The Bigger Picture
Published on October 22nd in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Well I guess this must be my month for Congratulations. First Ireland for its vote to approve the Lisbon Treaty, then Brazil for its selection as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympics and today I’m offering congratulations to President Obama for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I’m wondering who I’ll congratulate next week.
But back in the states the reaction of many political pundits and columnists to our Presidents Nobel award has been anything but congratulatory. Conservative radio and TV talk show demagogues even went so far as to offer up comments that if uttered by a liberal or a Democrat would have been considered downright un-patriotic.
Leading the way was, who else but the Republican Party’s right-wing “King of Bombast”, Rush Limbaugh. While discussing President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize on his radio show, he told his audience that “Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award.” Hmmm. By “we” I’m guessing “Rushbo” was referring to his “ditto heads” listeners, who have of course never heard Limbaugh say anything that they didn’t whole-heartedly agree with.
Still not satisfied his comments, Rush then went on to tell Newsweek magazine that “the Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves.” While I’m not exactly sure the analogy between the Nobel panel’s decision to give an award to President Obama and al Qaeda’s decision to dispatch suicide bombers to kill innocent people actually makes sense, then again considering the source and his audience, I guess it doesn’t have to.
Nor was “Rushbo” alone in his thinking about what a bad choice the Nobel panel made. Another conservative heart-throb, Glenn Beck, claimed President Obama’s accolade was due to a powerful conspiracy of global progressive (left-wing) interest groups. While believing Obama’s Nobel Prize was the result of a global conspiracy might be a bit of a stretch, Beck’s suggestion that the organizers of this year’s anti-tax “tea parties” was the most deserving choice for the Nobel Peace Prize simply defies all logic.
Another conservative extremist and political columnist took a different tack, focusing more on attacking the award itself rather than its recipient. Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for New York who once prosecuted Islamic terrorists including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. McCarthy now writes for the National Review and has repeatedly attacked President Obama as a left wing radical as well as defended “waterboarding” as a legitimate interrogation technique, not torture.
McCarthy claims that the Nobel Peace Prize had become “damaged goods” ever since it was awarded to Yasser Arafat in 1994. Funny, but as I recall, the 1994 Nobel was given to three men, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in recognition of the Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. Then again maybe if I had a law degree I could understand Mr. McCarthy’s logic; i.e. waterboarding is not torture and giving a peace prize to the political leaders who forged a peace agreement lessens its value. But since I don’t I guess I’ll just have to continue to muddle along with my limited legal knowledge.
Of course the supposedly better educated and more erudite members of the Republican Party’s neo-conservative establishment weren’t exactly congratulating President Obama either. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a man who is always spoiling for America to send its military forces into battle, simply said President Obama should decline the Nobel award. Bolton speaks with such authority because he avoided risking his life during the Vietnam War by joining the Army National Guard.
Last, but certainly not least, Conservative political ideologue saw an analog between President Obama’s Peace Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize that was given to Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Kristol claims that since Gorbachev resigned as the President of the Soviet Union (the day before it was officially desolved) just over a year after he had been awarded the Nobel that means President Obama will lose when he runs for a second term as US president in 2012.
I guess I’m just not smart enough yet, but I don’t exactly see a parallel between resigning the Presidency of the Soviet Union in 1991, a year after being given the Nobel Peace Prize, and losing a US Presidential re-election campaign in 2012, three years after being given the same award. Well, maybe I’ll be able to make more sense of this once I have a PhD. For those of you who may not know who he is, Bill Kristol has a PhD and is also the editor of a Rupert Murdoch’s conservative political periodical, The Weekly Standard. Still and all, even though Mr. Kristol does have a PhD in Government from Harvard, he also has yet to grasp the meaning of the term “journalistic integrity.”
At the very least though, the Nobel committee has succeeded in finding a way to help America’s right-wingers overcome their paranoid hatred of all things Muslim. Rush Limbaugh’s “ditto heads” and other American right-wingers have finally found some common ground with Muslim extremists and al Qaeda terrorists; they all hate President Obama and all of them are afraid President Obama might some day succeed. Wow! Partisan politics sure does make for some strange bedfellows now doesn’t it?
Frankly though, I can’t really say I’m that surprised by the attacks on President Obama and the Nobel Prize committee that have resulted from this award. Disappointed maybe, but given the partisan rancor that President Obama’s election has engendered for the past year, hardly surprised that Republican neo-conservatives and right wing political demagogues have sought to disparage any award being given to President Obama.
What really concerned and disappointed me though, is the fact that partisan political conservatives were by no means the only members of the political news media in America questioning the Nobel panel’s decision to award President Barack Obama its Peace Prize. I will discuss those opinions as well as my own take on the Nobel Peace Prize award in next week’s column.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Congratulations Brazil!
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 15th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I offered my heartfelt congratulations to Ireland for its forward looking vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It was the right thing to do in my opinion although the huge turnaround was probably due to fear based on economic uncertainty rather than a realistic assessment of the Lisbon Treaty’s notable shortcomings.
