living proof

From livingproofproject.org:

Investments in global health are achieving real, demonstrable results. These investments are saving lives, preventing and curing disease, and helping people to escape from poverty.

The Living Proof Project is a multimedia initiative intended to highlight successes of U.S.-funded global health initiatives. By reporting success stories back to the people who funded them - American taxpayers and their representatives - we hope to reframe the current global health conversation.

At first when I heard about this, I have to admit I was more than a bit skeptical... seeing as my last post exclaimed how "european" I feel, this "Living Proof Project" seemed something like American propaganda: "Ooooh, look at how much money America can spend on foreign aid!" If anything, it was just a diversion away from all the typical news of how high our federal budget deficit is, or how much money we spend on war/military each year...

However, last night I saw a talk given by Bill and Melinda Gates about this project, and it was being advertised by the ONE campaign, which I am a member of. Now, just to be clear, the fact that a technology guru was giving the talk wasn't enough on its own to sway me: I'm first a linux fan, and a Mac user, and lastly I have to support Windows because it's my job.

But after watching/hearing what the Gates' had to say, I felt something pretty unusual... I actually felt a little bit better about being American! And sadly, if I understood what they were saying correctly, even though America only gives about 1% of our federal budget to foreign aid (and only about .22% goes to Global Health initiatives, like vaccines/medication), that is still more than what Europe gives. As the wealthiest nation, the USA has stepped up its foreign aid, and that has been followed by increased giving in other "first world" countries. So at least that is something.

More importantly, I did grow to appreciate that even with as little as we do give to Global Health issues, an impact is being made, as the video above summarizes.

feeling european...

So I don't know how most people get the news - on the internet, reading a real newspaper, watching TV news, via twitter, etc - but I enjoy the feeling of sitting at a table with a cup of coffee and reading a real newspaper. With that said, I usually have quite a stack of newspapers to get through, and I'm usually reading news that is several days to a week old. Interestingly, I recently read that an Amish newspaper called "The Budget" has been doing quite well despite the recession because Amish folks hold the same value of not needing the most up-to-the-minute news and reading the paper version.

Anyway, the main reason for my post tonight is to rant yet again against "stupid" politics. Healthcare reform. I'm for "universal" healthcare in the sense that I do want to have the healthcare industry regulated and accessible to all people (reduced medical costs, reduced premiums, limits on out of pocket expenses, no denying or dropping coverage because of a health condition).

I just read an article from last week's Thursday LA Times that talks about how Congress isn't willing to consider limiting premiums because that "would be meddling too much in the private sector." That's upsetting, because Congress is considering legislation that will require everyone to have insurance and pay those increasing premiums... which won't solve anything because the difference between what the poor can afford and what industry is charging in premiums will just come from tax payer funded subsidies.

while states have long supervised what companies charge for mandated automobile and homeowners insurance, the idea has been largely banished from the healthcare debate.

Nor are lawmakers seriously considering any proposals to regulate what doctors, hospitals, drug makers and other healthcare providers charge -- a strategy used by several European countries to control healthcare spending.

In those systems -- some of which, like the United States, feature a blend of private insurers and government programs -- the government sets prices that providers charge to everyone.

I suppose it'd only be fair at this point to add that I'm a dual citizen of the US and Sweden. So I do have a certain bias toward the more socialist model...

Newsweek: Why Obama Should Learn to Love "The Bomb"

A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed).

Essentially, the article makes these points about the impact of nuclear weapons on countries that have the technology:

• there hasn't ever been a war between two nations that possess nuclear weapons.


• "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" - No one goes to war thinking they are going to lose. Nukes make the cost of war obvious, and assuming no one has a death wish, you aren't going to attack a country that might fight back with nukes.


• we've had 64 years of "nuclear peace: the virtually unprecedented stretch since the end of World War II in which all the world's major powers have avoided coming to blows." - smaller wars have erupted, but none on the scale of WWII.


• the Cuban Missle Crisis in October 1962 ended with both the United States and the Soviet Union backing off when they realized "it's impossible to win a nuclear war"


• since India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons in 1998, their behavior toward each other had dramatically mellowed.


• Nuclear weapons are so controversial and expensive that only countries that deem them absolutely critical to their survival go through the extreme trouble of acquiring them.


• terrorists "with no return address" won't get the chance to use nukes because nuclear weapons are too valuable to allow them to fall into the wrong hands, and Washington has said it will treat a terrorist use of nuclear weapons the same as if the country that provided the nukes had used it.


