Depleted Uranium (DU) in Munitions 

Recently I have read Dr Helen Caldicott’s books, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer, War In Heaven, The New Nuclear Danger, and If You Love This Planet.  In her books she documents the fact that the United States military has used, and possibly continues to use, ammunition shells which have casings made using depleted uranium (DU).  Also documented in her books is the fact that many of the tanks and armored vehicles that the U.S. uses have reinforced armor using DU.  The DU makes it more difficult for enemy shells to penetrate the vehicles’ armor.

 Using DU in these ways leaves the battlefield contaminated with radioactive material for centuries to come.  This exposes the inhabitants of these regions of the world to great health risks for generations to come.  The DU in the armor of the military vehicles also exposes the occupants (our own military personnel) of said vehicles to radiation.  For more information on this I would recommend the reading of Dr Caldicott’s books.  You can find her on the web through a web search.

 I live within two miles of the Lake City Ammunition plant here in Independence, Missouri.  I have emailed my representatives in Washington inquiring if they know if DU is used in the processing or manufacturing of ammunition at this facility.  To this date I have not had a response to my inquiry.

If DU is utilized at this plant it may be a classified matter, I’m not sure.  However, if there are risks to the environment and the public, I would think that there would be a “right to know” in this case.

 I am concerned for the workers who may be required to handle the radioactive material.  Are they aware of the danger that they face?  Do they take the necessary precautions to protect themselves?  What are they told by their superiors?

 I am also concerned for the environment surrounding the plant.  Are soil, water and air samples taken at regular intervals?  What risks are residents, plants and wildlife being exposed to?  If there are environmental concerns, how far from the plant do they extend?  Are contaminates being carried by the Little Blue River or ground water to the Missouri River and, eventually, to the gulf?  As if the gulf doesn’t have enough to worry about already.

 If anyone has an knowledge of this matter, your reply would be most welcome.

  The Political Climate

 Over the past couple of years I have begun to watch more closely the political scene of our nation.  The catalyst for this has been the health care ills that our citizens face.  As a practicing pharmacist I am well aware of the injustices and inequities that our present health-care system imposes on so many.  As a minister, I also view this as a human rights and a social justice issue.  It’s too bad that health-care reform has had to become so politicized. While I am encouraged that Congress and the White House has been able to make some progress on reform, I am quite concerned that the fundamental causes of the disparity in health-care have not been adequately addressed.  Time will tell.

 As the health-care reform process has drawn me into the political scene, I have become more and more interested in additional areas in which our society lacks in its compassion and care of “the least of these” in our communities.  I have become more interested in issues of human rights in regard to immigration reform, rights of prisoners (foreign and domestic), and many others.

This journey has also brought me to investigate concerns in regard to our environment and humanity’s contribution to its destruction.  We continue to travel down the path to self destruction. Nuclear technologies, for energy or weapons, is dangerous.  We pollute the environment while mining, processing, using and disposing of nuclear material.  Yet we continue to swallow the propaganda of military-industrial complex.  For more on this read Dr Helen Caldicott’s books.

 As I watch the current political ads I am saddened.  I live in Missouri but have been watching the ads of the Kansas candidates.  They make statements that they would oppose “anything” that President Obama would support. And they speak proudly of this.  They are supported by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  There is not even a pretense for bipartisanship.

Will our nation every get away from the “party line” and seek the best for, not only our nation, but for the world.  I firmly believe that it we do what is best for the world, it will ultimately be the best for us as well.  We need to ”love our enemies” so that over time they are our friends.

 It is my opinion that we need to decrease our spending on nuclear technologies, our war machine, our wars and all that is geared to war.  We need to indeed, “beat our swords into plow-shears”.  If we could develop the courage and will to do this, we could fund all of our current social programs, end world hunger and provide every American with good quality health-care and still spend less that we currently do.  We need to break free from the propaganda that the special interest groups are feeding us and move into clean, renewable and sustainable energy technologies.  This would save our planet and create new jobs.

 Perhaps this is the “new world” that is spoken of in the scriptures.  When humanity embraces love rather than war, God’s will, “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” and His peaceable kingdom will at last be realized.