In an ideal word voters wouldn’t be stampeded into voting for or against someone or something out of fear for the possible effect of an election on their economic well being. But I have also seen such sentiments dominate and determine the outcome of many elections back in the states. We call it “voting your pocketbook”.
But despite political candidates never-ending promises that a vote for them will mean more jobs and better economic conditions, most economists would argue that elected officials don’t really have any control over your economic well-being. Ireland’s long term economic health is determined by factors like education and technological development that are difficult to change in five years. Nor can these politicians take any actions that will have an actual effect on the world’s demand for Ireland’s exports.
I believe Ireland’s membership in the EU has had a positive impact on its overall economic health, but as an EU member Ireland has also had to cede some aspects of its national sovereignty to a supranational EU governance organization based in Brussels. I therefore believe that Ireland can and should continue to have a healthy debate about whether or not all of these trade-offs are actually necessary and or appropriate.
I believe the current governance structure of the EU is unwieldy and badly in need of reform. While the Lisbon Treaty isn’t an ideal solution, on balance I thought it was still a step in the right direction. But even though I favoured the Lisbon Treaty, I don’t agree with those who said a vote against it would have meant economic ruin or exclusion from the EU. It would have delayed the reforms and created uncertainty in the credit markets, but the EU would have continued to function with Ireland as a full member.
But enough about the Lisbon Treaty; it’s the approval of NAMA and an austerity budget that are the arguably more difficult political issues Ireland must grapple with. I just hope Ireland’s politicians will focus on the merits or shortcomings of these proposals rather than drumming up support for their respective positions by using fear tactics.
With my sincere condolences to Chicago, “my kind of town” back in the states, I now want to congratulate Brazil for being selected as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Don’t get me wrong, I would have been thrilled had Chicago been selected instead of Rio de Janeiro as the host city, but I also thought that it was time for the games to finally be held in South America.
After all, the three North American nations have all been the site of at least one Summer Olympics and the United States has been the host country four times, more than any other nation. Just as the World Cup will finally be played on the African continent for the first time, so too will the Summer Olympics call a new continent home for the first time come 2016. Hopefully the World Cup will select Australia and the Summer Olympics will pick a site in Africa at some point in the next decade, so they can both then boast of having at least one their championships played on every continent in the world.
Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama was placed in the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position of making a last minute sales pitch on behalf of his hometown’s Olympic bid. Many pundits and the London bookies immediately assumed that an appearance by the US President before the site selection committee in Copenhagen was a deal clincher for Chicago and America. But when I heard that Obama was just making a quick trip across the pond for his presentation, I knew immediately it wasn’t going to be beneficial to Chicago’s Olympic dreams.
There were several reasons why I made this assessment. I just wish I had acted on them and bet a few quid on Brazil with the bookmakers. For one thing, the US had already hosted four Summer Olympics, most recently in my hometown of Atlanta Georgia in 1996. Another factor was that a Summer Olympics had never been held in South America. In addition to a geographical location for the Summer Olympics in a new continent, the selection of Brazil would be a quasi-political acknowledgement of the huge strides Brazil has made economically and politically as a nation.
So I figured that for these reasons alone, Brazil was the obvious choice the 2016 Games, not America. But Barack Obama has both a captivating image and powerful skills of persuasion, so I understood why he was pressured to try and help clinch the deal for Chicago. But in order to be effective, Obama would have had to spend several days hob-knobbing with the delegates the way Tony Blair did prior to London’s selection.
However, spending that much time pressing Chicago’s bid would have created a firestorm of criticism back in the states, given the host of pressing foreign and domestic policy decisions President Obama is grappling with. But not helping Chicago would have generated criticism that he should have at least tried to help in the event that Chicago lost.
So President Obama did what he had to do. Then I read that “some delegates said they were less than impressed that Mr. Obama stayed just four hours” so they didn’t vote for Chicago because they thought this was disrespectful. I’m sorry, but I have no absolutely no respect for small minded delegates who think Obama’s quick trip didn’t show them the respect they were due. Delegates, who hold such sentiments, instead show that they’re incapable of carrying Obama’s shoes, much less walking in them.
Published on October 15th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Last week I offered my heartfelt congratulations to Ireland for its forward looking vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It was the right thing to do in my opinion although the huge turnaround was probably due to fear based on economic uncertainty rather than a realistic assessment of the Lisbon Treaty’s notable shortcomings.
In an ideal word voters wouldn’t be stampeded into voting for or against someone or something out of fear for the possible effect of an election on their economic well being. But I have also seen such sentiments dominate and determine the outcome of many elections back in the states. We call it “voting your pocketbook”.
But despite political candidates never-ending promises that a vote for them will mean more jobs and better economic conditions, most economists would argue that elected officials don’t really have any control over your economic well-being. Ireland’s long term economic health is determined by factors like education and technological development that are difficult to change in five years. Nor can these politicians take any actions that will have an actual effect on the world’s demand for Ireland’s exports.
