With the current Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act, I thought I'd repost one of my columns that was printed in the Edmond Sun on Dec. 29, 2009. Here's the link: http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x546158515/Looking-for-the-right-health-care-reform
Enjoy!
_________________________
EDMOND — After months of hearings and haggling, Congress is in the final stages of reforming our health care system. Lawmaking has been compared to making sausage — combining perfectly good steak with other less desirable ingredients, then trying to pressure it through the legislative machinery. It’s not pretty, and we get the good with the bad, but that’s the way the process works.
There’s no question we need health care reform. Americans pay more than twice as much for health care per person as in other industrialized countries, and that cost is growing three times as fast as wage increases. But what do we get for our money?
We’re 50th in the world in life expectancy, just ahead of Albania. Our infant mortality rate is higher than in other Western nations. Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, even though 80 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. We spend more than a thousand dollars per person per year on medical paperwork and overhead alone, more than three times as much as in Canada. And for all that, we leave 45 million people without any coverage at all.
How did we get in this mess? In 1900 there was no such thing as health insurance. Medical care was paid for through barter or out of your own pocket. In today’s dollars that averaged about a hundred bucks a year. Now we spend $3,000 a year on health care per person.
When hospitals faced empty beds and unpaid bills in the Depression, Baylor Hospital administrator Justin Kimball developed a plan under which teachers could prepay for hospitalization. Within a year, 75 percent of Dallas teachers had enrolled; soon, other employers began offering such benefits as a recruiting incentive. Private health insurance coverage grew from 9 percent in 1940 to 70 percent in the 1960s. An entire insurance industry has mushroomed around the idea.
But times have changed. Today the percentage of Americans with health insurance provided through their employers is 56 percent and falling. To mandate that burden on all employers with penalties, as current legislation proposes, will be difficult to sell.
Republicans, and now Sen. Joe Lieberman, balk at the idea of having a public option to private coverage. Medicare and Medicaid are both “public options” of sorts, and help moderate the cost of health care. But the insurance lobby has a lucrative product and they don’t want to lose it.
Howard Dean is right — the current proposal working its way through Congress will be a victory for the insurance industry, not everyday Americans.
Good health care shouldn’t depend on the wealth of the patient. The cost of heart surgery is the same for rich bodies and poor ones. Why should a wealthy person have access to it and a poor person should not?
People have no more right to medical care than they do, say, to highways. But the government builds highways and bridges for everyone to use because it benefits all of us. When we buy a car, our choices are governed by our wealth. You only buy a Lexus if you can afford it. But luxury cars and clunkers share the same highways, where equal access is guaranteed to all.
The same principle should apply to health care.
I once listened to a radio personality named Rush Limbaugh. Before his prescription drug abuse problems surfaced, he once said his health care solution was to simply pay cash for routine doctor visits. He said it really didn’t cost that much, and was easier than dealing with the insurance paperwork. He’d save his health insurance for catastrophic care.
I hope you’re sitting down. For once, I agree with Limbaugh.
Instead of expanding a system that doesn’t work, let’s wean ourselves from our addiction to health insurance. Let people pay for everyday medical expenses out of pocket. We should expand Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP to cover all Americans, employed or not, for catastrophic illnesses that would cost more than, say, $10,000 a year. In turn, employers would pass along the premium savings to their employees. The healthier we lived, the less we’d need to visit the doctor, and the more of that we’d pocket or spend on other bills. The added income would generate higher payroll taxes to help cover the cost.
The issue of abortion coverage would disappear because first trimester abortions usually cost under $1,000. Almost all plastic surgery also would be excluded. If that’s what you want to spend your money on, go ahead — but don’t expect the rest of us to pay for your implants.
I’ll leave it to smarter people like my friend Mickey Hepner to figure out the details. But spreading the catastrophic care costs across all taxpayers would make the system more manageable. Risks would go down, and more people would bear the responsibility for healthier lifestyles. Health care providers would focus on providing better outcomes instead of simply running more tests for the sake of profiting from them.
We need health care reform. But we need the right type of health care reform. Simply saying no isn’t the answer. Simply saying yes to the health insurance industry isn’t either.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Final Battle
In October 2004, Osama bin Laden issued one of his famous videotapes in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
Bin Laden had not been heard from in almost three years. Posted just before election day, the video was clearly directed at an American audience that was facing a decision - continue with the status quo, or reverse course with new leadership. The CIA had just reported that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, placing in doubt the credibility of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. The number of U.S. casualties had topped 1,000, the Abu Ghraib atrocities were front-page news, and a new government in Iraq gave a glimmer of hope that American forces should and would be coming home soon.
Bin Laden's missive gave Americans even more to consider. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said. He said his fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
"It all shows that the real loser is you," bin Laden said. "It is the American people and their economy.""It all shows that the real loser is you," bin Laden said. "It is the American people and their economy."
The total U.S. national debt, now over $14 trillion, was more than $7 trillion in 2004. The U.S. federal deficit in 2010 was almost four times as much as it was in 2004. Our unemployment rate rose from 5.4% in October 2004 to 9.2% today.
Now, Osama bin Laden is gone. Good riddance. But his legacy lives on. For our national leaders are now embroiled in a battle over whether to raise the national debt limit, to accommodate the hemorrhage of red ink of the past decade, or dive into the untested waters of default.
Most economists agree that the ramifications of default are catastrophic. An unprecedented downgrade of the nation's creditworthiness could send shock waves through markets around the world, raise interest rates and fuel inflation at home, and gut the struggling economic recovery.
It is no longer a question of how the crisis will be averted. Whether spending will be cut, Social Security or Medicare are trimmed, or taxes are raised, the common denominator is that the debt limit must be raised. Everyone wants their pet preference pampered. Everyone wants to be able to crow to their constituents that they solved the problem. That's great re-election fodder. But it's selfish, and doesn't help the common good.
