Monday, December 22, 2008

The Solution for Our Health Care Disaster



ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Mary Ellen Bradshaw and George Pauk

It’s time for the big insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment and supply companies, for-profit hospitals and for-profit providers’ groups to stop obstructing real health reform.

There are 140 Arizona members of Physicians for a National Health Plan and many thousands more nationwide. We submit there is only one way to effectively address our country’s crisis in health care: the enactment of single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

The electorate of Arizona has spoken by defeating Proposition 101: people want real change. They want comprehensive, high-quality, and affordable care. They want to go to the doctor or hospital of their choice.

Single payer is the “cure” that will achieve these goals. Anything short of single payer will not.

Private insurance companies make their profits by enrolling the healthy, screening out the sick, and denying claims. These policies are literally bankrupting and killing us.

We simply can’t afford to pay 31 cents of every health care dollar for wasteful insurance company administrative costs – their paperwork, utilization reviews, executive salaries and payouts to shareholders. We simply can’t afford the inefficiencies of a system that blocks our ability to negotiate drug prices.

Replacing the private insurers with a not-for-profit, publicly financed system patterned after Medicare would save about $350 billion in administrative costs, more than enough to cover all the uninsured and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles for everyone else.

It’s the only morally, medically and fiscally responsible thing to do.

Recently the people of Arizona were right in their wisdom to reject an amendment to our State Constitution that would have stopped major reform of our health care system, particularly the single-payer approach. They defeated Proposition 101 in spite of the huge amount of money behind it (much of it from out-of-state) and the deceptive language about “choice” that its backers used.

Where do we go from here? The solution exists in the form of a federal proposal that would guarantee everyone all of the medically necessary care they need, including dental care, drugs and long-term care, and would require no co-pays or deductibles.

It would be financed by a system of progressive taxation, much like everyone currently pays into Medicare, and the overwhelming majority of people would end up spending much less than they currently do for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, noted on the day after President-elect Barack Obama’s election win: "In large measure Sen. Obama's victory and the victories of his allies in the House and Senate were propelled by mounting public worries about health care. Yet the prescription offered during the campaign by the president-elect and most Democratic policy makers -- a hybrid of private health insurance plans and government subsidies -- will not resolve the problems of our dangerously dysfunctional system.”

Young pointed out that such hybrids have repeatedly failed in state-based experiments over the past 20 years in Oregon, Minnesota, Washington and several other states, including Massachusetts, whose second go-round at incremental reform is already faltering.

Like Dr. Young, we believe the only effective cure for our health care woes is to establish a single, publicly financed system, one that removes the inefficient, wasteful, for-profit private health insurance industry from the picture.

An April 2008 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine that showed 59 percent of U.S. physicians support national health insurance. Opinion polls show two-thirds of the public also supports such a remedy.

President-elect Obama and the new Congress have a mandate and the opportunity to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Their first order of business should be to enact a single-payer national health insurance plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bradshaw and Dr. Pauk are both members of Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/) and co-chairs of the Arizona Coalition for State and National Health Plans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. 12/08

Friday, December 19, 2008

Accessible Housing Still A Dream For Many

MASSACHUSETTS FORUM

By Aviva Rothman-Shore and Sean Caron

Since the election of Barack Obama, there have been frequent discussions about the implications of this historic election on the state of inequality in the nation. Many have said that the landslide election of an African-American raised in a humble setting by a single parent demonstrates that while racism and socio-economic inequality are stains on America’s history, they are no longer a significant part of our societal fabric.

However, this pivotal moment should not cloud the truth about social and racial inequality in the Commonwealth today. Greater Boston remains one of the most segregated metropolitan areas in the nation. The bulk of the Commonwealth’s people of color, regardless of their incomes, reside in urban centers.

In fact, the Commonwealth’s seven largest cities (Boston, Springfield, Worcester, Lowell, Brockton, New Bedford, and Fall River) have only 20 percent of the total population, but are home to 41 percent of the Commonwealth’s people of color and 40 percent of residents living below the federal poverty line.