Justice vs Revenge 

It seems that not a day goes by that there is not an article, letter or news story about a conflict between individuals, groups of persons, or nations in the newspaper on on the airwaves.   On June 17, 2010 James Everett featured a letter, “Everett: Will the Utah execution be the last gunshot?”.   This article in in regard to the execution of Mr Gardner by firing squad in Arizona.   As I viewed the article on the Examiner’s web page I noted that there were comments by others critical of Mr Everett and the inference that he was more concerned about Mr Gardner than he was about those victimized by him.

 Here in the U.S. We have a justice system that, in many, if not most cases, tends to seek revenge rather than justice.   There is a huge differece.   True justice seeks to “make right” as much as possible the wrong done.   There is an attempt to bring in everyone involved with the conflict.   To restore what the victim lost.   To bring healing to those who were hurt.   There is also an attempt to involve the offender and to help him/her come to an understanding of what harm has been done.   There is much more than this to restorative justice.   More than can be explained in a short letter.

 The Unites States is far behind most of the rest of the civilized world in regard to this issue.  I would encourage anyone interested in learning more  to contact the Community Mediation Center at 1212 W Truman Road here in Independence, Missouri.   Their phone number is 816-822-4300.   There are also several good resources on restorative justice on line.   There are many good books that have been written on the subject.   One such author that I would recommend is Howard Zehr.   He has written Changing Lenses among several other good books.   It would be well worth anyone’s time to educate themselves on the topic of restorative justice.

Restorative Justice or Punitive Justice

An e-mail has been circulating for the past couple of years that contains a number of pictures of a prison.   A very nice prison.   At first look it could be a very nice hotel or office building.   As one progresses toward the end of the pictures it becomes more clear that it is a prison as the cells tend to give it away.   After the last picture there is a statement which says that, the then Senator Barack Obama, had been instrumental in the promotion of this prison in his home state of Illinois.   The author of the statement also says that he thought that prisons were for punishment and that to spend so much on such an elegant facility to house criminals was a waste of tax payer dollars.   It was an attempt at criticism against President Obama and his fiscal policies.

I was offended by the e-mail, not so much because of the negativism against President Obama, but because of the insinuation that convicted felons are less than human.   I have long felt that prisons were for the rehabilitation and a restorative process for those convicted of a crime, not only for simple punishment.   I later found out that the photos in the e-mail were actually of a prison in Australia, not in Illinois, USA.   The then Senator Obama had nothing to do with it at all.   The entire story was false.

 Still, I am concerned that the United States penal system, is based primarily on punishment rather than a restorative system that would result in a successful return of convicted felons to society.   Australia, and several other developed countries of the world, have come to understand that restorative justice is, in most cases, far superior to punitive justice.   When restorative justice is administered, the rights of all concerned are addressed.   The perpetrator is called upon to acknowledge the pain/harm/suffering/loss caused to the victim.   Sometimes he/she is allowed to face and apologize and to “make right” as much as possible the wrong.   The victim is allowed some voice in the dissolution of the case.   The concerns of the larger society are also addressed.   There is opportunity for reconciliation and healing.   The process is sometimes long and tedious.   However the benefits are great.   Recidivism is low and the offender is more easily and quickly returned to society as a contributing citizen.   The United States of American has more civilian prisoners per capital locked up than any other developed nation.   This is primarily due to the inefficiency of our judicial system in its ability to rehabilitate and restore human dignity.  We, the USA, has a predominately punitive justice system.

 There are many excellent resources regarding restorative justice.   Howard Zehr is a renowned author and expert in the field.   He has written a number of books which define and explain the concept of restorative justice.   One such book is Changing lenses.   Mr Zehr has studied the restorative justice systems of some of the developed nations of the world.   There are also other resources available.   You may contact the Mediation Center in Independence at 816-461-8255 for more information.   A search on the web will reveal many others.   I would encourage anyone interested in law and order and a civilized society to check out this concept of restorative justice.   It would be well worth your while.