Those who push us to the precipice are in fact fulfilling the prophecy of Osama bin Laden. He and his minions would love nothing more than to see our economic collapse. For that, the stage has been set. While bin Laden is not entitled to all the credit - we injured ourselves by allowing the mortgage industry to run unchecked - we spent billions on an unnecessary war in Iraq and are achieving limited success in Afghanistan chasing the Taliban.
The President is ready to strike a deal to extend the debt ceiling. As he said in his press conference on July 22, he's been left at the altar more than once. However, Republican negotiators have repeatedly walked away from the table, failing to reach an accord to avert this calamity, always coming up with an excuse as to why they cannot say yes and follow through on a commitment.
Nobody ever gets everything they want in a negotiated settlement. Everyone must give in order to reach a deal. But some extremists on the right have taken rigid pledges that they'll vote for no new taxes - a pledge that sounds great, but in reality is naive. It ties their hands and prevents them from having the necessary flexibility to deal with the facts before them. There is no single solution; what's needed is a balanced approach to stem the tide, and some are too bound to dogma to be of any help. There will always be time to revisit those issues. But here and now, we need to avert this crisis and extend the debt ceiling.
By their actions, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and their Tea Party compatriots do nothing less than give aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. As each minute slips by, as the August 2 deadline draws near, al-Qaeda's remaining leaders keep their fingers crossed that their unwitting allies, the Republicans, will stand their ground and bring America to its knees.
Let's hope sanity will prevail. Heaven help us all if it does not.
Bin Laden had not been heard from in almost three years. Posted just before election day, the video was clearly directed at an American audience that was facing a decision - continue with the status quo, or reverse course with new leadership. The CIA had just reported that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, placing in doubt the credibility of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. The number of U.S. casualties had topped 1,000, the Abu Ghraib atrocities were front-page news, and a new government in Iraq gave a glimmer of hope that American forces should and would be coming home soon.
Bin Laden's missive gave Americans even more to consider. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said. He said his fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
"It all shows that the real loser is you," bin Laden said. "It is the American people and their economy.""It all shows that the real loser is you," bin Laden said. "It is the American people and their economy."
The total U.S. national debt, now over $14 trillion, was more than $7 trillion in 2004. The U.S. federal deficit in 2010 was almost four times as much as it was in 2004. Our unemployment rate rose from 5.4% in October 2004 to 9.2% today.
Now, Osama bin Laden is gone. Good riddance. But his legacy lives on. For our national leaders are now embroiled in a battle over whether to raise the national debt limit, to accommodate the hemorrhage of red ink of the past decade, or dive into the untested waters of default.
Most economists agree that the ramifications of default are catastrophic. An unprecedented downgrade of the nation's creditworthiness could send shock waves through markets around the world, raise interest rates and fuel inflation at home, and gut the struggling economic recovery.
It is no longer a question of how the crisis will be averted. Whether spending will be cut, Social Security or Medicare are trimmed, or taxes are raised, the common denominator is that the debt limit must be raised. Everyone wants their pet preference pampered. Everyone wants to be able to crow to their constituents that they solved the problem. That's great re-election fodder. But it's selfish, and doesn't help the common good.
Those who push us to the precipice are in fact fulfilling the prophecy of Osama bin Laden. He and his minions would love nothing more than to see our economic collapse. For that, the stage has been set. While bin Laden is not entitled to all the credit - we injured ourselves by allowing the mortgage industry to run unchecked - we spent billions on an unnecessary war in Iraq and are achieving limited success in Afghanistan chasing the Taliban.
The President is ready to strike a deal to extend the debt ceiling. As he said in his press conference on July 22, he's been left at the altar more than once. However, Republican negotiators have repeatedly walked away from the table, failing to reach an accord to avert this calamity, always coming up with an excuse as to why they cannot say yes and follow through on a commitment.
Nobody ever gets everything they want in a negotiated settlement. Everyone must give in order to reach a deal. But some extremists on the right have taken rigid pledges that they'll vote for no new taxes - a pledge that sounds great, but in reality is naive. It ties their hands and prevents them from having the necessary flexibility to deal with the facts before them. There is no single solution; what's needed is a balanced approach to stem the tide, and some are too bound to dogma to be of any help. There will always be time to revisit those issues. But here and now, we need to avert this crisis and extend the debt ceiling.
By their actions, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and their Tea Party compatriots do nothing less than give aid and comfort to al-Qaeda. As each minute slips by, as the August 2 deadline draws near, al-Qaeda's remaining leaders keep their fingers crossed that their unwitting allies, the Republicans, will stand their ground and bring America to its knees.
Let's hope sanity will prevail. Heaven help us all if it does not.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Obama's Roots In Oklahoma
Two years ago, when I was Secretary of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, one of the articles I ran in our quarterly newspaper, the "Yellow Dog Dispatch," featured then-Senator Barack Obama's roots in Oklahoma. Here is that story.
___________________
When Oklahoma City’s founders dined at Jacob Dunham’s restaurant at Main and Santa Fe in 1890, or ate at his son’s lunch counter near the post office, they had no reason to suspect the White House was in the family’s future.
Everyone today knows Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that his father was from Africa and his mother from Kansas. But the next president has some pretty solid Oklahoma roots as well.
Four of his ancestors are buried in our state, and he has numerous cousins still living here. And Barack Obama’s mother came very close to being from Oklahoma instead of Kansas.
THE DUNHAMS
Sen. Obama’s mother was Ann Dunham. Her great-great grandparents were Jacob Mackey Dunham and his wife Louisa Eliza Stroup. Dunham was born in present-day West Virginia in 1824 and lived in Ohio, Indiana and Kansas before being among the first white settlers of Oklahoma City. They appeared in Smith’s First Directory of Oklahoma Territory of August 1, 1890. He eventually had restaurants in Oklahoma City, Okmulgee and Dustin.