Multi-family housing that is accessible to low- and moderate-income households is nearly impossible to build under local land use regulations in a majority of the Commonwealth’s municipalities. In many areas the lack of affordable housing could be improved with a change in zoning that would increase the number of multi-family dwellings.

For those that continue to suffer from the significant affordability barrier, income is partially to blame, but it doesn’t completely explain the disparity. That is why Fair Housing Laws are also an important part of the solution. Governor Patrick has made enforcing fair housing laws a priority. His efforts to secure housing opportunities for low income families, people of color, and people with disabilities by properly enforcing the Fair Housing Act should be applauded.

A 2004 Harvard Civil Rights Project study found mere financial affordability fails to explain the segregation that currently exists. The study compared the actual number of owners/buyers in each municipality by race and found that in 80 percent of cities and towns, the number of black and Latino buyers is less than half what researchers anticipated if affordability was the sole barrier. African-American and Latinos face greater affordability constraints on average, but affordability alone does a poor job in explaining segregation.

Residents of both cities and suburbs must have housing choice for our Commonwealth to truly overcome inequalities of the past. We must also allow residents of all cities and towns the opportunity to choose from a variety of communities through expanded housing options for people of color and for a multitude of incomes.

However, there is a significant amount of state and local work left to be done to break down practices that perpetrate racial and social inequality.

The governor and the legislature should reform exclusionary land use laws that lead to unattainable housing for people of color and people of modest means in the coming legislative session. Municipal officials can also help solve this problem by welcoming families with children to their communities and supporting additional local initiatives to promote multi-family housing.

It will take a focused effort at the federal, state, and local level to bring about the equality that President-Elect Obama has called for so convincingly. Even a president that changed history can’t do it alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caron is director of public policy at Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association. Rothman-Shore is director of outreach and policy at the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2008 by the Massachusetts Forum.


By Kemba Smith

The nomination of Eric Holder as the next U.S. attorney general has renewed concerns about the end-of-term clemencies granted by President Clinton.

High-profile names such as Marc Rich grabbed headlines at the time, but many other people with no political influence benefited from the president's mercy.

I am one of those people. If I had not received a commutation, my first-time conviction for a non-violent offense would have kept me in prison until 2016 (with good behavior) because of the harsh mandatory sentencing laws for crack cocaine. My 1994 prison sentence grew out of my boyfriend's trafficking in crack. After he was murdered, the government charged me with conspiracy to distribute the crack that his drug ring distributed. During my court hearings, prosecutors acknowledged that I never sold, handled or used any of the drugs involved in the conspiracy.

Today, I could be in federal prison still serving my 24-year sentence. Instead, I've been raising my now 13-year-old son, graduated from college in 2002 and completed a year of law school. I own a home and speak to youth about the importance of their choices and the consequences that can affect their lives forever. My own experience led me to create a non-profit foundation that focuses on providing children of incarcerated parents with a mentor, and collaborates with other organizations on justice-reform initiatives.

My story of redemption does not need to be an anomaly. Thousands of petitions for executive clemency are pending before President Bush with a month left in his term. The majority of those are unknown to him or the public. Many are people of color caught up in the war on drugs and serving long mandatory minimum sentences, often for low-level offenses. The president should expedite such applications and grant them clemency.

The guidelines for the Office of the Pardon Attorney state that the excessive nature of a sentence and associated sentencing disparity are appropriate considerations when granting a petition for commutation. The federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses is a case in point.

The mandatory five-year sentence for a defendant convicted with 5 grams of crack cocaine -- the weight of two sugar packets -- is the same as that for a defendant convicted with 100 times that amount of powder cocaine, even though these are two forms of the same drug. Defendants convicted with 50 grams of crack cocaine, about the weight of a candy bar, receive a minimum sentence of 10 years. A powder cocaine seller must have at least 5 kilograms to receive the same sentence.

For decades criminal justice experts, civil rights leaders and lawmakers have called these sentences unjust. More than 80 percent of people convicted of crack cocaine offenses are black, even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Hispanic.

Indeed, President Bush raised concerns about the issue before taking office, saying the crack-powder disparity "ought to be addressed by making sure the powder-cocaine and the crack-cocaine penalties are the same."

