). Wisconsin elected the first gay senator, Tammy Baldwin. To me, these results symbolize a change in attitude in the American population. People have finally realized that the failure to include all people and families in law is flat-out discrimination, religious preferences and propaganda aside. It’s acknowledgement that we are not so different after all and do not deserve to be denied our rights.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Thirty states have banned gay marriage in their constitutions. But if the number of states allowing gay marriage can jump from six to nine states overnight, there may just be hope that those numbers will be reversed by the time by moms turn 65.

Thank you, American voters, for supporting my family last night.  

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Free-for-All Military Spending

In the United States, the first Tuesday in November is probably the most famous day of the month in the United States behind Black Friday and Thanksgiving. That day, which happens to be today, is Election Day. By the end of the night, we [hopefully] will know our leader of the next four years, if voting goes as planned. We shall see if that actually pans out.

Although both presidential candidates have attempted to distinguish themselves over the course of the campaign, portions of their policies line up with one another. One example is that Obama and Romney have both promised to increase the defense budget. As a twenty-year-old with residual resentment about the Iraq War, I’m tired of hearing out expansion of military spending. Problems here at home need urgent attention too, not just those abroad. Imagine my surprise when I read an article posted by my politics professor in which a Marine reserve officer actually agreed with me.

Huh?

In his op-ed column for the New York Times, Aaron B. O’Connell compares our country’s present relationship with the military to that at the end Eisenhower’s presidency. Eisenhower warned of the military becoming too large of an influence in political and domestic affairs, becoming a epicenter around which all other policies would circle, defense-related or not. He pointed out that few of his Naval Academy students remember when America was not at war. I cannot say I recall when a time bombings, death tolls, yellow ribbons and camouflage were not daily contributors on the nightly news. O’Connell claims that service is glorified in the media through television shows and video games. Various military-related demonstrations precede major sporting events. When did we, the civilian population, become so obsessed with our nation’s unequivocal military might?

Particularly popular after 9/11 and the immediate outbreak of the Iraq War, the yellow ribbon, a symbol of supporting the troops and thus being a "good" American, is seen everywhere from trees to cars to businesses. I remember in 5th grade tying yellow ribbons around tree trunks outside of my elementary school in 2003. Now such practice in a public school would bother me. We ten and eleven year olds were not given an option not to support our troops. We just did. In essence we were brainwashed: that the military going to war was a good thing. War is never a good thing. 

How much the US devoted to military expenditures in 2012 compared to the world's other leading nations. The sum of China, Russia, the UK and France's spending barely exceeds half of what the US alone spends in a year. How much of what we spend is really necessary? 

Photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The most interesting aspect of O’Connell’s op-ed however was his critique of the excessive military spending. I assumed that as an officer he would be all for more money and resources. He is not. In fact, he calls for increased skepticism and criticism from Congress. The majority of representatives and senators have no military background, trapping them in a dangerous Catch-22: criticize the military without the proper credentials and be deemed un-patriotic or provide “unhesitating adulation” and allow military spending to balloon out of control. Guess which choice leads to re-election (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?ref=opinion).

The concept of trade-offs in terms of spending often gets lost among political jargon and election ads. When we appropriate funds for one project, another project inevitably loses them. We devote more money to the military, chances are that gets taken from other areas at home. Instead of working to pay off the deficit, we build more tanks. Rather than reduce the cost of a higher education, we establish more bases. Money does not just magically appear; it all comes from somewhere and more importantly, it is a finite amount. Regardless of the outcome of today’s election, I hope our next president will weed out the military budget with the guidance of those who know the industry best. It’s time we bring the troops and the money home.

Increased military spending for the few years after the 9/11 attacks does not come as a surprise. But ten years after the fall of the Twin Towers, why are we still increasing the budget? 

Photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png 

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: free-for-all military spending  

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Provide Natural Disaster Relief

I know most of my recent posts have related to things I approve or need my tax dollars to do. Although I originally planned to write this post about an expenditure I do not approve of, I was so appalled by what I read in this NY Times editorial that I needed to share it.

