Search Archives:

Custom Search
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Thursday, May 09, 2013

A Child-Killer Twice as Deadly as Cancer

Teen with pistol
Mediaite's Tommy Christopher believes he's seeing an epidemic of child-related shootings in recent days. He identifies twelve accidental shootings by children -- nine involving toddlers -- in the month of April. And the string of tragedies continues, with news of a three year-old boy shooting and killing himself in Florida with his uncle's 9mm. Although the gun was left carelessly in a backpack, the state had deemed Jeffrey Walker a "responsible gun owner" and granted him a concealed carry permit. The uncle's gun, no doubt carried out of concern for safety, did absolutely nothing to protect his loved ones against a child's curiosity. This Officially Responsible Gun Owner was arrested and charged with culpable negligence for exposing a minor to a firearm -- a felony.

Christopher's list of incidents is horrifying, including a ten-month-old infant shot in the face by a three year-old and a "four year-old who shot and killed his aunt in a room full of adults, including a sheriff’s deputy who was also a school resource officer."

Christopher includes in his report a "disturbing statistic" from a story about a six year-old shot in the chest by her brother:

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, one-third of all households with children younger than 18 have a gun, and more than 40 percent of gun-owning households with children store their guns unlocked.

The fund also reported that 22 percent of children with gun-owning parents handled guns in their homes without their parents’ knowledge.

Which begs the question: is this a sudden epidemic child-related gun violence or is this just the bloody background noise to American life -- a constant string of tragedies that have become so normal here that we don't give it any more thought than car accidents?

Friday, April 05, 2013

The Holy Threats and Sacred Lies of the Anti-Choice Movement

Pro-choice woman
The "pro-life" side of the abortion argument always claims the moral upper hand. Mostly Christian, they cite their religion as the sole measure of their moral and ethical beliefs and wave the Bible around as proof of their righteousness. But, as is so often the case with fanatics, they don't actually follow their religion, so much as twist it and pervert it in order to force it to follow them. Their moral upper hand never stays up for long before it comes to slap the crap out of benighted unbeliever. These people are Bible-thumpers, sure. But when they thump that Bible of theirs, it's generally over someone's head.
Raw Story:

The life of a Latina assemblywoman in Nevada has been threatened after she used a story about her own personal abortion experience at age 16 to make a point about the importance of sex education.

“I’m going to say something I’ve never said publicly before, because — Why not? I’ve been open about everything else?” Democratic Assemblywoman Lucy Flores reportedly told the state Assembly Education Committee on Monday. “I had six other sisters, all of them became pregnant in their teens — all of them. One was 14 years old when she got pregnant with twins. That is what I had to learn from.”

“I had an abortion because I didn’t have access to birth control, or even an understanding of what that meant,” she explained. “I didn’t even understand that my worth did not come from men, or sex with men, trying to fill up a hole in me from so much pain.”

 So yeah. Followers of the "Prince of Peace." If these people are so pro-life, then why doesn't the fact that Flores is getting death threats surprise anyone?

Flores was testifying as to the stunning (and entirely predictable) failure of her state's abstinence-only education policy. Her personal story is a story that's been repeated over and over in Nevada and other states, where the educational system has failed kids by leaving them almost entirely ignorant about reproductive health. She wants to reduce teen pregnancy -- and with it, rates of abortion -- through honest education and access to birth control. For the most part, she's actually on the pro-lifer's side. They merely disagree about the method.

And for that, the heretic must die.

Monday, March 25, 2013

In the Gun Debate, Suicides Count

Gun suicide chart
It always happens with gun stats; no sooner are new numbers out than gun nuts immediately dismiss the bulk of them as suicides. Gun violence is gun violence, so logically it should make no difference. Yet, for people looking for a way to poke holes in arguments for saner gun regulations, suicide by firearm is some sort of special class of gun violence.

A great example of this is a post by the hopelessly dishonest John Hinderacker, written earlier this month. "New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides" argues that once you rule out suicides, rates of gun violence is actually higher in states with fewer guns. It's actually a statistical tie, but math is no impediment to the seasoned, professional liar. The problem here should be obvious; you could just as easily argue that gun ownership does nothing to prevent crime. As pro-gun arguments go, Hinderacker's sucks.

But the main point is that you have to rule out suicides as real gun violence. "Most people -- most liberals, certainly -- would say that a person has a right to commit suicide if he is determined to do so," he writes. "If guns are the suicide weapon of choice, and it is easy to see why they are for most people, why should the state try to make its citizens use other, more difficult or painful means? On the other hand, some people undoubtedly do commit suicide on impulse who, if they had not had access to a gun or other effective means, may have gone on to live a happy or at least normal life. This is an argument for keeping guns away from those who are suicidally depressed, locking them up in your home, and so on. But those mental health issues are very different from the scare headlines on the basis of which activists... are trying to sell unconstitutional gun measures to the voters."

So conservatives are for assisted suicide now -- so long as the assistant is the gun industry.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Putting Bigotry Before Healthy Families

Same-sex relationships make for good families. It's science.

Huffington Post:

With the Supreme Court poised to hear arguments on same-sex marriage next week, a top pediatricians' group has issued a statement supporting marriage equality for all consenting couples, as well as full adoption and foster-care rights for parents regardless of sexual orientation.

"There is a lot of research to back up this policy," said Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and one of the lead authors. "If a child has two parents that are dedicated and willing to provide a permanent, secure family, why would we not support that family? It's clearly in the best interest of children."

This is not the first time the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, has publicly addressed same-sex parenting. In 2002, the organization, which represents more than 60,000 pediatricians, issued a policy statement supporting second-parent adoption by partners of the same sex -- a stance it reaffirmed in 2010. In 2006, the group also published an article exploring the legal, financial and "psychosocial" ramifications of civil marriage. It concluded that more than 25 years of research have found no link between parents' sexual orientation, and their children's emotional well being.

Marriage confers many benefits that a more informal relationship does not. There are insurance issues, legal issues, issues at school, issues about emergency medical decisions, etc. Legally speaking, an unmarried parent is an only parent, with any support from a same-sex partner being limited by law. While single parents are more than capable of raising healthy families, laws barring marriage equality ban parents who want them from these extra benefits and privileges from access to them. as a result, children suffer.