• apparently nuclear weapons are very complex to both maintain and operate, and they can be easily dismantled. so even if a terrorist regime did obtain nukes, it wouldn't be able to use them on their own.

The article then makes these suggestions that we should focus on instead of worrying about nuclear disarmament:

• "the logic of deterrence works only if everybody knows who has a nuclear arsenal and thus can't be attacked. So the United States should make sure everyone knows roughly who has what, to keep anyone from getting dangerous ideas."


• "the United States should put more effort into advancing 'nuclear forensics,' an emerging discipline that would allow scientists to trace any nuclear device exploded anywhere, by anybody back to its manufacturer and point of origin"


• So called "second strike" technology that would allow an attacked country to fire back would further deter any attack in the first place.


• Lastly, Washington should continue to offer assistance to secure nuclear weapons once acquired. This involves both technology and training to make sure the weapons are maintained and guarded safely to prevent theft or accidental launch. This should be offered to both allies and enemies alike, since in this aspect helping our enemies really means helping ourselves.

I certainly don't agree with all the points in this article, but I do like the fact that it took a more realistic perspective on the issue: nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We live in a nuclear world, so lets look at it and at our best options.

a realistic, affordable plan for universal healthcare (not an oxymoron)

I'm no expert in politics, legislation, hospital administration, or any of the other areas that would probably help make this statement more valid, but I want to believe it anyway: universal healthcare should be feasible, without having to go with a government-run plan. The LA Times ran a story titled "Doctor has common-sense fixes to healthcare crisis" which tells the story of a Glendale surgeon, Dr Paul Toffel, who thinks he has a pretty good idea of what just might work.

If Toffel were the healthcare czar, he would dump the "50-state patchwork" of private insurance programs that can't cross state borders and switch to competing national plans that would be required to take all comers, with no exemptions for preexisting conditions.

Then he would reinstate federal regulations abandoned in the 1980s that limited insurance companies' fees. Freedom from those limitations, Toffel believes, was part of what caused healthcare to shift from its mission of treating the sick to the business of printing money.

Toffel would also move away from employment-based healthcare, with companies paying higher salaries, instead, so employees can shop for a suitable plan and carry it with them from one job to the next.

On point four, Toffel would cap frivolous malpractice suits across the nation, as California did many years ago.
...
If Toffel were king, every teaching hospital in the nation would have but one mission -- treating the uninsured residents of its own community, as County-USC has done.

If there's a publicly funded component to Toffel's plan, it's that such schools would be subsidized as necessary with grants and a variety of federal, state and local funding.

For the last bit about how to help the uninsured, there is a great example of what could be happening on a broader scale called RAM, Remote Area Medical. They are providing free healthcare (regular checkups, dentistry, vision, mammograms, etc) to 1,500 people a day for 8 days in Los Angeles. If a non-profit can do it, surely teaching hospitals should be able to do it inexpensively too, right?

Anyway, I was encouraged to read about this.

Sojo on 'what kind of america do we want to be?'

President Obama and previous Vice President Cheney both gave speeches on national security policies.  Their two perspectives stand in stark contrast. Here are some quotes from an entry in Sojourner's blog God's Politics about Obama's speech:

In short, there was a choice offered to us ... for exactly what kind of country and people we want to be – and what America will mean for us and for the world.

In a very powerful symbol, Obama chose the National Archives as the venue for this major address, pointing to the historic documents that are kept here—The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights—noting that these documents are “the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world,” and clearly suggesting that they have been violated in the policies of the United States over the past several years, policies that included the systematic violation of legal rights and even the use of torture.

[President Obama:] "… I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. … I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset … Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. "

The alternative perspective of national security offered by Cheney, is based on "fear and self-righteousness":

... the vision of America that Dick Cheney offers ... is decidedly evil, and has helped to spread even more evil around the world. Dick Cheney represents the dark side of America, a view of the world dominated by fear and self-righteousness—always a deadly combination.

[Cheney:] ... to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The argument that Cheney uses is simply: the ends justify the means. Any time you go down that path, you put yourself in danger of doing more harm than good. I think it is far more reckless to sacrifice the values integrity, justice, fairness and equality - which the Bush administration did repeatedly in their "war on terror". America's future will be much brighter if we return to our founding values.

Watch the original speech by President Obama