When a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy strikes the United States, a federal body called the National Response Coordination Center heads recovery efforts. The umbrella organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Coordination Center decides how to allocate and distribute various forms of aid. It also assists with any evacuations. As a federal body, it has vast resources and authority at its disposal. Furthermore if states are already distressed or without means of communication during or after a storm, it is one fewer things the state has to deal with. The state is already in enough trouble; it should not have to orchestrate aid efforts as well.

Flooding of the subway system has brought New York City to a standstill: schools are closed, Wall Street vacant, hospitals evacuated and people trapped in upper-story apartments without power. Under Romney's plan, how is a state capital under water supposed to coordinate an effective emergency response without power and transportation? 

Photo credit: http://inhabitat.com/nyc-public-transit-system-crippled-after-hurricane-sandy-causes-widespread-flooding/ 

Romney, however, wants to eradicate the National Response Coordination Center and shift emergency management not even to the states but to the private sector. Consequently “profit-making companies,” rather than the federal government, would control the emergency response. Because it makes a lot of sense to have people’s safety, evacuation and aid be in the hands of businesses out to make a buck. Who’ll get the bottles of water, blankets and protein bars? Those who can pay for it.

Yes, because Massachusetts expect to experience hurricane-strength storm surges and thus it's our fault the coastline got slammed. (Winthrop, MA)

Photo credit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/hurricane-sandy-strikes-east-coast-gallery-1.1194577 

The author, whose name was nowhere to be found on the editorial itself, explained why Republicans despite nationally-overseen emergency management: “Many don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week includes living on the East Coast.”

Excuse me!?  

Hurricane Katrina crippled Louisiana. The West confronted massive wild fires all last summer and into the fall. Tornadoes rip through the Midwest. Earthquakes vex the West Coast. Blizzards shut down much of the North. Every part of the country experiences some form of natural disaster; there is no “safe” state. A natural disaster is no one particular person’s fault. Yet when their states get affected, they come crying for federal aid and financial assistance. How totally hypocritical. You don’t want federal aid? Fine, then don’t take it. See how effective the response is. Like health care, emergency management is not something that belongs in the private sector. It belongs to the federal government.

Even the city that never sleeps is no match for a hurricane. 

Photo credit: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/10/hurricane-sandy-after-landfall/100396/

I approve my tax dollars to do that: fund FEMA and the National Response Coordination Center.

Do I Politicize my Dollars?

Momentary deviation from the appropriation of my tax dollars to an issue concerning November's election. 

Watching the news Saturday morning, I overheard the opening lines to a story about an Ohio resident heavily campaigning for the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. Such out of state lobbying, especially in the form of lavish donations, is not uncommon. Yet having recently sent in my absentee ballot, this man’s unsolicited interference in my state’s election felt oddly unsettling.

Such uneasiness got me thinking: should such intervention in state elections be allowed? What’s its advantage? What is the disadvantage? Would I do it?

In doing research for this blog, I learned that while there are caps on how much a person or organization can contribute to state and federal elections, no such restrictions exist for ballot measure campaigns. That made me feel slightly better. Critics argue that such sky’s-the-limit policies favor special interest groups with deep pockets.  For example, opponents of the second question on the Massachusetts ballot regarding physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients have generated over $900,000. Less than $25,000, approximately 2%, of that sum has originated in Massachusetts (http://www.wcvb.com/news/investigative/Out-of-state-cash-shaping-Massachusetts-ballot-measure-prospects/-/12520878/17158100/-/item/2/-/b1kpmjz/-/index.html).

A summary of question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot. Various special interest groups have intervened on behalf of both sides of the controversial legislation but a lot of money has filtered in from groups opposing it. 

Photo credit: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/10/15/bgcom-ballot-graphic/7dHMyt8p1HzsTcm5ME1QkO/story.html 

The obvious disadvantage is that the deeper the pockets, the deeper the influence. Political superiority goes to the group who supplies the most funds, not the group who should have the most power: the voters.  

I assume one of the advantages to forceful lobbying in one state is to encourage the passage of the same or similar legislation in another state. One sets an example, the nation watches the outcome, and ideally the other states respond supportively. The practice of “peer pressure” goes all the way to the signing of the Constitution. But in my opinion, the only body allowed to tie the hands of other states is the Federal Government. If the Federal Government decides to apply legislation to the entire country, fine. But if a special interest group not even from my state makes a point to ensure the passing of legislation that does not even affect them, then that is not fine.