Friday, March 08, 2013

Can Gun Laws and Gun Ownership Coexist? Yes, and I Can Prove It

Vintage photo of hunters in Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin is a gun-owning state. All you need to do to prove that to yourself is show up around November. The woods are crawling with guys in orange snowsuits and hats, in search of whitetail deer. Or ask about wild turkeys when you stop in a roadside tavern. It's like asking about the Packers -- everyone's an expert. It's not at all unusual for people to be extremely familiar and comfortable around firearms and stories about hunting trips are part of many family get-togethers. In fact, we're number twelve in the top twenty gun-owning states. In the latest available figures from 2007, our percentage of gun owners was 44.4%. That means we beat out rootin'-tootin' shootin' Texas -- by a country mile. The Lone Star state's percentage of gun ownership was a measly 35.9%. We also beat out other southern states -- i.e., those supposedly immersed in "gun culture" -- such as Georgia (40%), North Carolina (41.3%), South Carolina (42.3%), Arizona (31.1%), and Florida (24.5%). Don't talk to us about your "gun culture" -- we've got a culture. You've got a hobby.

Now take a look at this map from a study on state gun deaths. In 2010 we were one of the states with the fewest gun deaths per capita. How can this be? Simple. All it takes is common sense gun laws.

Reuters:

States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University found.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

There's a Reason it's Called Reproductive Freedom

"Pro-life" my ass:

The Irish Times:

Savita HalappanavarTwo investigations are under way into the death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month.

Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Friday, January 07, 2011

Conservatives are Politically Correct Robots

Over the years, conservatism has undergone a sort of metamorphosis. And it's a strange metamorphosis because, in true conservative fashion, it involves changing back into something it once was. Where it was once about conformity and "right-thinking," it briefly became about independent thought and the potential of the individual. Ronald Reagan appealed to what was called the "self-actualized person"; a sort of existentialist self-help idea popular at the time that held that your responsibility is to define yourself and concentrate on your own potential, rather than that of the group. In Reagan's world, society was holding you back, you needed freedom to pursue your own ideas, and the state was both that society holding you back and a check on freedom. Take that or leave it for what it was, but the core of Reaganism was a focus on individualism.

Now, here's conservatism today:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Top of the GOPs
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire Blog</a>The Daily Show on Facebook


Let's not concentrate on what an obvious fool Michael Steele is. Let's concentrate on how many "individuals" we see here. I'm counting zero. Grover Norquist's questions have the flavor of a pop quiz. He's not interested in any ideas they may have, he's interested in a litmus test, which Republican Party voters can then use to check a candidate for the RNC chair against a scale of ideological purity. For example, they're asked to make a case for "the defense of marriage between one man and one woman." The idea that there would be a dissenter who believes in marriage equality is unthinkable and obviously disallowed. Conservatives are back to mindless conformity and "right-thinking."

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Repeal and Replace -- Maybe... We'll See...

On the 12th, Republicans will begin to fail to repeal healthcare reform. The GOP campaigned on the deficit, the deficit, the deficit, but the first order of business for the new House GOP Majority will be an attempt to kill a deficit reducing bill. It's not jobs, it's not the economy, it's increasing the deficit. Want proof that Republicans aren't serious about anything other than winning elections? There you go.

The GOP has been talking a lot about a "repeal and replace" strategy, but so far, they haven't come up with any "replace" -- there is no bill other than the repeal bill. This is a bit of a problem, since many of the provisions of healthcare reform have already kicked in. This means that these provisions die. You've paid for them, but they'd go away. It's just a grandstanding, time-wasting stunt with no hope of ever being signed into law. To give you an idea of just what empty PR theater this is, consider the talking point title of the bill: "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" [pdf]. I guess "Kill the Commie Obamacare Act" didn't occur to Eric Cantor.

Still think this is a serious effort? Think again.

Palm Beach Post:

Conservatives have acknowledged that with a Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama in office, their hopes of a successful repeal are limited. But the "repeal" bill is meant to energize their base, attract Tea Party conservatives who abhor the notion of mandatory health insurance, and launch the start of a slow campaign to kill health reform through 1,000 cuts -- primarily by obstructing the spending appropriations needed to implement it.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Because Conservatives Always Need Something to be Terrified of, 'Death Panels' are Back

Grim reaperAmerican conservatives are a national embarrassment. Frightened, gullible, and angry over things that aren't actually happening, they take up the most insane positions merely to be contrary (see Sarah Palin's pro-childhood obesity stance). And, in reaction to healthcare reform, they've given themselves plenty of phantoms to be afraid of. PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for 2010 is the claim that healthcare reform marks a "government takeover of healthcare." Last year, the big winner was Sarah Palin's "death panel" lie. If you need to become terrified of something that doesn't actually exist, go find a conservative. They can help you out, because they're the experts at this stuff.

And they never seem to notice that their gloom and doom predictions always fail to pan out. During the Clinton administration, for example, the right was freaking out over what they claimed was the largest tax increase in history. It would destroy the economy and put millions out of work, as gazillionaires would conclude that it was too expensive to be rich and quit the money-making business. Not surprisingly, the wealthy didn't stop thinking it was worth the effort it takes to be wealthy and what followed was the longest economic expansion in American history. In short, Republican fearmongering was shown to be just about as wrong as it possibly could be. But they didn't seem to notice this -- "tax increases equal economic doom" is still a god-given truth for them, despite the fact that it was proven untrue before their very eyes.

To put it bluntly, conservatives are delusional. They don't live in the same world of facts and history as the rest of us, but rather in a fantasy world where everything they wish was true is true. And the things they wish for betray a seriously demented frame of mind. Why do they wish every Muslim was a terrorist? Why do they want the President to be foreign-born, sparking a constitutional crisis? Why do they wish with all their crazy little hearts that healthcare reform means dystopian "death panels" weeding out the sick and infirm? Why do they want these awful things to be true?

Friday, December 17, 2010

A Study in Rightwing Media Misinformation -- The FDA and Avastin

AvastinIf you've ever wondered how the right got crazy, then join the club. Personally, I think it happened after Clinton was elected. For some reason, this unleashed a fury in conservatives, who seemed to believe that the White House in a post-Reagan world belonged to Republicans. They were entitled to a president from their own party and a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office became an affront to liberty and freedom and blah, blah, blah. Never mind that Clinton brought with him an unparalleled period of prosperity and growth. Never mind that Clinton balanced the budget. Never mind that he was meeting Republican goals, he was a Democrat and that automatically made him incompetent. With Clinton administration rose what Hillary Clinton rightly called a "vast rightwing conspiracy" -- a campaign of misinformation and outright lies that began with Rush Limbaugh and would eventually be described as the "rightwing noise machine." What began as talk radio blather grew into a massive, self-feeding echo chamber that exists primarily to agree with itself and attack anyone outside a certain group of politically correct ideologues.