I agree, but despite significant changes made to the federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine in the past year, the harsh mandatory sentences remain. The president still has time to make good on his promise. His clemency power should be used with thoughtful deliberation. Even so, it should be utilized because clemency is sometimes the only possible response to unfair and excessive penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith is founder of the Kemba Smith Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 12/08

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Prescription for a Healthier Economy


By Steven Edelstein

As policymakers debate how to stabilize the sagging economy, it’s time to think about how to help more than 3 million low-wage workers who hold the answer in their busy and burdened hands.

The recession is hitting hardest in low-income communities, and, if we’re serious about stimulating the economy, we need to make sure that recovery efforts reach the people and places that need it the most. In today’s aging society and service economy, at least one in 10 low-wage-earners is a direct care worker.

These hard-working, hard-pressed Americans provide healthcare and assistance services to older adults and people with disabilities in private homes, nursing homes, and day programs that provide non-residential, non-medical services. Their jobs -- home health aide, personal and home care aide and nursing aide, orderly and attendant -- include two of the three fastest-growing occupations in the nation.

Already, these jobs pump $56 billion into the economy, especially in low-income communities where stable employment and consumer spending are in short supply even in good times and are severely imperiled during a downturn. In addition, the availability of direct care for aging and ailing Americans is essential for an estimated 15.9 million workers who balance full-time employment with caregiving for a family member over age 18. American companies lose $33.6 billion a year because of the lost productivity of workers who are also caring for family members. Without a stable, well-prepared workforce of direct care providers, millions of workers would be unable to balance the demands of their jobs and their loved ones -- and businesses would lose billions more in lost productivity.

So, as economic policymakers seek solutions for the recession, why not take action to solve social and economic problems together: Let’s invest in recruiting, training, employing, retaining, and raising the wages for direct-care workers. The idea is doable, workable, and will reap returns for years to come.

At a time when policymakers are seeking to prime the economic pump, the federal government already has a pipeline to the direct-care workforce. More than 70 cents of every dollar for eldercare/disability services comes from federal funds, mostly Medicare and Medicaid.

Moreover, these workers need raises and will pump the money back into the economy. Because of their low wages and meager benefits, 40 percent of direct-care workers live in households that rely on one or more public benefits, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid. Devoting federal funds to increase their pay to $12-an-hour will reward their hard work and recharge the economy. With well-deserved and long-overdue pay increases, these workers will spend the money on the necessities of life for themselves and their children while stimulating economic activity in their needy neighborhoods and throughout the nation.

With higher wages and opportunities for education and training, direct care workers will stay longer and do better at their jobs. Currently, there is a 40 to 60 percent turnover rate among home care workers and at least 75 percent turnover among nursing home workers. With more experienced workers, the quality of service will improve, and working Americans with family responsibilities will have more confidence that their loved ones are being well-cared for, further boosting productivity and the economy.

Unlike some other anti-recession proposals, investing in direct-care workers is a long-term investment in stimulating the economy and strengthening the social fabric. In an aging society, more Americans will need direct-care. As a result, these jobs are expected to increase by 1 million from 2006 to 2016.

By making these occupations stable and rewarding jobs with promising futures, the nation will reap rewards in improved healthcare, enhanced productivity, increased incomes, and expanded opportunities in communities where the recession started earliest and will last longest. At a time when many economic remedies are little more than placebos, investing in direct-care workers is a prescription for a healthier economy -- and a healthier society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edelstein is the national policy director of PHI, a national nonprofit that works to improve the quality of eldercare/disability services by supporting quality jobs for the nursing assistants, home health aides, and personal care workers who provide that care.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 12/08


TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Phil Schoggen

It’s about time we introduce some commonsense into the discussion about how to stimulate the economy. Whether we’re talking about the state or national economy, the worn-out mantra seems to be the same -- to stimulate the economy, we need to cut taxes. But such short-sighted action is likely to do more harm than good to both the economy and the common good.


The argument that taxes are simply bad for the economy is based on the false assumption that, somehow, after these taxes are collected, the money just magically vaporizes into thin air. But it’s not that simple, because there’s another side of the coin that gets ignored in this anti-tax narrative.