Jacob and Louisa had seven children. In 1890 Jacob (age 65), Louisa (53) and their three youngest children, Joseph, Samuel and Mary Mae, lived at the corner of Main and Hudson in Oklahoma City, just south of today’s downtown Metropolitan Library. Joseph and Samuel worked as clerks in their father’s restaurant and confectionery businesses on the south side of Main between Santa Fe and Broadway.
Dunham and his sons David, then 34, and Joseph, then 23, were in Oklahoma by May of 1889. The other family members arrived from Kansas three months later.
By 1895 Dunham moved his family on to Wellston, probably about the time Lincoln County was opened in the September 1895 land run. Louisa died in 1901 and is buried in the Wellston Cemetery. Mackey then moved with his children to Okmulgee, where he died on June 12, 1907. He is buried at Okmulgee.
The Dunham Grocery and Billiard Parlor in Okmulgee was located at 300 North Oklahoma Street. When it opened in 1916, it was the first brick building in the west section of town. They shipped pecans and animal pelts to St. Louis, and supplied goods to Okmulgee residents for several decades.
When Barack Obama’s direct family line moved on to Kansas, the rest of the Dunhams remained in Oklahoma.
- In 1890 their oldest son David Henry lived next door to his parents in Oklahoma City with his wife Phoebe (Kearney) and their four children. They eventually relocated to Okmulgee, where they are buried. At least 15 grandchildren and 33 great-grandchildren were born in Oklahoma.
- Jeptha Dunham lived in Wellston by 1902, where he owned a jewelry store and clock repair business on Main Street and a grocery store near Luther. He is buried near his mother in the Wellston Cemetery, and several of his ten children and their families remained in Oklahoma.
- Jacob William Dunham, the great-great grandfather of Obama, was the fourth of the seven Dunham children. In 1890 he ran a lunch counter near the post office in Oklahoma City, and lived on Main between Harvey and Hudson near his parents. He married Mary Ann Kearney on March 1 of that year in Oklahoma Territory. By the end of 1890, however, Jacob and Mary Ann had already moved on to Wichita, Kansas, where he became a pharmacist. Their seven children, including Obama’s great-grandfather, were born and raised there.
- Joseph and his wife Jennie Lula (Hill) Dunham lived in Oklahoma with their eight children and many of their descendants. They are buried in Okmulgee.
- Samuel Lemuel Dunham, a gifted natural musician, married Carrie Harmon in 1899 at Wellston. In 1907 they moved to Dustin, and in 1919 relocated to Tulsa. Their thirteen children were born between 1900 and 1923, and most live in Oklahoma. They are buried in Tulsa’s Clinton Oaks Cemetery.
- Jacob and Louisa’s youngest daughter, Mary Mae, married Arthur Lay. They and their five children lived and died in Tulsa.
David Lee Dunham, a grandson of Samuel Dunham, is a retired postal worker in Owasso who has been doing genealogy for 40 years.
“I can see Barack’s resemblance, kind of like the thin face, not too wide, fairly nice looking – a lot of Dunham’s have that,” he said.
THE McCURRYS
Harbin Wilburn McCurry had had enough with the terrorists of his day.
After the Civil War, bushwhackers burned his Missouri home, killed his first-born son and nearly blinded an infant daughter with burning coals. They packed up and, after a brief stay in Kansas, moved to present-day Pontotoc County after 1880.
Quantrill’s Raiders probably targeted the McCurrys because, as Missouri Baptists, they sided with Northern congregations in opposing slavery. 15-year-old Worth McCurry was killed because he recognized some of the family’s assailants.
The baby’s eye was burned so severely that as an adult she could never close it. Sophronia McCurry married and had two children, but died shortly after the second child was born.
Harbin McCurry was a blacksmith. He died in 1899 and is buried at the Center Cemetery between Ada and Stratford.
Elizabeth Edna Creekmore, an Illinois native, was raised near Springfield and married Harbin in Missouri in 1848. She lived in Ada with her son Edward, died in 1918, and is buried at Rosedale Cemetery in Ada. Also buried there are three of their eleven children and their families.
One son, Daniel Fletcher, married Annie Jones of Wynnewood in 1895. Their ten children were all born at Ada, where he was a farmer. His brother Nathaniel Albert was a contractor and builder; his three children were all born at Ada.
The second of their children was Thomas Creekmore McCurry, who, with his wife Margaret Belle Wright, became Barack Obama’s great-great grandparents. Born in 1850, he moved to Kansas before 1880, about the time his parents moved to Indian Territory. They had seven children, including Obama’s great-grandmother Leona McCurry.
Coincidentally, at least three of Thomas and Margaret’s sons later moved to Okmulgee County. John McCurry worked for 35 years with Oklahoma Natural Gas; he and his wife Blanche lived on Bald Hill, and are buried at the Odd Fellows Cemetery at Morris.
Thomas Wilburn McCurry, his wife Alpha and their seven children also lived at Morris. Jacob Monroe McCurry was 95 when she died at Morris. Another brother, Joseph Elmer, filled out his WWI draft registration card in Okmulgee. Had Leona moved back to Oklahoma as well, Senator Obama probably would be talking about his mother from Oklahoma instead of his mother from Kansas.
If all of Obama’s relatives in Oklahoma turn out to vote for him on November 4, there should be no problem carrying the state!
When Oklahoma City’s founders dined at Jacob Dunham’s restaurant at Main and Santa Fe in 1890, or ate at his son’s lunch counter near the post office, they had no reason to suspect the White House was in the family’s future.
Everyone today knows Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, that his father was from Africa and his mother from Kansas. But the next president has some pretty solid Oklahoma roots as well.
Four of his ancestors are buried in our state, and he has numerous cousins still living here. And Barack Obama’s mother came very close to being from Oklahoma instead of Kansas.