To answer my last question, I eventually resolved that I would not interfere with another state’s election, even if my financial situation allowed me to do so. Although I disagree with a lot of the policies of other states (someone explain to me why it’s legal in some states to marry an animal but not to marry someone of the same gender), their legislation is not my call. If I become a legal resident of that state then it becomes my call. In that situation I also relinquish my claim to impact anything Massachusetts decides. But as a current Massachusetts resident, what happens in Massachusetts should be up to the voters OF Massachusetts. 

Romney and My Tax Dollars

Opening Safari this morning, I noticed that my homepage, nytimes.com, displayed an intriguing headline: "The Mitt Romney Who Might Have Been"

Huh?

He’s the Republican presidential candidate and a former governor. He is already a very well known and publicized figure. As such, most if not all Americans around or above voting age know his name. What else could he have been? Curious, I shoved my current homework aside, clicked on the link and began to read.

In a two-second summary of the article, author Robert Draper evaluated Romney’s role as an informal McCain advisor during the 2008 race and his performance as Massachusetts governor. The point? Romney aimed to please.

I highly recommend reading it if you wish to see a preview of President Romney. 

Rather than remain steadfast to his promises or convictions, Romney preferred to go along and do what would win him support and favor. A perfect example of this is his revelation about Roe vs. Wade. Once the potential of a presidential campaign emerged mid-way through his term as governor, his position on a woman’s right to choose reversed from support to opposition. His loyalty never lay with Massachusetts. One of his environmental officials told the Times, “Clearly, in retrospect, he was weighing what was right for Massachusetts with how it would play nationally." (nytimes.com) 

Melanie's Law, a law targeted at getting more drunk drivers caught repeatedly off the road, is seen as one of the big success stories of Romney's term as Massachusetts governor. While it has been successful at getting repeat offenders off the road, seeing as it was introduced as a result of the tragic death of a young girl by a repeat offender drunk driver, there was little political resistance to its enactment. IID stands for ignition interlock device: you must blow into it and pass or else the car will not start. 

photo credit: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/rmvnews/2008/iid_removals.gif

Now imagine a president weighting what was right for the United States with how it would play on the international stage. Not good. 

I do acknowledge that the Times tends to lean toward the left and therefore this evaluation of Romney is somewhat biased. However, as a Massachusetts resident, much of its criticisms about his performance ring true. Who wants a governor who spends the last two years of his term away forwarding his own presidential campaign? Should he get elected, will he spend the latter years of his term focused on his re-election campaign instead of our nation’s current crises? I want my president here and actively engaged in the needs of the United States. I want him to take a decisive stand on issues and not allow his hopes for re-election to taint his decisions. He must preside in the present: not in the prospects of the 2016 race.

Funny how he approved a similar health care system in Massachusetts that took effect while he was governor that is viewed as one of his other big successes and he now rejects such a system on a nation-wide scale. You no longer hear Bostonians complaining about the state-wide health insurance requirement. Massachusetts also has some of the best health statistics in the nation. 

Photo credit: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TO311_0628sc_G_20120628120827.jpg

Obviously the 2012 presidential election is a huge determinant in the future of my tax dollars over the course of the next four years. I make no secret about the fact that I am a liberal: I favor big government, I support a woman’s right to choose and I applaud universal health care. But in some ways, I view myself as a fiscal conservative. I dislike when my hard-earned tax dollars are wastefully and ineffectively spent. I especially grapple with the concept of welfare systems. My philosophy is simple: live within your means. If you fail to do so, then that is your financial problem, not mine and certainly not my tax dollars’.

That being said, obviously I will not vote for Romney.  But in addition to our ideological differences, I do not trust him to be responsible with my tax dollars because he flip-flopped so many times on issues and policies as governor. If elected president, which Romney are we actually going to get?

Can an Iranian System Really Help Mississippi?

Back to the question from my previous post: Can HealthConnect, an agency based on the primary health care system established in post-revolutionary Iran, really help Mississippi?