 

Global Warming – Climate Change – Climate Crisis (GW.CC1.CC2)

 There has been much debate over the past several years about GW. Before getting into that, I believe that it would be a good idea to establish some definitions in regard to GW.CC1.CC2.   During times of extreme cold I frequently hear disparaging comments about GW.   They seem to think that GW means that the earth is experiencing an increase in temperatures in a uniform and global way.   Perhaps the problem stems from the term global warming. I can understand how it would be misleading.   I have heard some refer to the warming of the earth as CC1.   This term probably better describes what is happening to our planet than does GW.   It has been pretty well accepted that the average temperature of the earth has increased over the past few decades causing the increased melting of the polar caps.   The sea waters have increased in temperature which has affected the currents and weather patterns.   I recently heard a story on NPR about how the term CC2 may be a better term to describe this phenomenon.   He believes that unless we make changes soon in the amount of CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere, we may reach a tipping point from which there is no return.

 If we can at least agree that there is something happening to our planet perhaps we can begin a real discussion about its cause(s) and possible solutions.   The real debate would then be “does human activity have anything to do with the change (GW.CC1.CC2.)”?   Or is this a natural recurring cycle that the earth goes through over centuries and even millennium?

 I would like to suggest that even if this is a natural process through which the earth goes through, that the amount (regardless of how small) of CO2 that human activity contributes, could push the process enough to make all the difference.   If we were to reach such a tipping point, what then?   What would the price be that we would have to pay due to our inability or refusal to make the necessary changes?

 I know that change would require sacrifice.   Some would have to sacrifice more than others.   It would depend on how each earns their living how much one would have to sacrifice.   Others would benefit.  New opportunities for research and development would open up.   It would be an economic shift. That would be frightening to many.

 Another thought. If GW.CC1.CC2 is real and humanity can do anything to correct the process but we don’t, what have we lost or gained?  What is the greater risk?   If BW.CC1.CC2 is not real, and we make the changes to reduce CO2, what have we lost or gained?   Eventually we will need to find new sources of energy anyway as coal, natural gas and oil are limited resources.   We will each answer these questions differently depending on our personal bias and or preconceptions.   What we need is open and honest discussion on this important topic as the survival of our planet may depend on it.

Health Care Reform: Is Washington Listening?

President Obama has issued a statement inviting anyone who believes that they have suggestions or ideas that would benefit the efforts to bring about healthcare reform in real and meaningful ways to please let him or his staff know.   He has indicated that he and his staff are open to all ideas.

 Recently Margaret Flowers, M.D. (no relation to me as far as we can determine) was arrested for non-violent civil disobedience.  Dr Flowers represents a national organization of physicians comprising of over 17,000 members, Physicians for a National Health Plan (www.pnhp.org).  Dr Flowers was arrested as she and another colleague were attempting to make contact with President Obama.  The entire story can be found on the organization’s web site.

 It seems that there is great resistance in Washington against hearing this organization’s proposals.  There may be many reasons as to why this is the case. I would like to explore some of these reasons.  There have been accusations that Washington (includes all elected officials regardless of party affiliation) has too many ties with “Big Pharma”, the healthcare insurance industry, and other such special interest groups.  Another factor inhibiting the Obama administration from considering the proposals of PNHP may be the inability of some in his own party to accept such a plan.  Of course, there is also the ideology of the Republican party.  That is that the less government, the better.  Considering only these three factors (I’m sure that there are others), it may seem daunting to try to overcome such obstacles.

 However, even given these factors, the fact remains that President Obama has said that he would be open to any and all ideas.  From what I can learn from listening and reading about this story, their representatives have been constantly and routinely turned away from the discussion.  Most of America, including congress, has stated that they believe that healthcare reform is needed.  It is needed not only to serve those who are not well served now, but also to preserve our entire economy.  Much has been written about the how and why of all of this already.

 So why can’t PNHP get a seat at the discussion table in Washington?  I would invite you to go to their web site and read their proposals.  It all seems to clear to me, just as it seems so clear to the better that 17,000 physicians who support the plan.  If you agree with their ideas, please let your elected officials know.  Let them have a voice in the healthcare reform process, let their voices (all 17,000 of them) be heard.

 

Healthcare Reform : Now What?