The money that is collected through our tax system gets invested in things like healthy kids and seniors, new schools, retaining good teachers, stocking libraries, improving roads, expanding mass transit, building parks, and paying our hard-working police officers just to name a few. These are things that we as a community have decided are important investments for us to make in order to strengthen the common good and the communities we live in.


At the same time these public investments help to stimulate the economy. That’s right. When we build a school, there are construction jobs created and building materials purchased, which helps to stimulate the economy. When the teachers and support staff are hired to work in that school, jobs are created in the community, and these jobholders do what? They buy things that further stimulate the economy.


Now here’s the real payoff. In the end, we get more than a short-term economic shot in the arm. We get the added benefit of a generation of young people who are better able to face the rigorous demands of the 21st century economy. That stimulates the economy over the long-term.

That’s very different than just trying to stimulate the economy with tax cuts. In many cases, money from tax cuts ends up going to overseas factories to supply our consumer demands, whether that’s clothing from Pakistan or plastic toys from China. That may help stimulate the economy, just not ours.


It’s not just schools either. Strengthening the health care safety net creates jobs while also reducing expensive emergency room costs. When we invest in mass transit, someone has to drive the bus. When police and fire departments are paid a competitive salary, the economy is stronger. The rising concern over global warming and energy independence offers new opportunities to advance the common good and make our nation stronger, while creating jobs and stimulating the economy, all at the same time.


Leaders from both sides of the aisle are beginning to recognize this. President-elect Obama is proposing a nationwide initiative to put people back to work with major investments in infrastructure for an energy independent and greener economy.


Gov. Schwarzenegger, Mayor Bloomberg, and Gov. Rendell (a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat) are leading a coalition calling for billions to be invested in rebuilding our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure network, from bridges to mass transit, as a way to stimulate the economy. In fact, according to Building America’s Future, for every $1 billion invested in public infrastructure, 47,500 jobs are created. Gov. Easley of neighboring North Carolina is joining the call by fast tracking $700 million in public investments to help jump start the economy.


Here in Tennessee though, we’re talking instead about cutting public investments by hundreds of millions, and possibly $1 billion. Such an action will cause severe job losses and worsen an already bad economic situation. Meanwhile, Tennessee will slip even further behind in education, health care, and environmental protection.


Ironically, as we slash these vital public investments here at home, we’re allowing corporate tax loopholes to be used to send profits out of Tennessee and into Delaware and Nevada…and ultimately to Wall Street. Tennessee doesn’t need to do provide an “economic stimulus” package for Wall Street bankers by allowing these loopholes to stay on the books. They already got theirs. Tennessee’s priority should be to stimulate the economy right here at home.


Let’s stop, or at least reduce, the budget cuts being proposed in Nashville, by closing senseless tax loopholes. We need a stimulus package for Tennessee, not Wall Street.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schoggen is a Tennesseans for Fair Taxation board member.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 12/08




ARIZONA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Dave Wells


Facing an enormous revenue shortfall, the current secretary of state and soon to be governor, Jan Brewer, has expressed her potential openness to raising taxes. Meanwhile the outgoing Speaker of the House Jim Weiers is convening a blue-ribbon committee to study the Arizona tax code. These represent steps in the right direction.

When Gov. Janet Napolitano took office in 2003, she faced a $1 billion deficit. Relative to the economy, state general fund spending fell 20 percent below its norm for the past three decades. In response, she formed a Citizens Finance Review Commission, but refused to risk her political future by calling for significant revenue reform that would run into Republican opposition.

This year's state budget situation is far worse; $1.2 billion this fiscal year and double that next year. While both parties share blame, revenue reform must become part of the solution.

Democrats ramped up state expenditures as the economy grew with the housing bubble, but they failed to put aside sufficient amounts in the rainy day fund. Meanwhile, Republicans demanded a 10 percent permanent cut in income taxes from a temporary revenue surplus.

In November, Democrats lost seats in the legislature; moderate Republican allies were defeated in the September Republican primary, and Republican Brewer will be governor when Janet Napolitano is confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Despite Brewer's potential openness to raising revenues, the Republican legislature will likely propose massively reducing the budget while demanding that the temporary reduction in the state equalization property tax be permanent, even though it makes a horrible fiscal situation worse.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) doesn't forecast state budget revenues approaching fiscal year 2007 levels again until at least 2013.