Case in point; a University of Maryland study that found viewers of Fox News to be the most poorly informed of all cable news viewers. Worse, the study found that the more you watched Fox, the less informed you became. In other words, watching Fox News makes you dumb and watching more Fox News makes you dumber.

But Fox News isn't the worst offender. Here's Fox on the FDA's revoking of approval of the drug Avastin for treatment of breast cancer:

Dr. Cynara Coomer, Chief of Breast Surgery and Director of the Comprehensive Breast Center at Staten Island University Hospital, told FoxNews.com that doctors should ultimately base their decisions on statistics.

"Avastin has been given to patients to decrease the chance of metastases, but they are not really finding that there is that much of a significant difference," Coomer said.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Righteous Lies

stem cells being extracted from embryoYesterday, I wrote that the influence of the religious right on the Republican party seems to be on the decline. So much so that a top Republican could get away with calling funding for embryonic stem cell research a mere distraction -- not a horror show, not a second Holocaust, but just something not very interesting and not as important as the economy. What was once the "destruction of human life" was now something to yawn over. Let's get on with this economy thing, let's not screw around with stuff no one cares about.

But, of course, people do care about this stuff. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research believe it may lead to treatments for spinal injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes. etc. "...I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers. Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide," said former first lady Nancy Reagan in a written statement. "We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases -- and soon. As I’ve said before, time is short, and life is precious."

But others weren't half as thrilled. I wrote the the religious right was less influential, not that it's gone. And looking at the insane reactions from leading figures and organizations in the movement, we get an idea why they're on the outs -- they're mostly a pack of lying lunatics.

This is the thing about religious fanatics -- they believe they're literally working for God and anyone who opposes them is working, either consciously or unconsciously, for the devil. Why would you feel the need to fight fair against Satan? No matter what you do, your cause remains as just as a cause can possibly be and this frees you up to lie, to cheat, to do whatever it takes to win the fight of the moment. So statements from the religious right tend to be characterized by hyperbole, paranoia, and outright lies.





The Raw Story piece on Reagan goes on to tell us:

House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner said Obama had undermined "protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us."

Tony Perkins, president of the anti-abortion Family Research Council, called Obama's announcement "a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life."


There's your hyperbole. But you've got to go to the source to get to the lies.

One-time GOP presidential candidate and leading voice of the religious right, Gary Bauer:

It's tragic that Barack Obama is willing to take tax money from struggling Americans and give it to scientists working on repeatedly failed embryonic stem cell projects...especially as adult stem cell research is yielding real, life-saving results. Most people do not understand that there is no restriction against fetal stem cell research, just a restriction against spending tax dollars to destroy human embryos for a body of work that has resulted in cancers and abnormal cells time and time again. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, has provided real hope to many patients. In 2008, the National Institutes of Health spent nearly one billion dollars on stem cell research, most of it going to adult stem cell research because of the real hope it offered.


How much of that is true? Pretty much none of it. The National Institutes of Health spent money on adult stem cell research in 2008, not because of "the real hope it offered," but because the Institutes are federally-funded under the Department of Health and Human Services. They couldn't study embryonic stem cells.

And are adult stem cells better? People who know about this stuff say no. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to become any type of cell, adult stem cells do not. "...research involving human pluripotent stem cells...promises new treatments and possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns and spinal cord injuries," the National Institutes of Health reported in 2002. "The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards."

But, as I've already pointed out, the religious right think they're fighting the devil. So, if they need to lie to you to "save" you, they'll lie to you -- from their perspective, it's entirely ethical.

"Obama's policy of forcing tax payers to fund lethal human experimentation is morally, unethical and fiscally irresponsible," writes Operation Rescue President Troy Newman in a statement. "Destructive, human, embryonic stem cell research has produced no therapies that have benefitted people, and has only produced horrific side effects in preliminary test subjects. It would be more beneficial to the country to pour that money down a rat hole, than to fund such ghoulish experiments."

That's not the only lie they tell. "Some claim that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded each year and should be used for research," says Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. "This is absolutely false. Most of the 400,000 embryos in fertility clinics are wanted by their parents and are awaiting implantation and the welcoming arms of their families. The claim betrays an attitude that these embryos are government property and can be confiscated and used for experiments. It's an example of the hype and manipulation advocates of embryonic stem cell research have used to pursue their politics."

There has to be a stronger term for BS. Embryos are created for in vitro fertilization. More than one embryo is created per pregnancy.

Mother Jones:

Aanis Elspas is a mother of four. Unlike most parents, she had three of her children simultaneously. The nine-year-old triplets were born in 1997 after Elspas underwent a series of in vitro fertilization treatments for infertility. Her oldest child, 10, is the happy result of a prior ivf treatment round. Elspas worked hard to get her children, and is grateful to have them. But four, thanks very much, are plenty. The problem is that Elspas also has 14 embryos left over from the treatment that produced her 10-year-old. The embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen at a California frozen storage facility -- she is not entirely sure where -- while Elspas and her husband ponder what to do with them.


So we're supposed to believe these embryos are "wanted by their parents and are awaiting implantation and the welcoming arms of their families?" We're really supposed to believe that the average patient is looking to raise 18 kids? I'm not sure which offends me more; that Wright would tell such a blatant lie or that she'd expect the average American to believe it. How stupid does she think we are?

Actually, right after asking, the answer came to me -- Wendy Wright believes we're so stupid that we'd fall for the devil's tricks. When we get right down to it, no lie is too far for the God Warrior. Whatever the religious right does or says is automatically blessed by Republican Jesus as a legitimate tactic in the battle for America's soul.

Of course, all it really does it make them seem insane. And, in their religious fanaticism, they'd keep cures and treatments from patients who need them -- holy suffering is the price we pay for not breaking the witch doctor's taboos. That this isn't an especially convincing argument says everything you need to know about why the religious right is losing ground.

-Wisco

Monday, March 09, 2009

The Rise of the Godless Heathens

Bible draped in US flag
It's a big day for science and medicine. President Obama has removed the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush had banned the funding, kissing up to those who believe every fertilized ovum deserves a Social Security card. The Bush ban was -- not surprisingly -- based on a poorly thought out argument; that we shouldn't be destroying life to save life. But, even if you believed that a mindless collection of frozen cells constitutes "life," Bush's ban did absolutely nothing to save any of them. The embryos were created for in vitro fertilization and unused embryos are just discarded. All Bush managed to do was to keep those embryos from being used in research, not from being destroyed. Bush's ban didn't "save" a single embryo.