According to HealthConnect’s founder Dr. Aaron Shirely, HealthConnect serves two purposes in Mississippi: improve primary care for its rural residents and prove that Medcaid and health insurance will not eradicate all of the state’s health problems.

One of the major problems in Mississippi is the routine use of the emergency room for primary care. Patients who arrive in the ER and cannot afford treatment are still treated at taxpayer expense. While such practice is unfair to taxpayers, cutting of taxes appropriated toward this purpose will not prevent the arrival of unpaying patients to the ER. About 550,000 out of three million Mississippi residents lack health insurance. The state only has 176 doctors per 100,000, the lowest ratio in the country. Those numbers piggyback on Mississippi’s rank as “the country’s poorest and most racially divided state.”  That is where HealthConnect fits in. 

Mississippi is not the only state with a high percentage of its population lacking health insurance. This graph shows how it compares to nearby states and to the proportion of uninsured in the country as a whole. Note: these percentages reflect 2012 numbers. 

Photo credit: http://mepconline.com/blog/healthcare/building-toward-economic-mobility-in-mississippi-health-care/

This map shows the population density and the location/size of hospitals. Clearly there are fewer and smaller hospitals compared to the number and size in urban areas. No wonder such a large proportion of the population goes untreated simply because they do not have easy access to health care. 

Photo credit: http://archive.ahrq.gov/prep/nursinghomes/atlas/atlas_ms.gif

Unlike emergency C-sections, quadruple bypasses and ventilators, HealthConnect does not go after the final stage eruption of a health problem; it combats the part of the cause. While home-health agencies will dispatch nurses to conduct work in the patients’ homes, their care requires insurance and they often work for unregulated, lucrative for-profit agencies. Shirley’s approach, on the other hand, argues that the health care provider must be in it solely for the benefit of the patient. Without that sense of responsibility and loyally, the profit, rather than the best interests of the patient, is the foundation of treatment options.

Furthermore, the caregiver “must come from the patients world.” Black patients often do not trust white caregivers and will fabricate answers to pacify nurses or prevent them from asking more questions. As the daughter of a health care provider, one of the most important aspects of proper diagnosis and treatment is honesty with your doctor about symptoms, conditions and what you are experiencing. If a doctor does not know what is wrong, how can she or he effectively treat a patient?

Clearly, poverty in Mississippi is still very much a racial issue. As a result, it is imperative that an adequate proportion of Mississippi health care providers are African American who can actually see which health care problems stem from racism and mistrust on both sides. 

Photo credit: http://mepconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Child-Poverty-Rate-by-Race-Mississippi.jpg

Part of Shirley’s goal is to “get into homes and alter the course of future generations before obesity…or diabetes sets in.” He wants to make it so that the patients will trust their health care providers and in turn take measures to improve their health. To achieve this goal, Shirley opened health care houses in the schools. The location gave him access to both growing kids, to whom he can provide the most long-term benefit by teaching them good health practices early on, and their families. He also fills a much-needed gap, as many Mississippi public schools lack full-time nurses.

The workers of HealthConnect do not work 9-5. They are always trying to help, whether it take the form of allowing people who do not have electricity to stay a night in their home, making an unscheduled stop to check up on a patient and her new baby, or extending an appointment by an extra fifteen minutes to admire the patient’s family photos on the wall. In a way, they fulfill a particular void in many poor Mississippians’ lives: they act as family.

Many people shy away from making this kind of commitment. You sacrifice much of your time, energy and life to taking care of other people at a much higher cost than simply the financial expense. I am reminded of this every time I come home from college and my mom has to go do an emergency within five minutes of my arrival. But in the case of the poverty-stricken Mississippi Delta where all other attempts to improve health care have failed, such commitment is imperative. And I believe that it will work. Only proactive prevention of the most common killers of Mississippi residents, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension and asthma, will stop them from appearing in the ER when it is too late to treat them.

Obesity is one of the many faces of poverty in the United States. Left unaddressed, it condemns the child to an early death before he or she even becomes a teenager. As the cause of other conditions, Type II diabetes and high blood pressure for example, it proves to be more expensive to treat later than to prevent with a healthy diet and exercise now. Basic exercise (walking, running, push ups, crunches, etc) is free. Emergency room care is not. 