Now that Scott Brown ® of Massachusetts has been elected to the senate, where does that leave the legislation for healthcare reform?   Some are saying that the fact that a Republican was elected is an indication (for the whole nation) that the voters don’t want any form of healthcare reform.   I am not so sure that is the case.   I believe that the majority of Americans realize that reform is necessary.   It’s just that they don’t like the legislation as it now stands.   To say that Americans are apposed to healthcare reform in any form is a stretch.

 I have been of the opinion that our nations’ healthcare has needed reform since Bill and Hilary Clinton attempted it.   I was very much encouraged when Barack Obama was elected.   I felt sure that healthcare reform would finally happen.

 As the legislative process unfolded I became more and more dissatisfied with the process.   While there is some debate as to how transparent or non-transparent the whole process has been, it has been far from a perfect process.   Their are aspects of both the house version and the senate version of the legislation that I like and that I don’t like.  In the final analysis however, neither version will be as transformative as it needs to be.   It is my belief that Medicare needs to be expanded so that all Americans will be provided their healthcare needs.   All the reasons and support for this opinion can be found in the articles that I have posted previously on this site.   I would also encourage anyone interested in really investigating this possibility to go to Physicians for a National Health Plan at www.pnhp.org    On their site they line out a detailed plan on how this could be implemented and how it would work.

 Most of the questionnaires that I have seen from the political parties, word the questions in such a way that it is obviously going to produce a biased result.   Therefore, I question many of the pole results that have been reported by the various forms of the media.

 I encourage you to learn all you can, on both sides of the issue, so that you can form your own opinion rather than simply repeating the sound bites and catch phrases that you hear on the airways.   We, the citizenry, need to step up and fulfill our democratic right and duty by sharing our views and perspectives with our elected officials.

 I believe that medical care it is a human right, not a privilege to be enjoyed only the those with the resources to purchase it.   Let’s all get involved and let Congress know how we feel.

 

Healthcare Reform: Fer vs Agin and Why

 There seems to be no end to the opinions that are being expressed in regard to healthcare reform. With that in mind, I will continue to throw in my two cents worth. Depending on your perspective, you may feel that is an inflated value or a value that is far too low.

 Initially, it seems that there were two sides to the debate in regard to reforming our nation’s healthcare system. Fer and agin. Those fer reform argued that reform was necessary in order for our overall economy to recover and gain strength. It was the compassionate thing to do as more and more families were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy due to their overwhelming medical expenses. Or because of the fact that healthcare costs have outpaced the rest of the economy for at least two decades and continue to do so. And on and on.

 Those agin reform have had their arguments too. It would be unconstitutional as the rights of the individual and the state would be trampled upon by the federal bureaucrats. The cost to the taxpayer would be too great. Why should one who is responsible and successful be forced to support those who are not so responsible. And on and on.

 Now that the house and the senate have passed some form of healthcare reform the lines of those fer and agin are beginning to blur. It seems that fewer and fewer are supporting the legislation that these two bodies of our legislative system have produced. It doesn’t seem to be that more people are opposed to healthcare reform, they just don’t like the legislation that is being developed. The polls, depending on how they are interpreted, seem to indicate that the majority of those polled are opposed to reform. I would say that, depending on how the questionnaire is worded, that the polls reflect a disappointment in the legislation that has been developed to this point.

 I have been following the healthcare reform issue since before the election. It is an issue that I am passionate about. Yet I find myself struggling with the legislation at this point. It, in my opinion, is too weak. It cow-tows too much to corporate America, especially the healthcare insurance industry. Being more aware of the legislative process than in the past, I see too clearly how both sides of the aisle wheel and deal in order to come up with the necessary votes to get just anything passed. I am not only disappointed in the healthcare legislation, but in the legislative process. This, I believe, is why there is less and less support for the provisions in the current legislation.

 So, am I now fer or agin healthcare reform? Of course, I am still fer it, but not so much in its current form. Will it improve once the congress convenes to merge the two bills? I am not holding my breath. I really feel that there is too much at stake as our legislators are so tied to corporate America. We pride ourselves as a nation on our democratic process of government. More and more it seems that corporate America influences our representatives so much more that their constituency. Our legislators depend so much on corporate dollars in order to be elected. They can not afford to lose those dollars by creating a reformed healthcare system that would cut off or even reduce that revenue.