THE DUNHAMS
Sen. Obama’s mother was Ann Dunham. Her great-great grandparents were Jacob Mackey Dunham and his wife Louisa Eliza Stroup. Dunham was born in present-day West Virginia in 1824 and lived in Ohio, Indiana and Kansas before being among the first white settlers of Oklahoma City. They appeared in Smith’s First Directory of Oklahoma Territory of August 1, 1890. He eventually had restaurants in Oklahoma City, Okmulgee and Dustin.
Jacob and Louisa had seven children. In 1890 Jacob (age 65), Louisa (53) and their three youngest children, Joseph, Samuel and Mary Mae, lived at the corner of Main and Hudson in Oklahoma City, just south of today’s downtown Metropolitan Library. Joseph and Samuel worked as clerks in their father’s restaurant and confectionery businesses on the south side of Main between Santa Fe and Broadway.
Dunham and his sons David, then 34, and Joseph, then 23, were in Oklahoma by May of 1889. The other family members arrived from Kansas three months later.
By 1895 Dunham moved his family on to Wellston, probably about the time Lincoln County was opened in the September 1895 land run. Louisa died in 1901 and is buried in the Wellston Cemetery. Mackey then moved with his children to Okmulgee, where he died on June 12, 1907. He is buried at Okmulgee.
The Dunham Grocery and Billiard Parlor in Okmulgee was located at 300 North Oklahoma Street. When it opened in 1916, it was the first brick building in the west section of town. They shipped pecans and animal pelts to St. Louis, and supplied goods to Okmulgee residents for several decades.
When Barack Obama’s direct family line moved on to Kansas, the rest of the Dunhams remained in Oklahoma.
- In 1890 their oldest son David Henry lived next door to his parents in Oklahoma City with his wife Phoebe (Kearney) and their four children. They eventually relocated to Okmulgee, where they are buried. At least 15 grandchildren and 33 great-grandchildren were born in Oklahoma.
- Jeptha Dunham lived in Wellston by 1902, where he owned a jewelry store and clock repair business on Main Street and a grocery store near Luther. He is buried near his mother in the Wellston Cemetery, and several of his ten children and their families remained in Oklahoma.
- Jacob William Dunham, the great-great grandfather of Obama, was the fourth of the seven Dunham children. In 1890 he ran a lunch counter near the post office in Oklahoma City, and lived on Main between Harvey and Hudson near his parents. He married Mary Ann Kearney on March 1 of that year in Oklahoma Territory. By the end of 1890, however, Jacob and Mary Ann had already moved on to Wichita, Kansas, where he became a pharmacist. Their seven children, including Obama’s great-grandfather, were born and raised there.
- Joseph and his wife Jennie Lula (Hill) Dunham lived in Oklahoma with their eight children and many of their descendants. They are buried in Okmulgee.
- Samuel Lemuel Dunham, a gifted natural musician, married Carrie Harmon in 1899 at Wellston. In 1907 they moved to Dustin, and in 1919 relocated to Tulsa. Their thirteen children were born between 1900 and 1923, and most live in Oklahoma. They are buried in Tulsa’s Clinton Oaks Cemetery.
- Jacob and Louisa’s youngest daughter, Mary Mae, married Arthur Lay. They and their five children lived and died in Tulsa.
David Lee Dunham, a grandson of Samuel Dunham, is a retired postal worker in Owasso who has been doing genealogy for 40 years.
“I can see Barack’s resemblance, kind of like the thin face, not too wide, fairly nice looking – a lot of Dunham’s have that,” he said.
THE McCURRYS
Harbin Wilburn McCurry had had enough with the terrorists of his day.
After the Civil War, bushwhackers burned his Missouri home, killed his first-born son and nearly blinded an infant daughter with burning coals. They packed up and, after a brief stay in Kansas, moved to present-day Pontotoc County after 1880.
Quantrill’s Raiders probably targeted the McCurrys because, as Missouri Baptists, they sided with Northern congregations in opposing slavery. 15-year-old Worth McCurry was killed because he recognized some of the family’s assailants.
The baby’s eye was burned so severely that as an adult she could never close it. Sophronia McCurry married and had two children, but died shortly after the second child was born.
Harbin McCurry was a blacksmith. He died in 1899 and is buried at the Center Cemetery between Ada and Stratford.
Elizabeth Edna Creekmore, an Illinois native, was raised near Springfield and married Harbin in Missouri in 1848. She lived in Ada with her son Edward, died in 1918, and is buried at Rosedale Cemetery in Ada. Also buried there are three of their eleven children and their families.
One son, Daniel Fletcher, married Annie Jones of Wynnewood in 1895. Their ten children were all born at Ada, where he was a farmer. His brother Nathaniel Albert was a contractor and builder; his three children were all born at Ada.
The second of their children was Thomas Creekmore McCurry, who, with his wife Margaret Belle Wright, became Barack Obama’s great-great grandparents. Born in 1850, he moved to Kansas before 1880, about the time his parents moved to Indian Territory. They had seven children, including Obama’s great-grandmother Leona McCurry.
Coincidentally, at least three of Thomas and Margaret’s sons later moved to Okmulgee County. John McCurry worked for 35 years with Oklahoma Natural Gas; he and his wife Blanche lived on Bald Hill, and are buried at the Odd Fellows Cemetery at Morris.
Thomas Wilburn McCurry, his wife Alpha and their seven children also lived at Morris. Jacob Monroe McCurry was 95 when she died at Morris. Another brother, Joseph Elmer, filled out his WWI draft registration card in Okmulgee. Had Leona moved back to Oklahoma as well, Senator Obama probably would be talking about his mother from Oklahoma instead of his mother from Kansas.
If all of Obama’s relatives in Oklahoma turn out to vote for him on November 4, there should be no problem carrying the state!