During a signing ceremony reversing Bush's executive order, Obama also signed a pledge to "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision making." Clearly, this is the first step toward an anti-human dystopia ruled by the cold hand of science.

When the controversy over stem cell research began, Republicans quickly took the position of the religious right. Embryonic stem cell research was the worst thing ever, the wanton destruction of human life by medical science gone mad. Some still believe this. "If an embryo is a life, and I believe strongly that it is life, then no government has the right to sanction their destruction for research purposes," wrote Sen. Sam Brownback in a statement.





But other Republicans are taking a different angle to criticize Obama. Speaking to CNN's John King this weekend, House minority whip Eric Cantor said, "Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done."

That's right, what was once tantamount to widespread, state-sanctioned murder is now a distraction, Never mind that the time it takes away from "job No. 1" is roughly equal to the time Cantor took away from the same job to go on a CNN talking head show. This isn't some lengthy legislative process; Obama signs the order and it's all over with. This is really stretching the definition of "distraction."

I commented on this at the time. Allow me to quote myself.

[H]ow powerless has the evangelical right become that a top Republican can basically say, "Stem cell research? Pffft! Who cares about that?" It wasn't that long ago that Republicans were saying that the research was pretty much equal to a second Holocaust. Apparently, the Republican party no longer feels the need to kiss up to the religious right.


And Cantor isn't some pro-choice Republican. His pro-life voting record is as perfect as it's possible to be, earning a 0% rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive rights Action League and -- at the other end of the spectrum -- 100% from the National Right to Life Committee. But, at this moment in time, federally funding the destruction of embryos is just a "distraction."

In fact, if you think about it, you would've expected a GOP power vacuum to be filled by a religious leader with a flock of millions of guaranteed Republican voters. But that hasn't happened with this vacuum. That empty space has been filled by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh talks the religious nutjob talk, but you get the idea that it's peripheral to him. He's a money Republican, the stereotypical fatcat -- complete with a big cigar and a mansion. The only reason he doesn't wear a top hat and spats is because it hasn't occurred to him. Rush Limbaugh tries to portray the image of the moneyed interests, the corporate boardroom, the wealthy bigwig. He's like the rapper who displays as much of his wealth as he can -- he's not just selling the entertainment, he's selling a lifestyle.

The power vacuum was filled by Limbaugh, not some religious figure, because the religious right is in disarray. And a new study shows that they're steadily losing their "culture war" against the forces of secularism.

Associated Press:

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

[...]

"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.


The largest bloc of what is usually called the "religious right" have traditionally been Baptists, yet there are now barely more Baptists in the US than there are those who claim no religion -- 15.8% of respondents said they were Baptist. "No religion" also outnumbered Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Eastern Religions combined.

There is a steadily growing bloc of voters out there for whom all the God talk doesn't do a damned thing. As this group grows, the percentage of the nutjobs shrinks. And -- up until now -- it was the nutjobs that the GOP relied on most.

With "the base" steadily eroding, the Republican party is scrambling to find some footing. But they don't seem to have any idea who these people are. They oppose everything Obama and the Democrats propose and they do it in the hope that one of these issues will resonate with some new set of nutjobs -- this "Obama's a socialist" message clearly isn't getting the job done and the God talk doesn't work anymore.

Cantor can declare embryonic stem cell research a "distraction" all he wants, but it's a distraction that's already come and gone. He's going to have to find another one to complain about.

And don't bet against them finding something new to complain about. They're going to complain about everything in the hope that one of those complaints will get a big round of applause.

But they know that complaint isn't going to be religion-based. Those days seem to be over.

-Wisco

Friday, February 06, 2009

'The Only Solution Given is Pills'

Prozac capletsThe Army has a bit of a problem. Despite efforts to curb suicide among troops, Army suicides continue to rise. "One week after the U.S. Army announced record suicide rates among its soldiers last year, the service is worried about a spike in possible suicides in the new year," CNN reported yesterday. "The Army said it already has confirmed seven suicides, with 17 additional cases pending that it believes investigators will confirm as suicides for January.

"If those prove true, more soldiers will have killed themselves than died in combat last month. According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January."

In fact, the Army has seen a rise in suicide every year for the past four years. To combat the problem, the service has created a "battle-buddy" program, which is basically the buddy system for suicide, but this has turned out to be as ineffective as you might have thought it would be.

In 2005, in testimony to a House Appropriations subcommittee, the Army’s surgeon general placed the blame squarely on the troops. "That’s still part of our culture: Real men don’t see [mental health counselors]…" said Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley. "I would like to see a culture that resets the force mentally." Macho, tough guy culture was killing troops, but it seems a pretty safe assumption that this culture had been with the Army longer than its suicide problem. I don't remember the Army having a previous reputation as being a place for sharing and emotional support. Clearly, this "real men" culture -- which, of course, includes real women -- may be aggravating the problem, but it couldn't possibly be the cause.

For their part, the Army seems at a loss to explain the real cause of the suicides. "This is terrifying," Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard told CNN. "We do not know what is going on." She speculated that maybe it was winter blahs.

"There is more hopelessness and helplessness because everything is so dreary and cold," she said.

"But Platoni said she sees the multiple deployments, stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers," CNN reported.

Now we're getting someplace.





"Unfortunately, I don't find [the rise in suicides] very surprising," John Soltz, an Iraq war vet and founder of VoteVets.org, told MSNBC's Tamron Hall. He said that, of the some 160,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, "twenty thousand of them are medicated on different things like Prozac and Zoloft."

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD, Soltz said, wasn't considered seriously enough and, if a soldier does complain of mental or emotional stress, Army doctors will "just give you a pill and send you back to combat."

In a June TIME magazine piece titled "America's Medicated Army" journalist Mark Thompson spoke to a service member about his experience in Iraq. "You don't always know who the bad guys are. When you search someone's house, you have it built up in your mind that these guys are terrorists, but when you go in, there's little bitty tiny shoes and toys on the floor -- things like that started affecting me a lot more than I thought they would," said Sergeant Christopher LeJeune. "It's not easy for soldiers to admit the problems that they're having over there for a variety of reasons. If they do admit it, then the only solution given is pills." LeJeune says he was given the antidepressant Zoloft and the antianxiety drug clonazepam.

