Sicko

We saw Sicko last weekend, the new Michael Moore documentary vilifying the American health care industry. I realized, while I was trying to scrape up my jaw from the sticky, Coke-drenched floor, that the fact that I used the word “industry” to finish that last sentence is what’s wrong with our structure. The film is excellent. Sure, Moore is polarizing because he’s an unabashed, lightning rod liberal whose techniques are dubious. And yes, his speech at the Oscars a couple of years back was inappropriate. I know many left-wingers who find him reprehensible. But the dude knows how to make movies. And even if he’s exaggerating a little for effect, he’s not making this stuff up.

How is it possible that we--the richest country and lone superpower (so they say)--have a worse system than El Salvador? EL SALVADOR!!!! That’s right, the same El Salvador where over a third of the people live below the poverty line; the El Salvador whose early history was marred by revolutions and coups; yes, even the El Salvador that forbids abortion under ANY circumstance. In the name of Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, what is going on here?

I don’t want to be branded as a socialist; God knows I have a healthy respect for money, particularly that which resides in my wallet or bank. But I would be willing to pay more in taxes for better health coverage. As Moore attempts to illustrate, it’s not only uninsured individuals at risk. We, the insured, have much to fear. Insurance companies exist to make money, not protect people. In fact, the more people they protect, the less money in their pockets. No wonder they deny so many claims. It is an illogically, flawed system.

It’s a good thing that, like Fame, I’m gonna live forever.

Logic, People!

The most frustrating aspect to life on Capitol Hill (and I witnessed this first hand during my days as an intern) is the propensity for elected officials to make statements based on politics rather than policy. They substitute rhetoric for substance, sound bites for sound reasoning. Case in point is the response to the US intelligent agencies' report on Al Queda, released today.

According to today's LA Times, "Democrats cited the report as evidence that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism, while Republicans said it showed that the Bush administration has made gains in the war on terrorism."

How in the hell is it possible to come to such divergent conclusions? I try to be fair in my assessment of the parties and God knows the Democrats have done some stupid things. But if Bin Laden and his cronies are planning another attack, kicking us into a position of heightened threat, doesn't it stand to reason that we have not properly utilized our finite resources, particularly in the last five years? In other words, "Uh, fellas...the bad guys are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What are we doing in Iraq?"

How anyone can still argue that we are safer today than we would have been had we not invaded Iraq is completely beyond me. We are the laughing stock of the international community and have completely destabilized a formerly secular country and unnecessarily killed thousands of American troops.

A conservative friend and I were emailing today. We often exchange ideas on candidates, generally reserving our in depth analysis for the members of our respective parties. Among other things he said, "I'm not enamored with any of the candidates, though I like Rudy's tough stance on the War on Terror." I don't really know what that means. I fear that the Democrats will continue to be painted into the soft-on-crime/soft-on-defense corner.

Judy Feder for Congress!!

As many of you know, the Dean of my graduate program is running for a US House of Representatives seat in Fairfax County, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC. A Harvard-trained political scientist, Judy gained fame in the early Clinton years as his health care specialist. I never fully understood the need for health care reform -- until yesterday.

Mrs. E woke up yesterday with a migraine, the likes of which she had never encountered. A chronic migraine sufferer, Mrs. E was purging herself all morning and early afternoon. And when there was nothing left to purge, but the nausea remained, she decided to seek medical attention. We hopped in a cab and drove the twenty some odd blocks to St. Luke's Roosevelt Emergency room just south of Columbia University.

I can't say that anything really went wrong. But nothing was exactly right either. The doctor was pleasant, but we must have seen five different nurses in the two hours we were there and they all asked the same questions. It seems that had one nurse been on the case the entire time we wouldn't have had to repeat ourselves. And then there is the waiting...and waiting...and waiting. When people are in a hospital/emergency room/doctor's office, the last thing they want to do is wait. Even if there is nothing to report, somebody should come in and say, "hey, there's nothing to report."

Upon our arrival in the room we were asked if, since blood was being drawn anyway, we wanted a free HIV test. We agreed and were told before we left that Mrs. E is HIV-negative -- no surprise there. But we were given no other results from that blood. It was as if they tricked us into an HIV test -- even though we are married and have both been tested already. A urine sample was also taken, though no results were given from those analyses either.