I believe Ireland’s membership in the EU has had a positive impact on its overall economic health, but as an EU member Ireland has also had to cede some aspects of its national sovereignty to a supranational EU governance organization based in Brussels. I therefore believe that Ireland can and should continue to have a healthy debate about whether or not all of these trade-offs are actually necessary and or appropriate.
I believe the current governance structure of the EU is unwieldy and badly in need of reform. While the Lisbon Treaty isn’t an ideal solution, on balance I thought it was still a step in the right direction. But even though I favoured the Lisbon Treaty, I don’t agree with those who said a vote against it would have meant economic ruin or exclusion from the EU. It would have delayed the reforms and created uncertainty in the credit markets, but the EU would have continued to function with Ireland as a full member.
But enough about the Lisbon Treaty; it’s the approval of NAMA and an austerity budget that are the arguably more difficult political issues Ireland must grapple with. I just hope Ireland’s politicians will focus on the merits or shortcomings of these proposals rather than drumming up support for their respective positions by using fear tactics.
With my sincere condolences to Chicago, “my kind of town” back in the states, I now want to congratulate Brazil for being selected as the host country for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Don’t get me wrong, I would have been thrilled had Chicago been selected instead of Rio de Janeiro as the host city, but I also thought that it was time for the games to finally be held in South America.
After all, the three North American nations have all been the site of at least one Summer Olympics and the United States has been the host country four times, more than any other nation. Just as the World Cup will finally be played on the African continent for the first time, so too will the Summer Olympics call a new continent home for the first time come 2016. Hopefully the World Cup will select Australia and the Summer Olympics will pick a site in Africa at some point in the next decade, so they can both then boast of having at least one their championships played on every continent in the world.
Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama was placed in the proverbial “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position of making a last minute sales pitch on behalf of his hometown’s Olympic bid. Many pundits and the London bookies immediately assumed that an appearance by the US President before the site selection committee in Copenhagen was a deal clincher for Chicago and America. But when I heard that Obama was just making a quick trip across the pond for his presentation, I knew immediately it wasn’t going to be beneficial to Chicago’s Olympic dreams.
There were several reasons why I made this assessment. I just wish I had acted on them and bet a few quid on Brazil with the bookmakers. For one thing, the US had already hosted four Summer Olympics, most recently in my hometown of Atlanta Georgia in 1996. Another factor was that a Summer Olympics had never been held in South America. In addition to a geographical location for the Summer Olympics in a new continent, the selection of Brazil would be a quasi-political acknowledgement of the huge strides Brazil has made economically and politically as a nation.
So I figured that for these reasons alone, Brazil was the obvious choice the 2016 Games, not America. But Barack Obama has both a captivating image and powerful skills of persuasion, so I understood why he was pressured to try and help clinch the deal for Chicago. But in order to be effective, Obama would have had to spend several days hob-knobbing with the delegates the way Tony Blair did prior to London’s selection.
However, spending that much time pressing Chicago’s bid would have created a firestorm of criticism back in the states, given the host of pressing foreign and domestic policy decisions President Obama is grappling with. But not helping Chicago would have generated criticism that he should have at least tried to help in the event that Chicago lost.
So President Obama did what he had to do. Then I read that “some delegates said they were less than impressed that Mr. Obama stayed just four hours” so they didn’t vote for Chicago because they thought this was disrespectful. I’m sorry, but I have no absolutely no respect for small minded delegates who think Obama’s quick trip didn’t show them the respect they were due. Delegates, who hold such sentiments, instead show that they’re incapable of carrying Obama’s shoes, much less walking in them.
Congratulations Ireland!
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 8th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Congratulations Ireland! You have at long last taken a big step forward as both a nation and as a people by finally approving the Lisbon Treaty (and by a resounding 2 to 1 margin at that). As we say in the states; “Better late than never.” But this is still only the first of 3 steps Ireland must take to move back from the brink of economic disaster
Now as most of my readers are no doubt aware, I rarely offer any opinions about Irish politicians or Irish political issues in my columns. I figure the last thing you want or need to hear is the opinions of some American interloper regarding such matters. Still and all, I have been living here on the “Emerald Isle” for over three years, so I am not exactly a disinterested observer when it comes to such issues. Since it now looks like I’m going to be here for at least another three years, if not longer, I figure its time for me to stick my neck out a bit and discuss my views about some other pending political decisions.
While I agree with Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s statement that approval of the Lisbon Treaty means “It is a good day for Ireland, it is a good day for Europe”, it is still only one step in the right direction for Ireland. But I also believe two additional, and arguably more politically difficult, steps must still be taken in the coming months. If Ireland doesn’t move forward on both of them, then I fear this country and all of its residents will be paying the price for not doing so for many years to come.