Monday, July 26, 2010
Corporate Tax Cut Needed to Spur Growth
There’s a lot of frustration out there about the slow pace of economic recovery. Unemployment remains high, people are unemployed longer than ever before – and if there’s one thing we can’t afford, it’s for people to be out of work. The few available jobs pay lower wages than workers earned in the past. Too many families face foreclosures and empty cupboards. Even if government spends money training people, it won’t do much good if business are not hiring anyway.
Economists have remarked that recent recessions have been increasingly tough to shake off. Corporations that grew too large to fail – once honored as blue chip companies – have been bailed out with billions in tax dollars in order to survive.
Maybe it’s time we concede that capitalism in the United States is chronically ill. Conventional remedies, like lowering interest rates, aren’t solving the problem. I realize this may sound like progressive blasphemy, but maybe we need to drastically cut corporate income taxes for small businesses.
So far, little else has worked. The President’s economic stimulus program has kept the recession from being worse, but there’s been no economic rebound. Strangely, corporations are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, and banks are flush with money to lend at historically low interest rates. But businesses are skittish about spending money. They’re concerned there won’t be a demand for goods they would manufacture, because unemployment is so high and people are so strapped for cash. Businesses need a shot of confidence to open the taps and circulate more money.
Corporations spend a lot of money finding ways to avoid paying taxes. With lower tax rates, businesses would be less obsessed with tax write-offs and more motivated to manufacture and sell tangible products to make profits the old-fashioned way. They’d also be less likely to subsidize politicians to finagle new loopholes. Isn’t it better for 100 small businesses to have low taxes than to give one corporation with 100 employees a tax break? Isn’t the likelihood of job growth significantly better?
The IRS reported in 2007 that 4.9 million of the 5.9 million corporate income tax filers had assets under $500,000 – truly the “small businesses” that hire the most people and spark the economy most effectively. The 9,317 corporate filers with assets over $500 million each, however, generated over 84% of the corporate tax revenue that year.
So, if we eliminate the corporate income tax on over 5.8 million businesses with assets under $500 million, we’d lose about $7.5 billion in tax revenue. The result would be a remarkable signal to small businesses that good times are ahead. The remaining tax on huge corporations would also meet the Obama administration’s goal of discouraging businesses from becoming “too big to fail.” Gone, too, would be convoluted corporate tax breaks that favor debt over equity and corporations over individuals.
Some would argue this places an undue burden on individual taxpayers. But if the federal government is of, by and for the people, maybe the people ought to be the ones paying for the bulk of it. Maybe tax dollars would become all the more precious for lawmakers to spend. After all, an argument can be made that, if the sheep industry pays $100 million in taxes, they ought to get $100 million in subsidies for the sheep industry. Take that tax away, and so also goes their argument. Tax dollars paid by human taxpayers should benefit human taxpayers.
But the greatest benefit would be that companies would start hiring again. Our tax policies should encourage businesses to create jobs, with living wages. The average salary at Chesapeake is $71,000, and their workers seem pretty content. I suspect most people would rather have a good job and pay modest taxes than be unemployed with a low tax rate; their disposable income at the end of the day is what matters most.
Corporate profits paid as wages to workers and distributed as dividends to stockholders become personal income. As incomes go up, more taxes are paid, which will more than offset the $7.5 billion in lost corporate tax revenue and reduce the deficit. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals would provide even more tax revenues. As the deficit goes down, optimism improves, more people are hired, more money circulates, and we approach Nirvana.
Brighter minds can work out the details. But the old ways don’t seem to work anymore. If the economy doesn’t turn around, Osama bin Laden will have won his war against capitalism. If someone has a better idea, let’s hear it.
Economists have remarked that recent recessions have been increasingly tough to shake off. Corporations that grew too large to fail – once honored as blue chip companies – have been bailed out with billions in tax dollars in order to survive.
Maybe it’s time we concede that capitalism in the United States is chronically ill. Conventional remedies, like lowering interest rates, aren’t solving the problem. I realize this may sound like progressive blasphemy, but maybe we need to drastically cut corporate income taxes for small businesses.
So far, little else has worked. The President’s economic stimulus program has kept the recession from being worse, but there’s been no economic rebound. Strangely, corporations are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash, and banks are flush with money to lend at historically low interest rates. But businesses are skittish about spending money. They’re concerned there won’t be a demand for goods they would manufacture, because unemployment is so high and people are so strapped for cash. Businesses need a shot of confidence to open the taps and circulate more money.
Corporations spend a lot of money finding ways to avoid paying taxes. With lower tax rates, businesses would be less obsessed with tax write-offs and more motivated to manufacture and sell tangible products to make profits the old-fashioned way. They’d also be less likely to subsidize politicians to finagle new loopholes. Isn’t it better for 100 small businesses to have low taxes than to give one corporation with 100 employees a tax break? Isn’t the likelihood of job growth significantly better?
The IRS reported in 2007 that 4.9 million of the 5.9 million corporate income tax filers had assets under $500,000 – truly the “small businesses” that hire the most people and spark the economy most effectively. The 9,317 corporate filers with assets over $500 million each, however, generated over 84% of the corporate tax revenue that year.
So, if we eliminate the corporate income tax on over 5.8 million businesses with assets under $500 million, we’d lose about $7.5 billion in tax revenue. The result would be a remarkable signal to small businesses that good times are ahead. The remaining tax on huge corporations would also meet the Obama administration’s goal of discouraging businesses from becoming “too big to fail.” Gone, too, would be convoluted corporate tax breaks that favor debt over equity and corporations over individuals.
Some would argue this places an undue burden on individual taxpayers. But if the federal government is of, by and for the people, maybe the people ought to be the ones paying for the bulk of it. Maybe tax dollars would become all the more precious for lawmakers to spend. After all, an argument can be made that, if the sheep industry pays $100 million in taxes, they ought to get $100 million in subsidies for the sheep industry. Take that tax away, and so also goes their argument. Tax dollars paid by human taxpayers should benefit human taxpayers.