Moderate Republicans and state Democrats need to boldly step forward with a clear alternative to dramatic cuts that would undermine everything they stand for.

Though K-12 funding is fairly protected, some schools have already cut nurses, librarians, and arts programs. The JLBC has potential new cuts of up to $1,000 per student.
Universities could lose one fifth of their state funding, causing financial aid cuts, forcing programs to shut down, creating larger classes while curtailing enrollment. This will further pressure the Board of Regents to pass another huge tuition increase.

Those in greatest economic distress will likely face greater hurdles in accessing fewer benefits or completely losing safety nets like children's health insurance, childcare, health care for working disabled people, and long-term care for elders.

What's the alternative? Raise revenues to limit painful cuts.

First, the 19 cent state gas tax hasn't changed since 1990. With gas prices plummeting below $2 a gallon, now is an ideal time to increase the tax by a dime per gallon with an annual inflation adjustment so it remains a more stable revenue source. This would bring in an additional $300 million annually.

Second, we have $1.6 billion less in revenues this year because since 1994 the Republican led legislature has cut individual income tax rates by one-third. An astonishing 37 percent of that lost revenue goes to the richest 1 percent of Arizonans. Democrats should propose increasing individual income tax revenues by $400 million for the richest quarter of households and earmarking half that increase for the rainy day fund in years where revenue growth exceeds population growth plus inflation.

If Republicans refuse such fiscal pragmatism, it will stake out a contrasting position for voters to consider in 2010.
Not everything needs to be partisan, as unemployment rates hasten toward 7 percent, Republicans and Democrats should find common ground. Despite an unemployment insurance trust fund with a healthy billion dollar surplus, Arizona's average unemployment benefits are the fourth lowest in the nation and $300 a month less than our neighboring Mountain West states’ benefits. For struggling families that's a huge difference, and deserves attention immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells holds a doctorate in Political Economy and Public Policy and teaches at Arizona State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Editorial Forum. The Forum is an educational organization that provides the media with the views of state experts on major public issues. 12/08

This article can also be found on Rep. Daniel Patterson’s blog, http://dpatterson.blogspot.com/. Patterson is an Arizona state Representative (D-Tucson) and writes about politics in his home state.

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM


By Harriet O’Neill


The holiday season is here. It’s a time for giving and also a good time to pause and reflect on the many blessings for which we are thankful.

As a parent, my children top the list. Every day I am grateful for the joy, and the challenges, they bring. Their safety and well-being are my first and last thoughts of the day. I am counting the hours until they return home for the holidays, eager to hear their voices, listen to their stories, and share their dreams. All across the nation, families are making preparations to connect with loved ones.

Think for a moment of what it would be like to have no one expecting you home; No one looking out the window awaiting your arrival; No one to lament if distance or circumstance prevent you from being there; No one to give thanks that you are part of their life.

Thousands of Texas children know that feeling all too well.

On any given day in Texas, there are more than 17,000 children in foster care. Many of these children have been abused or neglected and removed from their homes, perhaps forever, through no fault of their own. These children have either lost, or never experienced, the sense of permanence and belonging that comes with being part of a family.

Children like Benjamin (not his real name), who at 5 years old was placed in foster care because his mother was a drug addict who supported her habit with prostitution. For 12 years Ben moved from foster home to foster home, from treatment center to treatment center, clinging to the belief that any day his mother would reappear and make everything right. She never did, and Ben never experienced the love or security of a real family. Two days before his 18th birthday, Ben was arrested for stealing. He turned 18 in jail. When Ben walked out as an adult, he had aged out of the foster care system and disappeared into the homeless population. No one noticed. No one was waiting for him to come home.

More than 6,000 children in Texas are waiting for a family to adopt them, to love them, and to cherish them forever. These kids long every day for a family, for a place to belong, and the holidays are particularly painful.