 There are a couple of web sites that I would encourage anyone who is interested in any real healthcare reform. They are Physicians for a National Healthcare Program at www.pnhp.org and Mad As Hell Doctors at www.madashelldoctors.com These two organizations have the ideas and the plans that would help to create a new and better healthcare system for America, for all Americans. They address the cost issues, the access to care issues and so much more. I would encourage you to visit these sites. They have a link and/or a tab by which you can contact your representatives and let them know your views. I have made my contacts and I hope that you will too.

 As I have observed, listened, watched, and read all the arguments fer and agin reform I have come up with some ideas to consider. I have noticed that most, if not all, of those who oppose healthcare reform are in a position of being able to provide for themselves and their families. They have good insurance that they can afford or they have the financial strength to meet their medical needs or they are healthy and have no present medical needs. I don’t know of anyone who opposes healthcare reform that is struggling with medical expenses beyond their means, who is in danger of losing their home, or who is on the verge of bankruptcy due to their medical needs. Those who find themselves in such dire straits are usually not in a position to be able to voice their concerns. These are some of the most vulnerable of our society.

 As a nation and as a society we have become very proud of our individualism, our independence. Some of us who have our medical needs met don’t feel that we should be required to pay higher taxes to support those who are not so fortunate. This, I think, is another symptom of our me-me attitude. If everything is okay with me, then everyone else can be damned. It is a dog-eat-dog or the survival of the fittest mentality. For those who have little or no problem meeting their medical needs, there is no healthcare problem.

 What we forget is that those who have are already subsidizing, either directly or indirectly, those who don’t have. The costs of this are hidden and very difficult to uncover. But they are real. This type of system is also reactive rather than proactive. Costs could be kept lower if everyone had access to preventative care instead of waiting until becoming ill when the cost of care is greater.

 I hope that you will not sit quietly on the sideline on this issue. If you don’t voice your opinion, either fer or agin, then whatever we get will you will have to live with. This is an issue that will, sooner or later, affect each and every one of us. Even those who have the resources to meet their needs presently, of which I am one, could, at anytime, unexpectedly, find themselves in a very different place. Loss of job or if an employer decides to discontinue healthcare coverage, or an accident or unexpected illness…any one of these events could put almost any of us in the position of losing everything that we have worked so hard for. For those who don’t feel that they want to pay higher taxes for support the sick who do not have the resources to pay for their care, I would say to look at their increased taxes as a form of insurance. Insurance is designed to spread the risk among the populace so that no one or no small group is given too great a burden. People carry insurance, not because they think that they will need to use it, but to protect from greater loses in the event that something happens.

 So, are you fer or agin healthcare reform? Kind of depends on what the reform is, doesn’t it? Let’s work together to get the reform that we desperately need and want.

Listening to the news reports on the progress of the healthcare legislation currently being worked on in the senate, it is clear that there is not the political will or the public support to make the reforms that are really necessary.   There is a real chance that the “public option” will not make it into the final version of the bill.   In this letter I would like to express my views on what is really needed to make our healthcare system work more efficiently for the benefit of all, or at least the large majority of Americans.

 Before I begin I want to list the objections that those opposing any or most of healthcare reform are presenting.   These objections are, socialism vs capitalism, loss of choice, loss control over own healthcare options, loss of benefits for some (seniors, those currently insured, military veterans, etc), the unconstitutionality of the legislation, and the cost of the program and the increased taxes as a result of the costs.   Some (including Charles Krauthammer) have said that all we need is to address individual issues such as tort reform, insurance regulatory issues, and other minor issues, individually rather than adopting legislation so wide sweeping.   Mr Krauthammer has stated that we could solve our problems with about 20 pages rather than the 2000 pages now being discussed. I want to address these objections.

 Socialism vs capitalism:   We currently live under a republic system of government which has several services which could be considered socialistic. These are medicare, medicaid, VA Medical System, fire and police protection, a military, and you can probably think of others as well.   Why are we so afraid of the word socialism?   I believe it is because we think of the old Soviet Russia and it’s form of communistic socialism.   That would not be the type of system that we would or should adopt.   We need a democratic socialistic type of healthcare system.   This would be a system in which we, the American people, would have a voice in the decisions that are made in government, just as we do now through our duly elected officials.