But the greatest benefit would be that companies would start hiring again. Our tax policies should encourage businesses to create jobs, with living wages. The average salary at Chesapeake is $71,000, and their workers seem pretty content. I suspect most people would rather have a good job and pay modest taxes than be unemployed with a low tax rate; their disposable income at the end of the day is what matters most.
Corporate profits paid as wages to workers and distributed as dividends to stockholders become personal income. As incomes go up, more taxes are paid, which will more than offset the $7.5 billion in lost corporate tax revenue and reduce the deficit. The expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy individuals would provide even more tax revenues. As the deficit goes down, optimism improves, more people are hired, more money circulates, and we approach Nirvana.
Brighter minds can work out the details. But the old ways don’t seem to work anymore. If the economy doesn’t turn around, Osama bin Laden will have won his war against capitalism. If someone has a better idea, let’s hear it.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Government Faces New Threat From Corporations
The recent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is on everyone’s minds these days. President Obama, under public pressure to take action against the oil and gas industry, recently announced he wants to trim tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. He may face new hurdles in doing so because of the new-found political powers of corporations.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
The industry is doing well today because public policy supports the exploration for new domestic energy sources. BP’s drilling in the Gulf was part of that effort. Now that they enjoy robust incentives, the industry probably won’t give them up willingly. Try taking a bone away from a bulldog. He’s not inclined to let you have it.
In January the Supreme Court overturned provisions of federal campaign finance law which limited corporations and unions from spending money directly in campaign advertising. Under the aegis of free speech, the decision “unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending” in political campaigns, as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent.
Corporations are creatures of statute; the Constitution doesn’t mention them at all. So how did corporations start getting treated on par with human beings?
In a quirk of American judicial history, in 1886 a court reporter slipped language into a Supreme Court decision headnote that implied corporations were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nobody caught it, and subsequent courts started citing the case as law.
Granted, the First Amendment broadly says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” But as Justice Stevens saw it, the Founding Fathers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
Federal election restrictions on corporations date back to 1907, when Congress banned all corporate contributions to candidates. The Senate Report on the legislation at that time observed that the “evils of the use of (corporate) money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure. It is in the interest of good government and calculated to promote purity in the selection of public officials.”
How could a corporate heavyweight influence a political campaign?
Take the case of Hugh Caperton and behemoth Massey Coal Company. Caperton, owner of another small coal company, sued Massey in West Virginia for fraud and breach of contract, and in 2002 won a $50 million judgment. (Yes, Massey is the same coal company where 29 miners died in an explosion two months ago.) In 2004, Massey’s CEO, Brent Benjamin, spent $3 million of his own money to help unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice. Massey then appealed the jury verdict and won 3-2, with the new justice voting in its favor. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the new justice should have recused himself from the Massey appeal.
Benjamin did nothing illegal; it was his personal cash. But now corporations like Massey will be able to spend their own money in similar efforts, effectively buying legislative seats to protect their interests.
To fix the Gulf oil leak, BP alone claims to have $5 billion in available cash, $5 billion in bank credit lines and an additional $5 billion in standby credit facilities. That’s a lot of firepower held by one of many oil companies, some of which could possibly be directed toward fall elections in the best interests of stockholders. The general public has neither the cohesiveness nor the cash to respond.
Justice Stevens conceded in his dissent that lengthy and expensive lawsuits like Caperton’s might catch some of the worst abuses. “This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering,” he added. And the effects may be irreparable, as we may learn on the Gulf coast.
What’s next? Justice Stevens wrote, “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”
But corporations won’t need to go there. They now have more subtle and more effective ways to protect their interests. Unless Congress acts first, corporations may target members of Congress who side with the President in efforts to trim back corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry.
The very people who cry for smaller government forget that a weak government cannot provide the safeguards we expect – from national security to the regulation of offshore oil drilling, subordinated debentures and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi schemes to name but a few. Everyone wants small government until they need a big strong government. By then, it’s too late.
In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Apparently, we have failed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
US Courts Best For Terrorists
Shortly after noon, a vehicle with a hundred pounds of dynamite and five hundred pounds of cast iron shrapnel explodes at the corner of Wall and Broad Street in downtown Manhattan. 39 people are killed, hundreds more injured, and the stock market closes in a panic.
A prediction of things to come? No, for this act of terrorism took place almost 90 years ago, on September 16, 1920.
Nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 1920 Wall Street bombing. A note in a mailbox a block away implicated anarchists. Comprised mostly of Italian immigrants, they were protesting poor labor conditions, capitalism, inflation and oppression by the federal government.
Their eloquent firebrand was one Luigi Galleani, who was deported to Italy in June of 1919 out of fear that he was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Wilson. An anarchist, after all, had assassinated President William McKinley in 1901.
Galleani’s disciples included Nicola Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti, who were indicted five days before the Wall Street bombing, on September 11, on shaky charges of armed robbery and murder. Their subsequent convictions and executions in 1928 sparked anti-American protests around the world.
In 1917 Congress adopted the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to speak or write against our involvement in World War I. After anarchist bombings escalated, Congress adopted amendments prohibiting “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” That was followed by the Anarchist Act in 1918, which made it legal to evict any non-citizen for mere membership in an anarchist organization or possession of anarchist literature for the purpose of dissemination. Immigration policies also shifted preferences away from southern Europe in favor of northern Europeans.
Anarchists reacted in 1919 by sending at least 38 package bombs to prominent judges and public officials who had supported or enforced the deportation laws. One target of two bombings was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who responded by rounding up over 10,000 immigrants in what became known as the Palmer Raids. Nearly 500 immigrants were eventually deported, and terrorism in the name of anarchy has gradually abated.