Looking at the warnings, this seems like an insane combination. Zoloft warnings include, "You may have thoughts about suicide when you first start taking an antidepressant, especially if you are younger than 24 years old." Meanwhile, clonazepam users are warned, "People who have underlying depression should be closely monitored while taking clonazepam, especially if they are at risk for attempting suicide."

In May of 2006, the Hartford Courant did an investigation of the military's drug prescription practices and found "a growing number of mentally troubled service members who are being kept in combat and treated with potent psychotropic medications -- a little-examined practice driven in part by a need to maintain troop strength."

Among the paper's findings:

-Antidepressant medications with potentially serious side effects are being dispensed with little or no monitoring and sometimes minimal counseling, despite FDA warnings that the drugs can increase suicidal thoughts.

-Military doctors treating combat stress symptoms are sending some soldiers back to the front lines after rest and a three-day regimen of drugs -- even though experts say the drugs typically take two to six weeks to begin working.

-The emphasis on maintaining troop numbers has led some military doctors to misjudge the severity of mental health symptoms.


If John Soltz's numbers are correct, these conditions are true for 12.5% of troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the Army isn't tracking this at all. The TIME article tells us, "At a Pentagon that keeps statistics on just about everything, there is no central clearinghouse for this kind of data, and the Army hasn't consistently asked about prescription-drug use, which makes it difficult to track." In fact, TIME tells us:

Military families wonder about the [Army's reliance on prescription drugs], according to Joyce Raezer of the private National Military Family Association. "Boy, it's really nice to have these drugs," she recalls a military doctor saying, "so we can keep people deployed." And professionals have their doubts. "Are we trying to bandage up what is essentially an insufficient fighting force?" asks Dr. Frank Ochberg, a veteran psychiatrist and founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.


Given everything we know about the use of psychotropic drugs to medicate soldiers, it seems amazing that few would make the connection with the rising suicide rates. But admitting the connection would've meant an admission of failure by the Bush administration -- something they just didn't do. The military was "completely overextended by the Bush administration," said Soltz, adding that he hoped the Obama administration would do a better job of addressing these issues.

That hope should be shared by most of us, since it seems pretty clear that we're killing our own troops in an attempt to keep them in the field.

-Wisco

Monday, December 01, 2008

A Return to Reality in Fighting HIV/AIDS

Back in 2006, I wrote a post I called "A Delusion-Based Global AIDS Policy." Since it was way back in the days before we had any hope of reason in the White House, the news on the global fight against HIV/AIDS wasn't all that good. The Bush administration, not wanting to contradict its domestic education policy, created a global AIDS strategy based on the same non-reasoning. That non-reasoning worked like this; since HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmittable disease, then the only way to fight it is to fight human nature -- which the religious right believes is basically evil -- and promote abstinence above all other measures. The only way for the world to fight this contagion would be for everyone in the world to adopt a tiny fraction of global population's world-view -- that of the Evangelical right -- and become "good people" the only way they believed it was possible to be a good person. In other words, by acting like a right wing evangelical. Or, least, like right wing evangelicals pretend to behave.

Of course, this works about as well as you'd expect it to work. The most pious wingnuts have failed at it in very humiliating and public ways. These people made their livings pretending human nature is a matter of choice -- imagine how hard it must be for an amateur. The results were as predictable as they were tragic.

Bloggers Unite


The Bush administration, trying to mend fences after the globally unpopular invasion of Iraq, unveiled a new strategy to fight HIV/AIDS. Called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), Bush promised a worldwide approach to fighting the disease. What it consisted of at heart was mostly spending a lot more money in foreign aid. But this was the Bush administration -- that money would now come with strings. Countries had to drop whatever policies they'd been pursuing in the fight and adopt the policies of right wing American nutjobs. Condom use, which had been front and center in most nations' AIDS policies, was forced to take a backseat to abstinence. Condoms only encourage sex, they argued, which was the root of the problem. Let's do a quick head count; how many people reading this need to be encouraged to have sex?

Yeah, you see the problem.

In Uganda, AIDS had been on the decline. The success of the Ugandan program had been attributed to a policy they called "ABC" -- "Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms." For the religious whackjobs who had their own ideas about how to fight an STD, this was completely unacceptable. They didn't care that it was extremely successful, mostly because they saw it as extremely immoral. By putting as much emphasis on condom use as abstinence, the Ugandan government was -- *gasp* -- encouraging people to have sex. Worse, they were working with the international aid group CARE, who saw that prostitution was a big part of the problem. CARE did the completely immoral by providing health care and condoms to prostitutes. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum freaked out, said CARE was "anti-American" and carrying out a "pro-prostitution agenda." In order for Uganda to continue to get funding for its program, they'd have to drop CARE in favor of "Christian" relief organizations. No more free health care and condoms for prostitutes. Because they're bad people and shouldn't be rewarded, much less encouraged.

At the same time, ABC came to mean "Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms when necessary." Condom use was discouraged and was finally dropped under a new program called AB. AIDS cases did decline and the Bush administration took credit for it. But the reason for the decline had less to do with this new, more "moral" approach than it did with nature taking its course.

Washington Post, 2005:

Abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much-heralded decline of AIDS rates in the most closely studied region of Uganda, two researchers told a gathering of AIDS scientists [in Boston].

It is the deaths of previously infected people, not dramatic change in human behavior, that is the main engine behind the ebbing of the overall rate, or prevalence, of AIDS in southern Uganda over the last decade, they reported.


"Abstinence and monogamy are very good behaviors," said Maria J. Wawer, a physician at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "On the other hand, the data support that in this setting, the behavior that seems to have been the easiest to increase over time is condom use." Exactly what the Bush administration had dropped.

PEPFAR, hampered by it's stupid, short-sighted, and ideology-based reasoning, was a $15 billion failure. A failure with tragic human consequence. Luckily, it's a consequence that's easily addressed by a new president more interested in reality than religion-based wishful thinking.

David Rosen, Counterpunch:

President-elect Obama should move quickly to adopt Congress’ revision of the Bush administration’s PEPFAR programs (for President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief)...

PEPFAR, the centerpiece effort for U.S. "soft" foreign diplomacy, suffers the same failures as other Bush-administration programs that deal with cultural values, including abortion and teen sex education. It is intended to improve the care, treatment and prevention of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in developing countries. While limitedly successful, for anything is better then nothing, it could never achieve its true potential because of its ideological blinders. Put simply, its prevention efforts are inhibited by its restrictions on condoms.