While maintaining its membership in the EU provides Ireland with some noteworthy economic benefits, Ireland is still a sovereign nation and its government’s debts are still treated as such by other countries and private investors. The current yields on Irish government bonds, and thus the interest rates Ireland and its taxpayers will have to pay to finance its budget deficits, are the highest of all the Euro zone nations. This is a reflection of the credit market’s assessment that Ireland is still on shaky financial ground even though it is also a member of the more financially stable EU.
Approving the Lisbon Treaty was great for the EU because, despite the Treaty’s shortcomings, attempting to maintain the status quo of the current governance structure in the enlarged 27 nation EU was no longer a viable option. I think changing the EU’s governance structure will in time provide more economic and social stability for the EU as a whole as well as for all of its individual member states, including Ireland
On the other hand a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have postponed the needed governance reforms for at least several more years. This would have not only had a negative impact on other EU nations, but it would have also called into question Ireland’s membership in the EU. The credit markets would have also responded very negatively to a rejection as they are prone to do whenever they sense political instability. The yields on Ireland’s sovereign debt would have soared even higher and eventually infected Ireland with the disease of bankruptcy and economic stagflation Iceland is suffering from.
So although Ireland took an important step back from the brink of financial disaster, make no mistake, this country is still teetering on the edge in my humble opinion. I’m sure there are many people here who would disagree with me, but I strongly believe that Ireland’s politicians must also pass the legislation to create NAMA, the National Asset Management Agency, and approve an austerity budget in the coming months if Ireland is to avoid an even worse economic disease than it currently faces.
I realize that many Irish citizens and politicians have strong misgivings about taking either or both of these remaining steps towards putting Ireland’s public and private finances in order. Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives to these two additional steps that the global credit markets will consider economically viable and appropriate. And if the credit markets aren’t happy with what Ireland is doing then trust me, no one here in Ireland will be happy with the consequences of the credit market’s displeasure.
Is NAMA a government sponsored taxpayer bailout of private banks and some of their irresponsible executives, shareholders and wealthy investors? Absolutely! Is the Irish government paying too much for the toxic property and development assets it’s taking off these banks’ books? Probably! But the issue isn’t what those assets would fetch in today’s market, because if the government paid that price it would be far too low to help the banks attract the private investments they will need to start lending money again.
Like it or not, while you can quibble about whether the government should pay 30% or 40% less than face value for those toxic assets, it will still have to pay more than they are worth now or will be for the next several years. Is that fair? No, but who ever said life was going to be fair?
The austerity budget that lawmakers must also approve in the coming months will also be one that will inflict pain on many Irish residents, both in terms of higher taxes and spending cuts. In an ideal world worthwhile social programs wouldn’t see their funding cut and hardworking residents wouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to help balance the government’s budget. The government would also cut the jobs and salaries of employees who don’t do any meaningful work instead of cutting the wages of public sector workers that are truly necessary and provide essential services to Irish residents.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. And because we don’t we are all going to have to swallow some bitter medicine in the months ahead. Why? Because the disease of economic stagflation and bankruptcy is so much worse than the cure for it.
Published on October 8th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Congratulations Ireland! You have at long last taken a big step forward as both a nation and as a people by finally approving the Lisbon Treaty (and by a resounding 2 to 1 margin at that). As we say in the states; “Better late than never.” But this is still only the first of 3 steps Ireland must take to move back from the brink of economic disaster
Now as most of my readers are no doubt aware, I rarely offer any opinions about Irish politicians or Irish political issues in my columns. I figure the last thing you want or need to hear is the opinions of some American interloper regarding such matters. Still and all, I have been living here on the “Emerald Isle” for over three years, so I am not exactly a disinterested observer when it comes to such issues. Since it now looks like I’m going to be here for at least another three years, if not longer, I figure its time for me to stick my neck out a bit and discuss my views about some other pending political decisions.
While I agree with Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s statement that approval of the Lisbon Treaty means “It is a good day for Ireland, it is a good day for Europe”, it is still only one step in the right direction for Ireland. But I also believe two additional, and arguably more politically difficult, steps must still be taken in the coming months. If Ireland doesn’t move forward on both of them, then I fear this country and all of its residents will be paying the price for not doing so for many years to come.
While maintaining its membership in the EU provides Ireland with some noteworthy economic benefits, Ireland is still a sovereign nation and its government’s debts are still treated as such by other countries and private investors. The current yields on Irish government bonds, and thus the interest rates Ireland and its taxpayers will have to pay to finance its budget deficits, are the highest of all the Euro zone nations. This is a reflection of the credit market’s assessment that Ireland is still on shaky financial ground even though it is also a member of the more financially stable EU.