Today we would recoil at the manifest violations of free speech and due process. But all this took place in an era before Miranda warnings, court-appointed legal counsel, international human rights treaties and civil rights reforms. The American Civil Liberties Union, in fact, was founded during this time in an effort to protect the rights of those threatened with deportation. There were undoubtedly abuses when viewed through the tinted glasses of history; as at today’s Guantanamo prison, some might have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ancestry.
But it’s notable that the American judicial system was able to deal with the crisis without resorting to military tribunals. Although judges and prosecutors and juries faced intimidation and reprisal from foreign nationals, there was a consensus that civilian courts were the proper forum for criminal acts. While the United States had effectively “declared war” on anarchists, no state of war had been declared between the United States and Italy. There was also no indication the weak Italian government was encouraging the terrorist acts – in fact, Benito Mussolini’s rise to power in the 1920s was in part an effort to stifle anarchists in Italy.
Military tribunals are intended to try members of enemy forces during wartime. Even during the Civil War, in most cases military tribunals were not used where civilian courts were still functioning. Simply declaring war on terrorism, as we have declared war on drugs and war on poverty, isn’t enough to invoke their use in lieu of civilian courts on simple criminals, regardless of the gravity of their crimes.
Finally, military tribunals aren’t a guarantee of maximum punishment. Of the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, only 12 death sentences were issued.
Sacco and Vanzetti, fairly tried or not, were tried and convicted in a Massachusetts state court. The foreign nationals who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in federal court. The underwear bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, has been arraigned in federal court. Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a truck bomb in Times Square this month, and the courts there are fully competent to try him for doing so.
To imply that these constitutional courts are somehow incompetent or insufficient to try these individuals is an insult to one of the three pillars of our federal government – the very role model we urge other nations to embrace. To do anything less means the bad guys win – that our system of government isn’t worthy of respect. Let’s not lower our standards to their level.
A prediction of things to come? No, for this act of terrorism took place almost 90 years ago, on September 16, 1920.
Nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 1920 Wall Street bombing. A note in a mailbox a block away implicated anarchists. Comprised mostly of Italian immigrants, they were protesting poor labor conditions, capitalism, inflation and oppression by the federal government.
Their eloquent firebrand was one Luigi Galleani, who was deported to Italy in June of 1919 out of fear that he was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Wilson. An anarchist, after all, had assassinated President William McKinley in 1901.
Galleani’s disciples included Nicola Sacco and Bartolemeo Vanzetti, who were indicted five days before the Wall Street bombing, on September 11, on shaky charges of armed robbery and murder. Their subsequent convictions and executions in 1928 sparked anti-American protests around the world.
In 1917 Congress adopted the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to speak or write against our involvement in World War I. After anarchist bombings escalated, Congress adopted amendments prohibiting “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States.” That was followed by the Anarchist Act in 1918, which made it legal to evict any non-citizen for mere membership in an anarchist organization or possession of anarchist literature for the purpose of dissemination. Immigration policies also shifted preferences away from southern Europe in favor of northern Europeans.
Anarchists reacted in 1919 by sending at least 38 package bombs to prominent judges and public officials who had supported or enforced the deportation laws. One target of two bombings was Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who responded by rounding up over 10,000 immigrants in what became known as the Palmer Raids. Nearly 500 immigrants were eventually deported, and terrorism in the name of anarchy has gradually abated.
Today we would recoil at the manifest violations of free speech and due process. But all this took place in an era before Miranda warnings, court-appointed legal counsel, international human rights treaties and civil rights reforms. The American Civil Liberties Union, in fact, was founded during this time in an effort to protect the rights of those threatened with deportation. There were undoubtedly abuses when viewed through the tinted glasses of history; as at today’s Guantanamo prison, some might have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ancestry.
But it’s notable that the American judicial system was able to deal with the crisis without resorting to military tribunals. Although judges and prosecutors and juries faced intimidation and reprisal from foreign nationals, there was a consensus that civilian courts were the proper forum for criminal acts. While the United States had effectively “declared war” on anarchists, no state of war had been declared between the United States and Italy. There was also no indication the weak Italian government was encouraging the terrorist acts – in fact, Benito Mussolini’s rise to power in the 1920s was in part an effort to stifle anarchists in Italy.
Military tribunals are intended to try members of enemy forces during wartime. Even during the Civil War, in most cases military tribunals were not used where civilian courts were still functioning. Simply declaring war on terrorism, as we have declared war on drugs and war on poverty, isn’t enough to invoke their use in lieu of civilian courts on simple criminals, regardless of the gravity of their crimes.
Finally, military tribunals aren’t a guarantee of maximum punishment. Of the 177 Nazi officials tried by American military judges, only 12 death sentences were issued.
Sacco and Vanzetti, fairly tried or not, were tried and convicted in a Massachusetts state court. The foreign nationals who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were tried and convicted in federal court. The underwear bomber, who tried to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, has been arraigned in federal court. Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a truck bomb in Times Square this month, and the courts there are fully competent to try him for doing so.
To imply that these constitutional courts are somehow incompetent or insufficient to try these individuals is an insult to one of the three pillars of our federal government – the very role model we urge other nations to embrace. To do anything less means the bad guys win – that our system of government isn’t worthy of respect. Let’s not lower our standards to their level.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Health Care in Oklahoma: Change Starts At Home
During this summer’s debate on health care reform, there’s no place in the country where the stakes are as high as they are in Oklahoma.
In the 2008 Annual State of the State’s Health report issued by the Oklahoma Department of Health last month, Oklahoma continues to rank as one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to our quality of health. Our rates of deaths due to heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease and diabetes are through the roof. The report concludes we need to exercise more, eat more fruits and vegetables, and avoid smoking tobacco. The entire report, which makes for interesting reading, is available to download at no cost from the Health Department’s website.
Despite the headlines, governmental intervention is not the only way to achieve health care reform. We first have to check our lifestyles and attitudes on a personal basis. It’s less expensive to eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking than it is to pay for emergency rooms or insurance premiums, and that applies to us both individually and collectively.