Remember, Uganda wasn't the entire scope of the program, it's just the most studied example. Every nation that has received US funding to fight HIV/AIDS has the same restrictions on the spending of those funds.

That's about to change. Barack Obama has promised to put condom use front and center in a new focus on fighting AIDS.

For once, the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a train.

-Wisco

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Pro-Lifers Discover Reality

The right has been stringing their voters along for decades with the wedge issue of abortion. Few Republican candidates get their campaigns off the ground without taking a position as close to the right pole of the issue as they can get away with. Even John McCain, who didn't seem comfortable with the issue, described himself as "proudly pro-life" and expressed a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. In the final presidential debate, McCain treated the question of a woman's health as an excuse to get an abortion. "That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health,'" McCain said, making air quotes with his fingers.

But the thing is, Republican candidates have talked a good game on abortion. While Bush claimed to want to foster a "culture of life" in America, he got right to work creating a culture of death. We absolutely needed go to war and kill people and, if you wanted to stop killing people, it would be an insult to those who had died. If we quit after it became clear the Iraq war was pointless, Bush argued, the dead would have "died in vain." Not only did we have to spread death and misery around the world, but we then had to worship that portion of the dead who were American. The glorious culture of life was only mentioned when throwing a bone to the anti-abortion folks, mostly through actions that wouldn't reduce the number of abortions performed in any way -- a ban on funding embryonic stem cell research, for example. The ban didn't stop a single fetus from being aborted. Not one.





Of course, it was never designed to. It was designed to create another wedge issue between the anti-abortion types and the rest of us, just in time for the 2004 election. Bush had "discovered" one more way that the secular forces of science had come up with to kill babies. In the end, Bush accomplished nothing but getting re-elected. Stem cell research was set back, no abortions were avoided, and the war over abortion was fresh as a daisy and basically unchanged -- just the way the Republican party likes it.

It's been sort of an ongoing theme of mine that the GOP uses the pro-lifers as pigeons. They use abortion to get people to vote for them, then don't do much to address it. Republicans are pro-life activists on the campaign trail and pro-corporate politicians in office -- it's all about abortion on the stump and all about capital gains tax cuts and deregulation once in office.

It's also been my long-standing argument that sooner or later these voters are going to wise up. You can only pull the same trick over and over so many times before people stop falling for it. But these are mostly people of faith -- with "faith" meaning "unquestioning belief despite evidence to the contrary" -- so it takes a while for them to catch on. In this case, about four decades. Remember, many of these people are still fighting over the 150 year-old theory of evolution. This process of enlightenment takes a while.

But, in the case of abortion, it seems to be taking about forty years. The Washington Post's Jacqueline L. Salmon reports that some of these pro-lifers are changing their tactics to match reality.

Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.

Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies.


Actually working to reduce abortions. What a novel concept. Well, it would be a novel concept if the pro-choice movement hadn't beat them to it. Making abortion illegal would never have eliminated abortion; the way to do that is to make it unnecessary. As Bill Clinton once put it, the goal should be to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare."

"Abortions did become rarer during Clinton's time in office, dropping by 11 percent," columnist E.J. Dionne wrote last week. "But since Clinton made no major public moves on abortion reduction, many pro-lifers who had been inclined his way felt he ignored the third word in his motto." If they had watched the numbers, rather than anti-abortion propaganda, they'd have had reason to celebrate Bill Clinton's accomplishment. Instead, they considered him the devil. And some see this new approach as equally evil.

"It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned," said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League, told Salmon. "We don't think it's really genuine. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions." Others see a reasoned approach to abortion as problematic as well.

The Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput says that these new efforts to reduce abortions "undermined the progress pro-lifers have made and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue." Excuse me, but what progress? Roe v. Wade has practically become a founding document and most Americans want it to remain that way. A July Quinnipiac poll asked respondents "In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?" 63% agreed, 33% disagreed. There hasn't been any progress for the anti-abortion types.

I suppose the lesson here is that some people will wise up after being played for chumps for decades. They'll abandon a total ban and work with reality.

Others won't and will continue to devote their lives to a fight the Republican party has no interest in letting them win.

-Wisco

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

The Philosophy of Scrooge

George W. Bush as ScroogeIt's the day after Christmas and a lot of us are in the same situation. We've eaten way too much and we're wearing new clothes. I sit here in a new flannel shirt, looking like a lazy lumberjack.

Another thing many of us have in common is that we watched some version of A Christmas Carol in the near past. And, watching this, the same thought crossed many of our minds -- what the hell is wrong with Tiny Tim?

Is it polio, explaining the crutch? Is it TB, explaining his weakness? Dickens never really gets around to saying. Tiny Tim is just really, really sick with some undefined wasting disease.

Dickens' Britain was a lot like Mexico -- there was no middle class. You were either very rich or very poor. There were almost zero social programs and those that existed only existed to punish the poor for their poverty -- debtors' prisons and work houses. Health insurance, as far as I know, didn't exist. You could either afford health care or you couldn't. And most couldn't. There was child labor and children who's parents couldn't afford to feed them were put into orphanages (an idea that Newt Gingrich once suggested we bring back). There were no labor laws, no worker safety protections, and no environmental protections. There was very little regulation and social and economic darwinism ruled. There was no public education.

In short, Dickensian England was the modern conservative's wet dream. It just goes to prove something I've said more than once -- when a conservative talks about change, it means they want to change things back. It's never about progress, it's about undoing progress. Conservatives are defined by what they oppose, not what they stand for. This is because opposing things is pretty much all they stand for.

And, of course, Ebenezer Scrooge was a symbol of this system. The philosophy of the times was the philosophy of Scrooge. The poor chose their poverty, the sick were at fault for being unprepared, and the uneducated chose to remain ignorant. The lower classes were lower for a reason. They weren't people, they were resources, like cattle. And their problems were their own.

Whenever I watch A Christmas Carol, I'm struck by how similar Scrooge is to the people hyping their "War on Christmas." It's ironic that if Bill O'Reilly met Bob Crachet and Tiny Tim, he'd probably tell them the same sort of things the unreformed Scrooge would. Their problems are their problems, not his. Why should he care? Bob and Tim should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Which brings us to President Bush's comments about health care in Virginia last tuesday:

Part of the problem in health care is that there is no consumerism -- I shouldn't say "no consumerism," obviously there is some consumerism. But when a third party pays your bill, you tend not to worry about price. If somebody else pays your bill, you're not really an active consumer. And therefore the question is -- part of the issue with price is, how do you encourage consumerism? And here's one way: Change the tax code. The tax code now says if you work for corporate America -- big company -- you get a tax benefit. But if you're a small business owner or you're out on your own, you have to buy health care with after-tax dollars.