You can make a difference. During this holiday season, consider whether you could be that person who waits at the window for a child without a home. If you can, you will give the gift of a lifetime. If you can’t, there are so many other ways to help. It is said that you don’t have to raise a child to raise them up -- you just have to raise your hand. Every minute you devote to helping a child in foster care has an impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O’Neill is a Supreme Court of Texas Justice and chair of the Commission on Children, Youth, and Families. Visit http://www.raisemeup.org/ to explore adoption opportunities and the many ways that you can volunteer your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 12/08

Monday, December 1, 2008

We Must Maintain Immunization Laws



MISSISSIPPI FORUM



By Dr. Joe Donaldson

Just 100 years ago when childhood diseases like measles, mumps, and whopping cough were more prevalent, too many children lost their sight, their hearing, their mental aptitude, or worse, their life.

That is why Mississippi, just like every other state, requires that before children enter school they receive vaccinations to prevent what used to be common but serious childhood diseases.

Unfortunately, some parents in Mississippi are pushing to broaden exemptions from vaccination requirements from the current medical necessity exemption in the state law. Many of these parents simply do not believe in the efficacy of vaccinations. Some believe strongly that vaccinations contribute to childhood developmental problems, including autism, despite all science and evidence to the contrary.

Allowing parents to opt out of vaccination requirements for their children has two direct consequences.

First, it leaves the unvaccinated child susceptible to childhood diseases such as measles that can kill or handicap a child for life. A child who is exempted from childhood vaccinations is 35 times more likely to get measles and 22 times more likely to get whooping cough as a vaccinated child.

Second, allowing a significant number of children to go unvaccinated reduces what is called “herd immunity,” and increases the chance that an epidemic of the disease will break out in the general population. Since no vaccine is 100 percent effective, disease prevention requires that most if not all people have immunity due to vaccinations so that the disease does not have the opportunity to find someone to infect. Even children and adults who were fully vaccinated have a small chance of contracting the disease if herd immunity is compromised. So parents who made sure that their child received all necessary vaccinations could see that child sicken and perhaps suffer long term disabilities because another parent chose not to vaccinate their child.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that measles outbreaks have increased in the U.S. to 131 cases in the first eight months of 2008. Over 90 percent of the children who got measles were not vaccinated, and two-thirds of those cases were children who were not vaccinated because of philosophical or religious beliefs. Louisiana has seen a resurgence of whooping cough in 2008, with 45 cases reported in the first nine months of this year. In its worst form, whopping cough kills by making it impossible to breathe.

In 2003, the Arkansas State Legislature passed a law that allowed philosophical exemptions to childhood immunizations. Since that time, exemptions to vaccinations have increased by 369 percent, and state health officials are seeing outbreaks of virulent diseases in pockets around the state.

These outbreaks can be prevented in Mississippi. That is why the Mississippi Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics is joining with the Department of Health and other statewide medical associations to promote the benefits of childhood immunizations.

All parents should know that vaccines are effective, vaccines are safe, and state immunization requirements for school attendance are necessary to protect children from the terrible consequences of once common childhood diseases. Vaccines are constantly studied and tested to make sure they are safe. All doctors must report any possible serious reactions to vaccinations to the CDC.

We must maintain our state’s current vaccine medical exemption and oppose any efforts to weaken Mississippi’s childhood immunization laws -- for the sake of each Mississippi child and for the health of the entire state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson is president of the Mississippi Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Mississippi Forum. 12/08

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

The Power of the Latina Vote


By Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas

It is undeniable that the Latino vote had a tremendous impact on the election. Approximately 17.9 million Latinos are currently eligible to vote, 9.1 million of whom are women, and since 2004, the number of Latinos registered to vote has doubled.

Early exit polling suggests that Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama, with 67 percent voting for Obama and 30 percent voting for McCain. According to the University of Massachusetts's Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy, Latinas have become increasingly engaged in politics, making up 5 percent of total voter turnout (Latino men made up 4 percent). Latino overall support for Obama became especially significant in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia; all of which have large and growing Latino populations, and all of which were carried by Obama. These statistics are just proof of the fact that the Latino vote matters more than ever before.