Approving the Lisbon Treaty was great for the EU because, despite the Treaty’s shortcomings, attempting to maintain the status quo of the current governance structure in the enlarged 27 nation EU was no longer a viable option. I think changing the EU’s governance structure will in time provide more economic and social stability for the EU as a whole as well as for all of its individual member states, including Ireland
On the other hand a second rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would have postponed the needed governance reforms for at least several more years. This would have not only had a negative impact on other EU nations, but it would have also called into question Ireland’s membership in the EU. The credit markets would have also responded very negatively to a rejection as they are prone to do whenever they sense political instability. The yields on Ireland’s sovereign debt would have soared even higher and eventually infected Ireland with the disease of bankruptcy and economic stagflation Iceland is suffering from.
So although Ireland took an important step back from the brink of financial disaster, make no mistake, this country is still teetering on the edge in my humble opinion. I’m sure there are many people here who would disagree with me, but I strongly believe that Ireland’s politicians must also pass the legislation to create NAMA, the National Asset Management Agency, and approve an austerity budget in the coming months if Ireland is to avoid an even worse economic disease than it currently faces.
I realize that many Irish citizens and politicians have strong misgivings about taking either or both of these remaining steps towards putting Ireland’s public and private finances in order. Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives to these two additional steps that the global credit markets will consider economically viable and appropriate. And if the credit markets aren’t happy with what Ireland is doing then trust me, no one here in Ireland will be happy with the consequences of the credit market’s displeasure.
Is NAMA a government sponsored taxpayer bailout of private banks and some of their irresponsible executives, shareholders and wealthy investors? Absolutely! Is the Irish government paying too much for the toxic property and development assets it’s taking off these banks’ books? Probably! But the issue isn’t what those assets would fetch in today’s market, because if the government paid that price it would be far too low to help the banks attract the private investments they will need to start lending money again.
Like it or not, while you can quibble about whether the government should pay 30% or 40% less than face value for those toxic assets, it will still have to pay more than they are worth now or will be for the next several years. Is that fair? No, but who ever said life was going to be fair?
The austerity budget that lawmakers must also approve in the coming months will also be one that will inflict pain on many Irish residents, both in terms of higher taxes and spending cuts. In an ideal world worthwhile social programs wouldn’t see their funding cut and hardworking residents wouldn’t have to pay higher taxes to help balance the government’s budget. The government would also cut the jobs and salaries of employees who don’t do any meaningful work instead of cutting the wages of public sector workers that are truly necessary and provide essential services to Irish residents.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. And because we don’t we are all going to have to swallow some bitter medicine in the months ahead. Why? Because the disease of economic stagflation and bankruptcy is so much worse than the cure for it.
The Health of Americans' Healthcare
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 1st in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to discuss the health of healthcare in America. As evidenced by his nationally televised speech to the US Congress last month, President Obama has made healthcare reform his top domestic policy initiative now that the American economy appears to finally be on the mend. But while the health of the American economy remains the top concern of most Americans, President Obama also believes that healthcare reform must be an essential element of any plan to revive the US economy. Is he right? Let’s see.
On the one hand America does indeed offer its citizens the best healthcare available anywhere in the world that “money can buy.” On the other hand that same statement also encapsulates the single most significant shortcoming of America’s healthcare system. It is the best in the world, but only if you can afford to pay for it. Unfortunately 15% of the American public, over 45 million people, have no health insurance because they can not afford to pay for the best healthcare “money can buy.”
America was actually the first country in the world to provide health insurance and was also the first country to provide different types of injury, disability and sickness coverage. In 1850, Franklin Health Assurance began offering the first private-sponsored insurance for injuries from railroad & steamboat accidents and in 1890 the first private-sponsored insurance for disability & sickness was offered. Then in 1911 the first employer-sponsored group disability & sickness policy was issued and in 1965 the first public-sponsored (government) Medicare group disability & sickness plan was begun.
Today, America is still the world’s leader in medical innovation and spends three times more than Europe does per capita on biomedical research. American companies’ account for 75% of the world’s R&D spending in biotechnology and the top 5 American hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. When it comes to groundbreaking research, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to more U.S. residents than recipients from all other countries in the world combined.
But America also spends an astounding 15% of its GDP on healthcare, more than twice what Ireland spends and also much more than any other country in the world. But if 45 million Americans can’t afford health insurance, how does America finance such an expensive healthcare system for the other 255 million Americans who do have insurance?
Well, of the 85% of Americans who do have health insurance, about 60%, roughly 155 million US citizens, have employer provided group healthcare insurance, 10%, or 25 million people, buy private-sponsored insurance directly from heath insurance companies and the remaining 75 million (mainly 65 years or older Americans) are covered by America’s public-sponsored Medicare health insurance programme.
One would think that if America is spending so much more on healthcare than any other nation on earth, that this additional spending would be reflected in comparisons of the health of Americans with the heath of citizens from other countries. Au contraire! In fact the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ranking of countries based on measures such as infant mortality and life expectancy put the US at the bottom of the WHO’s list of wealthy more developed countries and behind countries like Cuba that aren’t on that list. When the WHO compares American healthcare with healthcare provided by all of its other 190 members, America ranks 1st in spending but 37th in terms of overall healthcare performance, 38th in life expectancy and a dismal 72nd in overall level of health.