The medication they gave Mrs. E had varying effects -- from none to slight. Finally she felt well enough to go home. We were sent home with two prescriptions. I went to the pharmacy this morning only to find out that one of them was filled out incorrectly. The doctor forgot to include the dosage!

All I can say is if this were a life-threatening situation I wouldn't feel too comfortable. I'm not sure this was a completely negative experience since I have had almost no contact with emergency rooms in my life I have almost no basis for comparison. But whether or not this was above or below the average emergency room experience I see need for improvement.

So here's to Judy!

I Almost Spilled My Rice Chex

Mrs. E and I were watching CNN this morning and it was reported that President Bush called the Lebanese Prime Minister at 8:15 AM. Knowing President Bush's affinity for sleep, I figured they were joking. I mean, it's Saturday, for God's sake.

Our Commander-in-Chief

I'm not one (usually) to complain about our leaders. Generally I give those in power the benefit of the doubt until something egregious occurs. I tend to think that they know a lot more than they're letting on to the public and that there may be reasons why they say or do certain things.

However, this morning I heard something crazy on the radio out of President Bush's mouth. He said -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "Make no mistake that there are people out there who want to harm us." Well gee whiz, who would have thought that? I mean really....who is making THAT mistake? I can see where reasonable minds can disagree on a variety of issues. But I don't know one person who believes we are immune from another attack. After yesterday's thwarted effort to wreak havoc on the US (incidentally, one of my students flew back from London yesterday), I am convinced that we are in a worse position to protect ourselves (especially given our military commitments abroad) than before 9/11/01.

So to whom, exactly, was that comment directed? This is prime example of Rovian politics. The conservative right is subtly, indirectly, painting liberals as soft on defense. That quote intimates that those who believe we have made the world less safe by entering Iraq are ill-equipped to lead our country. In essense, he is countering an argument that HAS NOT BEEN MADE. No Democrat has stated publicly (or privately, I'm sure) that we are safe from Islamic fundamentalism.

It is brilliant politics!

It is abhorant leadership!

The Jewish Vote

Since when have the Jews voted Republican in such strong numbers? When I was a kid, I knew only one Jewish Republican -- my Uncle Ralph. And even he ended up voting for Bill Clinton. Perhaps it's because I work at a school with lots of Israelis (who tend to vote strictly according to a candidate's stance on Israel), but I think it's deeper than that. Democrats have been portrayed as weak on foreign policy since Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage fiasco.

On the bus today on our way from Hod HaSharon to Tzipori, I overheard a conversation between one of the madrichim and a couple of the students. The madrich made a cynical comment about the U.S. going into yet another country, attempting to flex her muscles. One of the students immediately became defensive because in his view, America is Israel's only friend and the fact that we invaded Iraq was admirable. Independent, intelligent people can certainly disagree on this point and I chose to listen to both sides (as I am wont to do) rather than interject my opinion right off the bat. Our armed guard then jumped in and added that it's a good thing America elected George Bush because John Kerry was pro-Arab. At that point I felt it was necessary to at least set the record straight, if not offer my views on our president. I could tell this guy I was talking to was a tough nut because when I informed him that Kerry has Jewish blood in him, he retorted that no national leader in the history of mankind who had Jewish blood, but was not himself Jewish was ever a friend to the Jews. When I challenged the statement (because it seemed hyperbolic) he mentioned Casper Weinberger. Okay, so he named one. Big deal. That hardly constitutes a pattern.

It got me thinking, though. Are the Republicans that much stronger when it comes to Israel? Bill Clinton was a great friend of the Jews and of the Middle East peace process. Was he an anomaly? I didn't think so. But in the absence of a position, an opposting political party can paint the other as anything it wants -- sheepish, soft, wishy-washy, etc.

George Bush didn't beat Al Gore in 2000. Al Gore lost the election with a poor vision and worse handling. The Democratic party needs to redraw the political lines, underscoring its fundamental views in order to bring back a base that has long been forgotten. Included in that group is the Jewish vote. After all it was the Jews, led by Abraham Joshua Heschel, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights struggle of the 1960's. That is not the same struggle the Palestinians face and the Democrats shouldn't be painted in that corner. Democrats can no longer take the Jewish vote for granted or they will continue to face an uphill battle.