The Latino vote has led to the great strides for women and Latino candidates and increased their representation in the federal government. In 2008, Latinos ran in over 37 states across the country for both federal and state legislative seats. The 25 Latino members of Congress added another colleague to the list who will serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 111th Congress will include seven Latina Congresswomen from Florida, New York, and California. They’ll be joining the 64 re-elected incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The gains weren’t limited to the U.S. Congress either. State legislatures across the country had Latinos elected to seats in numbers never previously seen, particularly in Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

Now that we have new leadership in place, we advocates, activists and organizers must rise to the occasion. We must take the momentum of this election to our everyday organizing and activism, placing women's ability to care and provide for their families at the center of our platform.

While the economy proved to be the top issue among the general electorate, Latinos also voted with immigration policy in mind. The Republicans’ divisive and xenophobic rhetoric about immigrants proved harmful for garnering support in the Latino community, which in the past has supported some Republican candidates. Senator McCain, who co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2006, turned his back on the immigrant community during the campaign. He publicly stated that he would not vote for the same immigration bill that he once sponsored if it came to the floor for a vote in 2008. These harmful statements fuel the flames of hatred and blame towards immigrants and may have cost him the election.

Latinas can finally say ADELANTE, our time has come. Now the real questions face us. What does this new era mean? What do we want for our families and communities? What does a Latina agenda for reproductive justice and immigrant rights look like? To begin, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health has three top requests of the new administration:

1. Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which denies low-income women access to abortion services;
2. End the discriminatory, militaristic and inhumane immigration enforcement practices that are destroying our communities; and
3. Support an equitable and affordable plan for comprehensive health care for all.

As a community, we remember the spring of 2006 when Latino immigrants marched in droves with other immigrants and allies fighting harmful immigration policies put forth by the Republican Party. We held signs and chanted “Hoy Marchamos! Manana Votamos!” (“Today we March! Tomorrow We Vote!”). Well, “tomorrow” has arrived and Latinas and immigrant voters cast their ballot for hope, dignity and justice instead of fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalez-Rojas is director of Policy and Advocacy for National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 11/08

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Preventing Unintentional Racial Impacts



ILLINOIS EDITORIAL FORUM

By Sen. Mattie Hunter and Rep. Arthur Turner

Suppose you're a white person who uses drugs. Now suppose you're a black person who uses drugs. Think you run the same risk of being arrested and incarcerated?

Think again: Recent reports highlight vast differences in the way blacks and whites are treated, despite similar rates of drug use. Fortunately, Illinois has just enacted a measure that lays the groundwork to help address this inequity.

Using new data from 34 states, Human Rights Watch found that black men are nearly 12 times as likely to be imprisoned for drug convictions as adult white men. Illinois had the highest black drug offender admission rate and the second highest black to white ratio of prison admission rates for drug offenses.

The Sentencing Project, which analyzed 43 of the nation's largest cities from 1980 to 2003, found that the rate of drug arrests for blacks increased by 225 percent, compared to 70 percent among whites, despite similar rates of drug use. In Chicago, the disparity between black and white arrest rates more than doubled since 1980. Yet at the same time, this racial gap in drug arrests declined in Los Angeles and New York.

The reports conclude that policies regarding the War on Drugs significantly contributed to these racial disparities. High rates of incarceration among people of color can indicate bias within the justice system, whether conscious or unintentional. For those incarcerated, the consequences for their families, communities and future job prospects can be devastating.

Problems of racial inequality are deep and complex, but solutions exist. A new proactive tool that states are adopting to inform policymaking is a “racial impact assessment.” These assessments are much like environmental impact statements and fiscal impact notes.

“Examining the racial impacts of public policies makes sense because many problems are predictable, and thus preventable,” says Terry Keleher, director of the Midwest Office of the Applied Research Center, a policy institute that focuses on race issues.

In neighboring Iowa, where a year ago, its prisons and jails had the nation's highest rate of racial disparity, state leaders have taken bold action. Earlier this year, they passed the Minority Impact Statement Bill, the first of its kind in the nation, which requires examination of the racial and ethnic impacts of all new sentencing laws prior to passage. This enables legislators to anticipate any unwarranted disparities and consider alternatives to accomplish goals without compromising public safety.