Liars figure, but figures don’t lie. So given the preponderance of factual data that tells Americans they are paying more for healthcare but getting less than their counterparts in the EU, Canada and Cuba, why is President Obama’s push to reform America’s system of healthcare arousing so much anger among some American citizens?
Part of the answer is that some of those who are opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform proposals don’t understand what a poor return they are getting on the money they are spending on healthcare. The 155 million Americans covered by employer paid health insurance plans never see that money in their paychecks so many of them don’t realize that as their employers cost for this coverage grow, the employers pay for this with lower wage increases and by reducing the total number of people they employ.
The 75 million older Americans covered by Medicare don’t realize what this coverage costs because they don’t pay for their medical treatment and drug prescriptions. The US government does. This past August US Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, held a town hall meeting on healthcare. Like many other town hall meetings this summer it was heavily attended by older conservative voters and anti-Obama Republican activists who had been urged to turnout in angry protest by conservative radio and TV talk show host demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
At one point during Representative Green’s town hall meeting, a conservative activist speaking against President Obama’s healthcare reforms turned and asked the other attendees if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all of those in attendance said they agreed. Mr. Green then asked how many of those present were on Medicare (A government-run health plan) and almost half of them raised their hands. So people who don’t understand that Medicare is government-run health care aren’t really reacting to the healthcare reforms Obama is proposing.
For some of them, their anger is simply a reflection of their fear of change. Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t. Others may really believe the disinformation about “death panels” that Republican politicians like Sarah Palin are spreading. But I also believe that many of them aren’t actually reacting because of what President Obama is proposing, but rather because of their racial anxiety about who President Obama is. It’s this latent racial fear that cynical Republican politicians are now exploiting to benefit themselves rather than America’s citizens. “Shame!”
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Published on October 1st in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Today I want to discuss the health of healthcare in America. As evidenced by his nationally televised speech to the US Congress last month, President Obama has made healthcare reform his top domestic policy initiative now that the American economy appears to finally be on the mend. But while the health of the American economy remains the top concern of most Americans, President Obama also believes that healthcare reform must be an essential element of any plan to revive the US economy. Is he right? Let’s see.
On the one hand America does indeed offer its citizens the best healthcare available anywhere in the world that “money can buy.” On the other hand that same statement also encapsulates the single most significant shortcoming of America’s healthcare system. It is the best in the world, but only if you can afford to pay for it. Unfortunately 15% of the American public, over 45 million people, have no health insurance because they can not afford to pay for the best healthcare “money can buy.”
America was actually the first country in the world to provide health insurance and was also the first country to provide different types of injury, disability and sickness coverage. In 1850, Franklin Health Assurance began offering the first private-sponsored insurance for injuries from railroad & steamboat accidents and in 1890 the first private-sponsored insurance for disability & sickness was offered. Then in 1911 the first employer-sponsored group disability & sickness policy was issued and in 1965 the first public-sponsored (government) Medicare group disability & sickness plan was begun.
Today, America is still the world’s leader in medical innovation and spends three times more than Europe does per capita on biomedical research. American companies’ account for 75% of the world’s R&D spending in biotechnology and the top 5 American hospitals carry out more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other country. When it comes to groundbreaking research, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to more U.S. residents than recipients from all other countries in the world combined.
But America also spends an astounding 15% of its GDP on healthcare, more than twice what Ireland spends and also much more than any other country in the world. But if 45 million Americans can’t afford health insurance, how does America finance such an expensive healthcare system for the other 255 million Americans who do have insurance?
Well, of the 85% of Americans who do have health insurance, about 60%, roughly 155 million US citizens, have employer provided group healthcare insurance, 10%, or 25 million people, buy private-sponsored insurance directly from heath insurance companies and the remaining 75 million (mainly 65 years or older Americans) are covered by America’s public-sponsored Medicare health insurance programme.
One would think that if America is spending so much more on healthcare than any other nation on earth, that this additional spending would be reflected in comparisons of the health of Americans with the heath of citizens from other countries. Au contraire! In fact the World Health Organization’s (WHO) ranking of countries based on measures such as infant mortality and life expectancy put the US at the bottom of the WHO’s list of wealthy more developed countries and behind countries like Cuba that aren’t on that list. When the WHO compares American healthcare with healthcare provided by all of its other 190 members, America ranks 1st in spending but 37th in terms of overall healthcare performance, 38th in life expectancy and a dismal 72nd in overall level of health.
Liars figure, but figures don’t lie. So given the preponderance of factual data that tells Americans they are paying more for healthcare but getting less than their counterparts in the EU, Canada and Cuba, why is President Obama’s push to reform America’s system of healthcare arousing so much anger among some American citizens?