In other words, Bush's "ownership society" mean your problems are your own. Bush proposes a $15,000 tax deduction for families and $7,500 for individuals. With most Americans having trouble putting money aside, this is supposed to go to health savings accounts. Like that's going to happen. Give someone with a boatload of debt $15,000 and it's going to go toward paying bills.

Then, when you or someone in your family does get sick, you don't have the money to pay for it. This will be your fault. Like his Dickensian counterparts, Bush will argue that your health care problems are your fault for being unprepared. This plan washes its hands of you before you even get into trouble.

And you're supposed to shop around. Having a heart attack? Hey, check out all the pricing at the hospitals before you go to the ER. If you get screwed because you were in a hurry, that's your fault. You're supposed to risk death in order to find the best deal.

Besides, let's take a look at how concern about cost affects health care:

L.A. Daily News:

A protest is planned for today at the offices of CIGNA, as a teenage girl's parents call on the insurance company to pay for a liver transplant for their daughter.

Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, of Northridge is in the intensive care unit at UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, and her mother says she has been in a vegetative state for three weeks.

Nataline will die without the transplant, said her mother, Hilda Sarkisyan.


You know how this turned out -- Nataline died.

She'd been admitted with leukemia and got a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a lung condition as a complication related to her transplant. Her liver was failing and doctors recommended a liver transplant.

The course of treatment was refused by her insurer. CIGNA decided that this was "experimental services." This is where cost comes into the equation and this is why Bush's proposal is insane. Insurers don't cover "experimental services" because there's no guarantee they'll work. If you spend the money on a patient and the patient dies, you've just thrown your money out the window. Bush is saying this would make you a "bad consumer." He's asking you to think this way about yourself or your family. "Is it worth the cost?" you're supposed to ask. And some of those asking that are expected to say, "No." That'll keep health care costs down for all of us.

There's a term for someone who won't spend every last dime they have and go into debt to save their child's life -- a psychopath. Is that the philosophy of America or the philosophy of Scrooge? Your problems are your own, which means you have no one to turn to. Welcome to the "ownership society." If you're screwed, you stay screwed, because you own the problem that's screwing you.

"Business?" Marley's ghost asked Scrooge. "Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business!" That's the kind of thinking that's discouraged in the modern conservative movement. Mankind is most definitely not their business. Their business ends at their fingertips. Their business is themselves.

Those who posture as the most Christian, the most righteous among us, are those who embrace the philosophy of Scrooge. If there was a war on Christmas this year, they were the ones fighting it.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; Today's s scream about a , while embracing the philosophy of

Thursday, November 15, 2007

When is an Epidemic not an Epidemic?

The TimesOnline gets right to the lead:

More American military veterans have been committing suicide than US soldiers have been dying in Iraq, it was claimed yesterday.


What TimesOnline is relaying is a CBS News story on what's finally being labeled a "suicide epidemic" among veterans. While the rate for all vets is higher than the rest of the population, one group stood out.

...Veterans aged 20 through 24, those who have served during the war on terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age. (The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000.)

"Wow! Those are devastating," said Paul Sullivan, a former VA analyst who is now an advocate for veterans rights from the group Veterans For Common Sense.


Contrast that with the comment by Dr. Ira Katz, mental health head at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Katz told CBS, "There is no epidemic in suicide in the VA, but suicide is a major problem."

Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Paul Rieckhoff has written about the problem of suicides among vets for some time. In August, he wrote for Military.com, "Our troops are facing serious mental health problems, and they aren't getting the treatment they need. At least one-in-three Iraq veterans and one-in-nine Afghanistan veterans will face a mental health issue like depression, anxiety, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. About 25 percent of those who committed suicide had 'a history of at least one psychiatric disorder.'"

The VA is notorious for ignoring problems that are a result of war. Between 1962 and 1971, troops in Vietnam were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange. When these vets started developing health problems, the VA and the government ignored them. They were "crazy Vietnam vets." Never mind that Agent Orange contained a form of dioxin -- the most toxic compound on Earth -- it wasn't until the 1980s that the VA started taking vets exposed to it seriously. Most think they're still not doing enough.

When veterans of the first Gulf war started reporting their own problems, the phenomenon was given a name -- Gulf War Syndrome. These vets were told that their disease didn't exist, despite being exposed to depleted uranium (in civilian life known as "nuclear waste") on an almost daily basis.

So it's not extremely surprising to find the VA dragging its feet and denying that an epidemic of suicides represents a suicide epidemic. Like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome before it, the military's suicide problem is a problem that will eventually just go away. That's the advantage of being an institution -- you can always win the waiting game. The Veterans' Administration will still be around long after all these vets are gone. That's one way to "solve" these sort of problems. If you ignore them, they literally go away. You just have to outlive the veterans.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, sent the following statement to CBS, in response to their story:

The report that the rate of suicide among veterans is double that of the general population is deeply troubling and simply unacceptable. I am especially concerned that so many young veterans appear to be taking their own lives. For too many veterans, returning home from battle does not bring an end to conflict. There is no question that action is needed.


The question isn't whether action is needed -- that it is is pretty much unquestionable. The question is whether action will happen. Given the VA's history with these sort of issues, I'm pretty confident in saying that nothing will happen without a swift kick in someone's ass.

But the real question is what is the occupation of Iraq worth? It doesn't really serve any purpose at this point -- other than making sure some future president "loses the war" after Bush is gone. This problem will continue long into our future and, the longer we do this, the larger the problem becomes. Is "winning the war" for the sake of winning a war worth it? Because that's the only thing this war is about anymore -- and that's being a cockeyed optimist about it.

The Congress is playing games with Bush again, passing legislation in the House to impose a timetable on the war. Bush will veto it -- if it gets that far. The Senate isn't expected to pass it. Clearly, the only way to end this war is to defund it. Screwing around with legislation that's not going to go anywhere is pointless.

Meanwhile, the war goes on -- pointlessly and stupidly and in no one's interest other than Bush's. Meanwhile, 2.4 Americans a day die in combat. Meanwhile, 17 veterans a day commit suicide. Meanwhile, Iraqis are killed every day and the middle east becomes more and more destabilized, making us less safe and more hated in the world. Meanwhile, we accomplish nothing. Not anything good, anyway.