Photo credit: http://www.nourishinteractive.com/system/assets/general/images/nutrition-facts/childhood-obesity-rates-US-2011.gif 

I was appalled to read that some Mississippians have to shop for food at a gas station because a fully stocked grocery store is thirty miles away. That should not be the case in the twenty-first century United States. Insurance or Medicaid will not change that. But agencies like HealthConnect, who promote the well being of the patient and go after things like availability of healthy food and accessibility of medication, can.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/what-can-mississippis-health-care-system-learn-from-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp

Should I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Learn from Iran

In 2001, my mom described her health care philosophy to the Boston Globe: "Medical care is ideally broad enough to envelop not only the technical part of treating an illness, but caring for the whole animal - and the family around it.”

(https://secure.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/access/70460160.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+1%2C+2001&author=Naomi+R.+Kooker%2C+)

Though my mom’s expertise pertains primarily to animals, Dr. Aaron Shirley shares a similar sentiment about human patients. In 2010, Shirley founded HealthConnect, a rural Mississippi medical provider that provides a “holistic, intensely personal approach” to patient care. His inspiration for HealthConnect stems from “an unlikely place:” Iran.

In the 1980s, the Islamic Republic of Iran implemented a new primary health care system to combat the unsettling differences in health care quality and availability of rural and urban areas. As a result of this disparity, urban populations that had better access to better health care tended to out-health their rural counterparts.

The system was based on a single, multitiered structure. The first level, “health houses,” were constructed to accommodate the primary health care of approximately 1,500 people all of whom lived within an hour’s walk or less.  The 1000-square-foot houses themselves consist of exam rooms, sleeping quarters, and staff, who men and women trained in basic, preventative care. Services included family planning, prenatal care, nutritional advice, and immunizations.

The next tier was the rural center followed by the district hospital. This way, those who become very sick or require surgery, had access to a better-equipped hospital. It was also relatively inexpensive to implement. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/what-can-mississippis-health-care-system-learn-from-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp).

Here you can see the flow of the hierarchical Iranian system and comparison of that flow between rural and urban centers. By the third tier, the urban and rural areas share the same hospitals. 

Photo credit: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/0730190502001.png 

I see two crucial and extremely effective features of Iran’s system. The first is that by establishing good primary care, a more serious condition can be caught early before it lands the patient in the (expensive) emergency room or worse, dead. Obviously not all conditions are preventative. But many that face people living in poverty, such as diabetes, malnutrition, water contamination, malaria and other mosquito-transmitted diseases, and to an extent HIV, can be addressed before they reach a point of no return.

The second is that the health care workers are not foreigners imported in their fancy white lab coats and fancy stethoscopes; they are natives. They grew up in the villages they serve. They can relate to their patients on a personal level because they already share common ground, helping to forge an imperative sense of trust between health care provider and recipient. Such familiarity allows them to truly understand the problems their patients face and know certain realities of a solution. Some treatments we consider to be relatively elementary are impossible to prescribe in rural areas. Anything needing to be stored in the fridge, for example, is off the table for isolated areas without electricity.

In explaining how he made the leap from Iran to the United States, Dr. Shirley told the New York Times, “The Iranian model eliminated the geographic disparities, so why couldn’t this same approach be used for racial and geographic disparities in the United States?”

By establishing HealthConnect in rural Mississippi, the state with some of the worst health statistics in the country, Dr. Shirley is putting his money where his mouth is.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/magazine/what-can-mississippis-health-care-system-learn-from-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp).
Photo credit: http://faithandhealthdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screen-shot-2012-07-31-at-8-43-53-am.png

The question now is, can HealthConnect actually help Mississippi?

I Need My Tax Dollars to do That: Support My Family Too

Imagine you’re 80. Your partner of 50+ years just died. You both paid your taxes throughout adulthood so you should be able to live off of your spouse’s social security, right? Wrong.