Part of the answer is that some of those who are opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform proposals don’t understand what a poor return they are getting on the money they are spending on healthcare. The 155 million Americans covered by employer paid health insurance plans never see that money in their paychecks so many of them don’t realize that as their employers cost for this coverage grow, the employers pay for this with lower wage increases and by reducing the total number of people they employ.
The 75 million older Americans covered by Medicare don’t realize what this coverage costs because they don’t pay for their medical treatment and drug prescriptions. The US government does. This past August US Representative Gene Green, a Texas Democrat, held a town hall meeting on healthcare. Like many other town hall meetings this summer it was heavily attended by older conservative voters and anti-Obama Republican activists who had been urged to turnout in angry protest by conservative radio and TV talk show host demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
At one point during Representative Green’s town hall meeting, a conservative activist speaking against President Obama’s healthcare reforms turned and asked the other attendees if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all of those in attendance said they agreed. Mr. Green then asked how many of those present were on Medicare (A government-run health plan) and almost half of them raised their hands. So people who don’t understand that Medicare is government-run health care aren’t really reacting to the healthcare reforms Obama is proposing.
For some of them, their anger is simply a reflection of their fear of change. Better the devil you know, than the one you don’t. Others may really believe the disinformation about “death panels” that Republican politicians like Sarah Palin are spreading. But I also believe that many of them aren’t actually reacting because of what President Obama is proposing, but rather because of their racial anxiety about who President Obama is. It’s this latent racial fear that cynical Republican politicians are now exploiting to benefit themselves rather than America’s citizens. “Shame!”
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Ashamed to be a member of the Republican Party
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 24th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by promising to discuss what it was that I saw and heard during President Obama’s most recent nationally televised address to the Congress and America, which made me feel ashamed that I was a member of the Republican Party.
While I thought Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” remonstration was both uncalled for and disrespectful, I have also seen and heard much worse from politicians in the Dáil. But US politicians never interrupt a US President while he is making a speech because a substantial majority of the American public looks askance at such disrespectful behaviour. Frankly, I was more embarrassed for old Joe Wilson making a fool of himself on national TV than I was for myself as a Republican or for President Obama.
It didn’t take long for Representative Wilson to realize what a huge mistake he made by calling the President a liar either. Wilson’s outburst was immediately greeted by “oohs” from the audience, a withering glance from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, disapproving looks from many of his equally stunned Republican Party colleagues and boos from many Democrats. And when the TV cameras cut to a shot of Joe, he appeared to be very aware that he had really “stepped in it” because he avoided looking at any of his colleagues and instead stared intently at his Blackberry.
He beat a hasty retreat from the House chamber as soon as the speech ended and quickly called President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel to apologize for his conduct. His website’s server also crashed shortly after the speech ended because it was inundated with angry complaints from American voters. Wilson’s office released a written apology soon afterwards that read; “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me. While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
. No, after some considerable reflection, my shame stems from something much more subtle than Joe Wilson’s unseemly accusation. Joe’s behavior was only the most flagrant sign of disrespect that I witnessed that night. But the audience also included other Republicans like Jeb Hensarling and Eric Cantor who have national and or Presidential aspirations.
What I also noticed, but many other people watching didn’t, was that following Joe Wilson’s outburst during the middle section of President Obama’s speech, other, as yet unidentified Republicans, also yelled at the President near the end of his speech. This occurred during the part of the President’s speech where he disputed the erroneous assertions made by some Republican opponents about his healthcare reform legislation.
When President Obama disputed the patently false notion that Sarah Palin, among others, is peddling; that his healthcare reforms would lead to “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” a Republican shouted “Shame!” Then, when the president said, “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical”, another Republican yelled, “Read the bill!” And when President Obama tried to rebut the charge that his reforms represented a government takeover of health care, another Republican responded by screaming “It’s true!” Joe’s outburst got all the media attention, but it was certainly not the only such outburst that night.
But what I found most disturbing was the behavior of those Republicans who are being touted for greater national exposure and higher political office in the future. While none of them yelled at the President while he was speaking, in their own way they were just as disrespectful as their colleague, Joe Wilson was. Most disconcerting to me was the fact that one of them was my own Congressman, Jeb Hensarling, a man I not only voted for in this and previous elections, but a man I also contributed money to. “Shame!”
When President Obama was trying to allay the fears of those Americans who have private health insurance by telling them “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” the TV cameras cut to a shot of the Republicans in the audience and there sat Jeb Hensarling shaking his head in mocking disbelief. Hensarling is not only one of the top Republican leaders in Washington; he is also the odds on choice to win the US Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison so she can run for Governor of Texas.
The TV cameras also cut away several times during the President’s address to show the reactions of House minority leader John Boehner and House minority whip, Eric Cantor. Boehner always looked disgusted, which was no surprise, while Cantor was always shown playing with his Blackberry. But when this subtle yet obvious show of disrespect was brought to his attention, Cantor lamely claimed “he was reading excerpts of Obama's speech on the BlackBerry and taking notes as he did so.” Yeah, right!