One of the most important things we can do this summer is to support the Obama administration’s efforts to bring about change in health care in this country. It’s been tried before, but this time with a Democratic Congress and White House there’s real hope that substantial progress will be made. President Obama has brought together the major stakeholders, usually at odds with each other, to bring about a consensus for change, and he wants results in the next ninety days or so. The results may not be perfect, but they should help improve the quality of life and stem the swelling cost of health care in the United States. If we don’t deal with it now, it will only get worse tomorrow.
Everyone has a horror story about how the health care system hasn’t worked for them or someone they know. The administration’s starting point is to collect those stories. They are encouraging Americans to meet and discuss both the problems and potential solutions, and at the very least raise awareness in the community. From there, they can start to fashion solutions. If there’s enough demand for a solution, the political tide can reach critical mass and solutions can be found.
A well-attended public forum for that purpose was held June 6 at the OU Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. One of the keynote speakers was Edmond’s Wayne Rohde, who has championed the cause for insurance coverage for autism care in Oklahoma. Those who attended were invited to share their frustrations and suggestions with policymakers in Washington. The public can still submit their views through the website www.mybarackobama.com.
The next step is the National Health Care Day of Service on June 27. A free Health Fair is being sponsored by Change Oklahoma, Organizing for America and the Community Hope Improvement Project from 10 to noon in the south parking lot of the State Capitol. There will be free blood pressure checks, public health information, snacks and drinks, and a food drive for the Jesus House (please bring non-perishables and canned goods). There will also be plenty of people around to discuss health care issues and raise awareness about the need for change.
Change Oklahoma is also working with The Oklahoma Blood Institute (OBI) on a statewide Blood Drive on June 27. This is a perfect opportunity for almost all Oklahomans to participate; for some, it may be the first time they’ve donated blood. One of OBI’s bloodmobiles will be located at the Home Depot on Broadway in Edmond. Other events are taking place nationwide Saturday, and can also be located through www.mybarackobama.com.
Change Oklahoma is also beginning an initiative to encourage Oklahomans to be more physically active. The Health Department study ranks Oklahoma as the fifth most physically inactive state with almost 30 percent of our adult population reporting no exercise in the preceding thirty days. Physical activity has a role in reversing or preventing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other health problems. Some physical activity is good, but increased activity is even better. In other words, go around the block one more time on your morning walk. Park a little further from the store. Spend less time on the sofa or in front of the computer, and find a new hobby that will get you up and moving. That’s a project I’m going to adopt myself.
We all need to go the extra mile to become a little healthier. That may be the greatest and least expensive health care reform of all.
In the 2008 Annual State of the State’s Health report issued by the Oklahoma Department of Health last month, Oklahoma continues to rank as one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to our quality of health. Our rates of deaths due to heart disease, strokes, respiratory disease and diabetes are through the roof. The report concludes we need to exercise more, eat more fruits and vegetables, and avoid smoking tobacco. The entire report, which makes for interesting reading, is available to download at no cost from the Health Department’s website.
Despite the headlines, governmental intervention is not the only way to achieve health care reform. We first have to check our lifestyles and attitudes on a personal basis. It’s less expensive to eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking than it is to pay for emergency rooms or insurance premiums, and that applies to us both individually and collectively.
One of the most important things we can do this summer is to support the Obama administration’s efforts to bring about change in health care in this country. It’s been tried before, but this time with a Democratic Congress and White House there’s real hope that substantial progress will be made. President Obama has brought together the major stakeholders, usually at odds with each other, to bring about a consensus for change, and he wants results in the next ninety days or so. The results may not be perfect, but they should help improve the quality of life and stem the swelling cost of health care in the United States. If we don’t deal with it now, it will only get worse tomorrow.
Everyone has a horror story about how the health care system hasn’t worked for them or someone they know. The administration’s starting point is to collect those stories. They are encouraging Americans to meet and discuss both the problems and potential solutions, and at the very least raise awareness in the community. From there, they can start to fashion solutions. If there’s enough demand for a solution, the political tide can reach critical mass and solutions can be found.
A well-attended public forum for that purpose was held June 6 at the OU Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. One of the keynote speakers was Edmond’s Wayne Rohde, who has championed the cause for insurance coverage for autism care in Oklahoma. Those who attended were invited to share their frustrations and suggestions with policymakers in Washington. The public can still submit their views through the website www.mybarackobama.com.
The next step is the National Health Care Day of Service on June 27. A free Health Fair is being sponsored by Change Oklahoma, Organizing for America and the Community Hope Improvement Project from 10 to noon in the south parking lot of the State Capitol. There will be free blood pressure checks, public health information, snacks and drinks, and a food drive for the Jesus House (please bring non-perishables and canned goods). There will also be plenty of people around to discuss health care issues and raise awareness about the need for change.
Change Oklahoma is also working with The Oklahoma Blood Institute (OBI) on a statewide Blood Drive on June 27. This is a perfect opportunity for almost all Oklahomans to participate; for some, it may be the first time they’ve donated blood. One of OBI’s bloodmobiles will be located at the Home Depot on Broadway in Edmond. Other events are taking place nationwide Saturday, and can also be located through www.mybarackobama.com.
Change Oklahoma is also beginning an initiative to encourage Oklahomans to be more physically active. The Health Department study ranks Oklahoma as the fifth most physically inactive state with almost 30 percent of our adult population reporting no exercise in the preceding thirty days. Physical activity has a role in reversing or preventing diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other health problems. Some physical activity is good, but increased activity is even better. In other words, go around the block one more time on your morning walk. Park a little further from the store. Spend less time on the sofa or in front of the computer, and find a new hobby that will get you up and moving. That’s a project I’m going to adopt myself.
We all need to go the extra mile to become a little healthier. That may be the greatest and least expensive health care reform of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