For the 131,729 same-sex couples who identified their partner as their “husband” or “wife” in the 2010 Census Report (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/28/census-reports-more-than-130000-same-sex-couples-say-theyre-married/), they will not receive their spouse’s social security because the Federal Government does not recognize them as married. As the proud daughter of a same-sex couple, I find it outrageous that my moms pay their appropriate taxes toward social security (approximately 14% of their income), have a Massachusetts marriage license and yet when the time comes, one will be denied the other’s social security.

This is how the Social Security Administration handles it:

“Under Federal law an individual whose claim for benefits is based on a State recognized same-sex marriage or having the same status as spouse for State inheritance purposes cannot meet the statutory gender-based definition of husband or wife of the worker, including one who is divorced. Therefore, for all benefit purposes, the Social Security Administration does not recognize such individual as the spouse of the worker.” (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.03/handbook-0306.html)

photo credit: http://krystlem.tumblr.com/post/3729304852

The equal rights symbol. I have seen it on cars, laptops, binders and water bottles as a demonstration of equal rights for all families. 

The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment). Marriage, or more specifically marriage legislation, falls under state jurisdiction, not Federal. Massachusetts is currently the only state that grants full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Furthermore, my moms’ marriage license is not recognized in any other state (http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/Committees/GenderandSexuality/StatebyStateLGBTLegislation.aspx#MA). 

The failure of a state to acknowledge the marriage license of another state simply because of the sex of the couple when driver’s licenses are readily accepted is ridiculous. But the fact that the Federal Government completely disregards the Tenth Amendment in this case is ludicrous.  The Federal Government has no right to redefine a state’s definition of marriage. It needs to recognize Massachusetts’ definition of marriage so that the same-sex couples like my parents who work hard and pay their taxes get the same financial protection heterosexual couples receive. What the Fed is doing is not just unconstitutional: it is flat-out discrimination. 

Should I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Import Health Care

While most career fields in the United States experienced job loss during the recession, the health care sector added 1.2 million jobs, a lone “bright spot in the economy”. Yet an NY Times Op-Ed Column alerted me to a disheartening reality. To fill the demand for new health care professionals, we are not educating and employing our own. Instead, we are importing them.

The demand for more health care workers arose in part from changes imposed by Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act and the aging of the Baby Boomers.  However, American medical schools have not responded with an increased output of M.D.s. They still reject hundreds of thousands of qualified applicants while we fill the need for doctors by importing foreigners who now comprise twelve percent of the health work force. In 2011-2012, 43,919 students applied to US medical schools. While that number does not differentiate between domestic and international students,  only 19,230 students actually matriculated (https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/charts1982to2012.pdf). The author of the Times article, Kate Tulenko, argues that in doing so, we are also taking doctors away from the areas that really need them. Countries where twenty percent of children die before their first birthday should not be losing health care workers to the United States. Leave those doctors to do a job that for many is a matter of life and death and start increasing the production of our own.

As someone pursuing a career in medicine, the ability to get into (and consequently pay for) school is a big concern. Though I plan to enter veterinary school, applicants across pre-health fields face the same dilemmas of completing mile-long lists of requirements, achieving impossibly high test scores and GPAs in order to be competitive and extraordinary volunteer work, extracurricular activities, internships or research so yours stands out among the myriad of applications. Such glitter, if you will, often requires two things: money and connections.

 Politics and financial status should be irrelevant when it comes to health care. Good health care entails a patient and his/her doctor devising preventative, maintenance and recovery plans that best suit the patients needs. Yet a paper application ignores that necessary quality. For example, it is pointless to prescribe insulin to a diabetic patient in rural Mississippi if she does not own a fridge to store it in. The doctor must figure out a more creative, unorthodox approach. She (the patient) frankly will not know or care if her doctor had a 4.0 GPA as an undergraduate or achieved a perfect score on the MCAT. She will just want to feel better.

I wholeheartedly support the exchange of techniques, theories, and developments across nation lines. But I have a real problem with the fact that the US has imported and is importing tens of thousands of health care workers while there are thousands more already here ready to take the Hippocratic oath. The Federal Government needs to apply more pressure on medical schools and state regulators to increase the number of teaching hospitals, increase class size and reduce the cost of a health profession education. Everyone has the right to adequate health care. But first, they need access to the people. Thus even before we facilitate the access, we need the people.