Upon signing the bill, which garnered broad bipartisan support, Iowa Governor Chet Culver said, "Minority Impact Statements will serve as an essential tool for those in government -- and the public -- as we propose, develop, and debate policies for the future." Connecticut has since enacted a similar law.

A related measure, recently approved by the Illinois General Assembly and signed into law in October by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, creates a Commission to Study Disproportionate Justice Impact.

The Commission will assess the nature and extent of the harm caused to minority communities through the application of Illinois drug and sentencing laws, then develop findings and offer recommendations for equitable policy change.

“This measure can help legislators enact smarter drug laws that can reduce crime, increase opportunities for individuals, restore families and save tax dollars” says Melody Heaps, president of Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, which serves people across Illinois in need of drug treatment and other rehabilitative services.

For Illinois, explicitly exploring the racial impacts of public policies is an important step for eliminating institutional bias. For communities of color, it may prove to be a giant leap towards justice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter is a State Senator (D-District 3). Turner is a State Representative (D-District 9).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Illinois Editorial Forum. Letters should be sent to the Forum, P.O. Box 82, Springfield, IL 62705-0082 11/08

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM

By Adam Linker


For much of its history North Carolina was known as a state with bold leaders and progressive ideas. It built Research Triangle Park, one of the nation’s best community college systems and created pioneering early childhood education programs. The state was even a leader in expanding health care to its citizens.

In the 1940s a group of influential businessmen and politicians came up with a series of recommendations, dubbed the “Good Health Plan,” to boost the number of doctors in the state, create a teaching hospital at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and expand Blue Cross insurance. At the time, Gov. Gregg Cherry said, “Only less sacred than the right of a child to obtain an education is his right to get a fair chance of health in his youth.”

Despite the work of these early visionaries, there are still more than 250,000 uninsured children in North Carolina.

Our state can’t wait on Washington for reform. Instead, citizens must demand action to ensure that everyone has access to needed care.

The North Carolina Justice Center’s Health Access Coalition has assembled a plan that can serve as a roadmap for reform in the state. It does not rely on the government to provide for all of our care. Nor does it follow the “corporate care” model that strips away consumer protections and caters to insurance companies instead of ordinary families.

Central to the plan is the idea that everyone should have a guaranteed choice of affordable, comprehensive health care options. It is also important that all stakeholders -- hospitals, insurance companies, businesses and taxpayers -- share costs equally.

The first major proposal is to cover all children and parents. To do this, the state should create a sliding scale premium whereby a family of four making more than $63,300 could buy insurance at full cost while lower income households would get a partially subsidized premium. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly get a lifetime right to buy affordable health insurance through the state; shouldn’t families have the same option?

The second step is to create a partially subsidized, affordable health plan, sold on the private insurance market, so that small businesses can offer coverage to their employees. About 78 percent of the uninsured either work full-time or have a family member working full-time. But most people are employed by small businesses that can’t afford to offer insurance. This subsidized health plan would ensure that more working adults can get coverage through their employer.

North Carolina should also set a national example for controlling health care costs. Our state has world-class research universities with extraordinary scientists. We should draw on that expertise to establish an Institute for Health Care Quality, Cost and Research to investigate the effectiveness of new drugs and cutting-edge technologies.

What we often find when novel drugs or medical devices are tested against older, cheaper alternatives is that the existing technology works as well or better than the latest gadgets. Health care providers, public health officials and insurance companies could then make evidence-based decisions instead of relying on marketing hype.

The state should also put a new emphasis on preventive care. Many programs, including colorectal cancer screenings, flu vaccines and smoking cessation counseling, save money over time. But the benefits of prevention extend beyond cost. Prevention helps people to live healthier, fuller lives.

Any reform of the health care system will be complex and expensive. But that is not an excuse to do nothing; in fact, it is a reason to start as soon as possible. For the 1.5 million uninsured residents of the state, every day is critical.

Our state is lagging behind much of the nation in expanding health care coverage. Every citizen should demand reform. With committed leadership North Carolina can make great strides toward building a healthier state. We did it in the 1940s, and we can do it again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linker is a policy analyst at the North Carolina Health Access Coalition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by North Carolina Editorial Forum. 11/08