I’m sorry, but I’m the type of person who believes that if you want me to listen to what you have to say, then even if we disagree, you owe me the same respect. Now ladies, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t know any men who can listen to what you are saying while they are watching TV, playing video games or typing on their Blackberry. Do you?
Effective political leaders know that politics is the art of compromise and that compromises cannot be forged if you won’t listen or show respect for your opponents’ positions. But last Wednesday, my party’s two brightest rising stars in Washington showed they had no respect for the opinions of our nation’s President. So because my party’s current leaders are focused on harnessing public anger to win election instead of addressing America’s problems, they have also shown that they are incapable of running our country. And that’s a very shameful thing for a life long Republican to have to admit!
Next week I’ll discuss the health of healthcare in America.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Published on September 24th in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed last week’s column by promising to discuss what it was that I saw and heard during President Obama’s most recent nationally televised address to the Congress and America, which made me feel ashamed that I was a member of the Republican Party.
While I thought Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” remonstration was both uncalled for and disrespectful, I have also seen and heard much worse from politicians in the Dáil. But US politicians never interrupt a US President while he is making a speech because a substantial majority of the American public looks askance at such disrespectful behaviour. Frankly, I was more embarrassed for old Joe Wilson making a fool of himself on national TV than I was for myself as a Republican or for President Obama.
It didn’t take long for Representative Wilson to realize what a huge mistake he made by calling the President a liar either. Wilson’s outburst was immediately greeted by “oohs” from the audience, a withering glance from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, disapproving looks from many of his equally stunned Republican Party colleagues and boos from many Democrats. And when the TV cameras cut to a shot of Joe, he appeared to be very aware that he had really “stepped in it” because he avoided looking at any of his colleagues and instead stared intently at his Blackberry.
He beat a hasty retreat from the House chamber as soon as the speech ended and quickly called President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel to apologize for his conduct. His website’s server also crashed shortly after the speech ended because it was inundated with angry complaints from American voters. Wilson’s office released a written apology soon afterwards that read; “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me. While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
. No, after some considerable reflection, my shame stems from something much more subtle than Joe Wilson’s unseemly accusation. Joe’s behavior was only the most flagrant sign of disrespect that I witnessed that night. But the audience also included other Republicans like Jeb Hensarling and Eric Cantor who have national and or Presidential aspirations.
What I also noticed, but many other people watching didn’t, was that following Joe Wilson’s outburst during the middle section of President Obama’s speech, other, as yet unidentified Republicans, also yelled at the President near the end of his speech. This occurred during the part of the President’s speech where he disputed the erroneous assertions made by some Republican opponents about his healthcare reform legislation.
When President Obama disputed the patently false notion that Sarah Palin, among others, is peddling; that his healthcare reforms would lead to “panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens,” a Republican shouted “Shame!” Then, when the president said, “Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical”, another Republican yelled, “Read the bill!” And when President Obama tried to rebut the charge that his reforms represented a government takeover of health care, another Republican responded by screaming “It’s true!” Joe’s outburst got all the media attention, but it was certainly not the only such outburst that night.
But what I found most disturbing was the behavior of those Republicans who are being touted for greater national exposure and higher political office in the future. While none of them yelled at the President while he was speaking, in their own way they were just as disrespectful as their colleague, Joe Wilson was. Most disconcerting to me was the fact that one of them was my own Congressman, Jeb Hensarling, a man I not only voted for in this and previous elections, but a man I also contributed money to. “Shame!”
When President Obama was trying to allay the fears of those Americans who have private health insurance by telling them “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” the TV cameras cut to a shot of the Republicans in the audience and there sat Jeb Hensarling shaking his head in mocking disbelief. Hensarling is not only one of the top Republican leaders in Washington; he is also the odds on choice to win the US Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison so she can run for Governor of Texas.
The TV cameras also cut away several times during the President’s address to show the reactions of House minority leader John Boehner and House minority whip, Eric Cantor. Boehner always looked disgusted, which was no surprise, while Cantor was always shown playing with his Blackberry. But when this subtle yet obvious show of disrespect was brought to his attention, Cantor lamely claimed “he was reading excerpts of Obama's speech on the BlackBerry and taking notes as he did so.” Yeah, right!
I’m sorry, but I’m the type of person who believes that if you want me to listen to what you have to say, then even if we disagree, you owe me the same respect. Now ladies, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t know any men who can listen to what you are saying while they are watching TV, playing video games or typing on their Blackberry. Do you?
Effective political leaders know that politics is the art of compromise and that compromises cannot be forged if you won’t listen or show respect for your opponents’ positions. But last Wednesday, my party’s two brightest rising stars in Washington showed they had no respect for the opinions of our nation’s President. So because my party’s current leaders are focused on harnessing public anger to win election instead of addressing America’s problems, they have also shown that they are incapable of running our country. And that’s a very shameful thing for a life long Republican to have to admit!
Next week I’ll discuss the health of healthcare in America.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