So in asking myself whether I approve my tax dollars to import health care, my answer is no. I want more of my tax dollars devoted to encouraging the education and output of American health care workers.

Think about it: what do you want from your doctor? 

I Never Approved My Tax Dollars to do That: Elephant Poaching

Elephant poaching is nothing new to the park rangers of Africa. But what is new is the increased organization, voracity and militarization of elephant poaching in the pursuit of precious ivory. Also new? The decisive role my tax dollars play.

According to a New York Times article from September 4, 2012, tens of thousands of elephants lose their lives each year to poachers who then hack away their tusks and leave the corpse to rot. Officials seized a record-breaking 38.8 tons of ivory in 2011, an amount accumulated at the expense of over 4000 elephants. Though poaching was a “job” previously thought to be reserved for the criminal type, the increasing demand of ivory from China has encouraged more participants to join the lucrative hunt. Ivory has peaked at $1000 per pound in some areas. At that price, and especially when compared to the minuscule salaries soldiers receive, one can understand the irresistible attraction of the ivory trade.

Efficient elephant hunting, however, requires proper weaponry. Proper weaponry costs money. Conveniently, the United States appears happy to help.

During 2011 fiscal year, the United States gave 456.1 million dollars to Uganda, 400.2 million to Sudan and 215.9 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33591.pdf). Soldiers from all three nations have been caught and reprimanded for elephant poaching (see the above NY Times article).  To Tanzania, another area of active elephant poaching, the United States gave 501.7 million (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33591.pdf). In addition to funds, the United States also provides some armies, including the Ugandan military, the Congolese Army, and the South Sudan military, with training and assistance (see the above NY Times article).

I don’t dispute the need for foreign aid in many African countries. Poverty and disease are rampant and as a leading world power, we have a responsibility to aid weaker institutions and areas. Yet corruption is also a notorious problem. At the same time, ensuring that financial assistance reaches the rightful recipient is an impossible task, one that no amount of manpower, sanctions, or security could resolve.

My concern lies directly with the funding and training of the military groups that in turn use the US assistance to kill elephants and buy more weaponry from the sales of the ivory. In my opinion, stricter regulation and oversight should accompany further donation of funds. Conviction or acknowledgement of participation in the ivory trade should result in deductions or withholding of aid.

It’s simple: If abused, I want my tax dollars going somewhere else.  Preferably, I want them going away from the elephants. 

At The Trailhead

Two months out from the November presidential election, it seems as though all anyone can talk about is the campaign. Engaged in a transcontinental game of “he said, she said,” both Obama and Romney pledge reforms neither can realistically make while they simultaneously denounce their opponent and his party. Scanning the headlines on NYTimes.com yesterday, I saw election coverage, election coverage and what a surprise more election coverage. Thus I wanted to take this opportunity to remind Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney (as well as the American media) that there is more going on in September 2012 than who will next inhabit the White House. 

Exasperated, I clicked on the “World” tab and browsed the article titles, finally settling on one that fell under the “Most E-mailed” category. The five-page article, Elephants Dying in Epic Frenzy as Ivory Fuels Wars and Profits, revealed the disturbing escalation of violent elephant poaching as a result of increased demand for ivory in Asia. I’ll expand upon my thoughts about the article in the next post but in the meantime, check out the full article here. Most upsetting to me however wasn’t the loss of elephant life: it was the fact I’d indirectly facilitated it.  More specifically, it was my tax dollars designated to support underfunded ally African governments that enabled the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of elephants for their precious tusks.

That’s funny…I never approved my dollars to do that.

            This November, I will join the many previously ineligible voices in casting my first vote in a presidential election. With Election Day rapidly approaching, it is our responsibility to be educated voters.  As part of an assignment for my World Politics class at Mount Holyoke College, I’m making it my mission to investigate and track down my federal tax dollars on all seven continents. Where exactly do they go? Who benefits from them? Do people actually benefit from them? Are the recipients really deserving of aid? And most importantly, where do I want them to go?

 photo credit: http://www.jessehora.com/index.php?/ongoing/somethin-somethin-series/