 Loss of choice and control of own healthcare options:   It is claimed that we would lose our right to choose between various options in regard to our healthcare services.   In reality, for most of us with healthcare insurance, we have already lost many of those choices.   It is he who holds the purse-strings who makes the choices.   The healthcare insurance industry currently holds those purse-strings and, in most cases, makes many of our choices for us.   If we chose to pay out of pocket for our healthcare needs then we certainly can make whatever choices we want, otherwise the healthcare insurance industry makes those choices for us.  I prefer to have government make those choices rather than the insurance industry as we can have more of an impact on our government that we can on the insurance industry.

 In regard to being forced to carry insurance I would like to share these thoughts.   Perhaps one should have the right to opt out of any healthcare insurance plan.   Most rational people, I believe, would think it foolish to chose to assume the financial risk of going without healthcare insurance. However, if they were to make such a choice perhaps they should also be required to sign a form stating that they chose to pay out of pocket for any medical needs that they may incur and that they have adequate resources to do so.   This would release the requirement of any healthcare provider from offering services in the event their needs exceeded their ability to pay.   It would also release society from the burden of subsidizing their care.   I don’t find this very appealing.   Most healthcare professionals would still feel morally obligated to offer medical services.

 I believe in the right of the individual.  However, we must remember that the choices that we make, more often than not, have a positive or a negative affect on others.   In America we have become very proud of our individualism and the rights of the individual.   I like to call it the “John Wayne ideology”.  It could also be thought of as the “don’t mess with Texas’ or “don’t mess with me” syndrome.   While individual rights are important (I don’t want to diminish this concept in anyway), it must be tempered with the concept that “no man (or woman or child) is an island”.   We are all interdependent on one another…we are community.

 Loss of benefits for some:   The largest concern in this area is for seniors in regard to medicare and specifically with the Advantage supplement.   As the senate struggles with this legislation the details continue to change and evolve.   As I will be 65 in just a few years, this is a concern for me personally.   However, it is my belief that everyone from the cradle to the grave should have the same access to the healthcare services that they need. There should be no preference or discrimination based on age, gender, or any other factor that may differentiate us from one another.

 The constitutionality of the legislation:   Not being a constitutional student, it is difficult for me to comment in any detail on this issue.   I would think that since most of our representatives are lawyers that there should be some understanding on this issue as they discuss the legislation.   If there is anything contained in the legislation that is unconstitutional, I’m sure that it will be tested in the courts when the legislation is put into law.

 The costs of a national healthcare program and any increased taxes that result:   This is a big issue for those on both sides of the debate.   To begin with, it is difficult to determine the true costs of our current healthcare system.   There are so many Americans who are being subsidized in a variety of ways now, that many of the costs are hidden and very difficult to uncover.   Americans are paying more for their healthcare and receiving less than many of the other developed nations of the world.   Much of this is due to the healthcare insurance industry.   So many of our healthcare dollars are going for huge salaries and compensation packages for CEO’s, profits, and share holders that could be going to providing the healthcare needs of the American people.   It is my opinion that if all the dollars going for insurance premiums, medicare, medicaid, VA Medical, and hidden costs of subsidizing those without insurance, went toward a national healthcare program we would have enough or nearly enough to fund the program.   At any rate, if there is no change, the costs of our nations’ healthcare will continue to outpace the rest of our economy into the foreseeable future and eventually will become to much of a burden for our overall economy to sustain.   With healthcare reform eventually, if not immediately, perhaps more dollars will be necessary.   If so, we can call the needed dollars taxes or we can call them healthcare premiums.   It really won’t matter, it will cost us either way.

 Mr Krauthammer’s opinions:   He and others who oppose healthcare reform have stated that we can do more with less legislation.   I don’t believe that he is right.   I perceive these proposals to be simply a patchwork approach to reform.   These ideas will not resolve the healthcare insurance industry’s conflict of interest problems.   Just as I don’t believe that the legislation being worked on goes  far enough.  And I don’t believe that the ideas that Mr Krauthammer presents would either.   In fact, his ideas would not go as far.   Why does anyone believe that we can reform a system that comprises one-sixth of our total GNP with 20 pages of legislation?   That seems unrealistic to me.

Now back to my original thought that the legislation currently being considered does not go far enough.   I believe that this nation needs a single payor government healthcare system.   If you want to call it socialized medicine, that’s okay with me.   This system would need to include tort reform as some who oppose reform are saying.   It needs to be a system that provides healthcare for every American as much as possible.   I think every American who is able should pay into it (you can call it taxes or you can call it premiums…it’s all the same).   There could be subsidies for those who fall below a certain income level.   We should take the funds that employers currently pay in the way of premiums for their employees, the premiums that employees currently pay, the medicare and medicaid taxes that are currently being paid and all the other dollars currently going into the healthcare system and make them a part of a new national healthcare system.

While the current legislation being considered does not go far enough, it is probably the best that we can do at the present time.   It is my hope that the political will and the public support for a more comprehensive government healthcare system can one day be realized.

 We are the wealthiest nation in the world.   We spend more on “defense” than any other nation.   Our defense budget is far larger than any other portion of our national budget.   What are our priorities?   Are we really a nation of peace? Let us re-evaluate our priorities.   It is my hope and prayer that we can become a people of peace and compassion and that we can develop a national will to provide for the healthcare needs of all of its people.

Healthcare Reform: Necessary for All

This past week I received a packet in the mail.   It contained the information necessary in order for me to choose the benefits that I need, want and/or can afford for the coming year, 2010.   Just as in the past several years, the healthcare premiums are higher, and the benefits are different.   It is difficult to assess if the benefits are better or worse, just different.   Time and need will determine if they are better or worse.   This is not a government sponsored healthcare program that I am talking about.   This is a private company who offers its employees a healthcare benefit package.   We have come to expect such as this for we realize that healthcare costs have risen exponentially for two decades or more.

In The Examiner, the local newspaper for Independence and Blue Springs, Missouri, there was a letter to the editor entitled “Medicare Advantage hikes paying for health ‘reform’” submitted by Bob Baltzell of Independence, Missouri.   In this letter Mr Baltzell list all the ways in which the Medicare Advantage plan will be changing for the year 2010.   It does not paint a very pretty picture.   Mr Baltzell contributes these changes as follows: “These cost increases are the result of the various congressional bills that all propose to cut the funding for Medicare, specifically the Advantage plans, to finance these bills.”

Since there is no healthcare reform bill that has yet been enacted into law, I fail to see how any of these proposals would result in any changes for 2010.   In fact, no healthcare bill, should it be made into law, will go into effect until 2012 at the very earliest.

It is my contention and opinion that the reasons for these changes in Medicare, specifically the Advantage plans, are for the same reasons that the private insurance plans are offering less for higher premiums.   The rise in healthcare costs have the same detrimental effect on the public healthcare sector as it does on the private healthcare sector.   Medicare is being challenged in two ways.   There are more and more individuals becoming eligible for Medicare and healthcare costs are rising exponentially.   Yet we expect our benefits to remain as they are or get better.   At least in the private sector there is only one challenge, higher healthcare costs.   In the private sector the insurance industry can continue to cut out high risk clients in a number of ways.   Many of those ways have been highlighted in various blogs, articles and announcements.

The need for healthcare reform is obvious to me.   I wish that I could more effectively express what I see as a healthcare system soon to be in ruin.   How long before the healthcare system comprises one-fifth, one-fourth, one-third, etc of our nations total GNP?   Healthcare reform is not only a good thing, it is vital to preserve not only our healthcare system, but our overall economy.   It is necessary to save Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA healthcare system as well as the private system.

As I see it, it is either healthcare reform or we are at risk for a healthcare system failure which will make the recent financial market system failure look like a small bump in the road.   A healthcare system failure will have a huge negative effect on the entire economy.   These issues are not independent of one another.   They are interconnected and interdependent.   Healthcare reform is imperative.   We must move forward with great care in order to get it right.   We must preserve Medicare and the other government healthcare systems and we must insure as many legal Americans as possible.   It is my hope that we can come together in spite of our differences and share our concerns in a way that is non-confrontational.   May each one have their voice heard so that the best possible legislation can be made into law which will benefit all of us in the long run.