It's just not worth it.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; Will solve the problem of vet by waiting vets out?

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Disposable

Proof positive that there is no issue that some fringe nut won't politicize.

Associated Press:

Congress took steps [Oct. 23] to reduce the high rate of suicides among former members of the armed forces, but only after a gun-rights senator succeeded in removing a plan to track veterans treated for mental illnesses.

[...]

[Oklahoma Republican gun nut] Coburn succeeded in making changes to "help protect the privacy of veterans' medical records" because of his concern that a provision requiring the VA to track the veterans it cares for could result in veterans treated for mental-health issues being denied the right to purchase guns.


Because it's the job of the federal government to make it more difficult for states to enforce their laws, I guess. Republicans are all for state and local control -- except when they're not, then they're big fans of big government.

Meanwhile, according to Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Bob Filner, suicide among veterans is a national tragedy of massive proportions. "It's a terrible statistic: As many Vietnam veterans have now committed suicide as died in the original war," he said. "That's over 58,000."

But it's all-important that they be able to get guns.

Never mind that that wasn't the purpose of the provision. In Coburn's paranoid little mind -- a mind that once concluded showing Schindler's List on network TV was "an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity" -- it was a creeping federalism designed solely to take people's guns away. Coburn is one sick little nutjob and, every time the people of Oklahoma re-elect him, they do the nation a terrible disservice.

Here's the real reason for the provision:

Associated Press:

One major hurdle in stopping suicide is getting people to ask for help. From 20 percent to 50 percent of active duty troops and reservists who returned from war reported psychological problems, relationship problems, depression and symptoms of stress reactions, but most report that they have not sought help, according to a report from a military mental health task force.


If you're already having trouble getting people into the system, you really need some way to try to keep them in the system. Most of the people tracked would be sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and PTSD patients tend to drift away from treatment.

And this is especially dangerous if they move. If they have to seek help again, the odds are they won't. It's smarter to have the care follow them automatically.

But, of course, Coburn and the NRA know better than mental health professionals. Better to be paranoid than wise.

Not helping matters any is the fact that PTSD is still poorly understood. According to the Washington Post, a study by the National Academies shows, "The majority of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder that are used to treat hundreds of thousands of veterans lack rigorous scientific evidence that they are effective." That doesn't mean that no treatments work.

"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today agreed with a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report finding exposure-based therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to be effective," says the VA in a press release. Exposure-based therapies "utilizes techniques to promote confrontation with feared objects, situations, memories and images. It involves use of psychoeducation, breathing retraining, prolonged exposure to the memory of the trauma through imaginary reliving, and repeated exposure to safe situations being avoided because of traumatic fear."

It's not much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that some of those safe situations being avoided are within the VA system and that this is why the numbers for vets seeking help are so low. And why the stakes are so high.

Veterans for Common Sense:

Experts worry that the numbers will grow as more soldiers come home with mental wounds. Dr. Bentson McFarland, an Oregon psychiatry and public health professor and an author of the recent suicide study, said veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan face many risk factors, such as repeated tours and the constant stress of urban warfare.

"I hate to say it," McFarland said, "but I think it's going to be worse than Vietnam."


We need to start taking this seriously. We're literally creating these cases with our wars and we don't really know what to do about them. This is a problem that won't end with the eventual peace. The fact that we're still dealing with suicides among Vietnam war vets is proof enough of that.

How much are these wars worth? How many lives are we willing to sacrifice -- long term and short term -- to fight them? Clearly, the death toll will continue to rise long after the wars are over.

How many minds are we willing to scar and, in some cases, destroy? We have almost no idea what we're dealing with now and we need to create more? And how often are we willing to let politicians like Tom Coburn and lobbyists from organizations like the NRA get in the way?

We need to answer those questions. We need to do it now. We treat troops as disposable on the battlefield, there's no good reason to treat them that way at home.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; don't stop dying when the s end

Monday, September 24, 2007

Rove Care

There are two major issues going into the '08 campaign -- war in Iraq and health care. Republicans have pretty much ceded the issue of Iraq to Democrats, taking the position on the issue farthest from the mainstream. The hope seems to be that the occupation of Iraq will either be over or winding down by November '08, with Bush and the GOP able to brag about glorious victory for the fatherland... er, homeland.

Given the extreme unlikelihood of this scenario, the right seems to be trying to compete on the health care issue and the White House, seeking to give Bush some kind of legacy, is jumping in with its own health care plan.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, former White House aide Karl Rove writes:

All around America, families are grappling with health-care concerns. They wonder if they'll have insurance at a price they can afford. They worry about how much out-of-pocket health costs take from the family budget. They question if they'll be able to pick their own doctor. Some feel trapped in jobs they don't like out of fear of losing their health insurance.

As the latest government-heavy plan announced by Hillary Clinton yesterday once again shows, the answers politicians offer on health care highlight the deep differences between liberals and conservatives. This is a debate Republicans cannot avoid. But it is one we can win -- if we offer a bold plan. Conservatives must put forward reforms aimed at putting the patient in charge. Increasing competition will ensure greater access, lower costs and more innovation.



Remember back when Bill Clinton signed the Telecom Bill into law? Remember how increased competition was supposed to bring down cable and internet costs? Remember how it didn't?

Rove's plan, which is clearly the White House's plan, is basically a collection of bad old GOP ideas. What Rove calls a "bold plan" is timid as all hell. In fact, despite his claim that "[g]overnment can help poorer and older Americans get quality health care without sacrificing what everyone wants," Rove's first two proposals would shut out people without a lot of money.

Not surprisingly, one remedy is more tax cuts -- see, tax cuts can do anything. In this case, "every worker should get a deduction for health-insurance premiums." It's not extremely clear how this would help the elderly, not being workers and all, but there ya go. The right points out at pretty much every opportunity that "the poor don't pay taxes" -- despite the fact that they do. But an income tax deduction isn't going to help them any, either. He mentions a tax credit, which would put money in these people's pockets, but that's no guarantee that it'll be used to offset healthcare costs.

Which brings us to point #2 of Karl's "reform" -- health savings accounts. This has been a bad idea since whoever the hell it was first brought it up. People have a hard enough time salting a little money away as it is and now we're supposed to save even more? Yeah, I pretty much guarantee that's not going to happen. The poor can't save now, let alone put away more. And the elderly could be excused for thinking they're pretty much done saving -- wasn't retirement the biggest reason for putting all that money aside in the first place? Again, the plan shuts out the two groups Rove claims it will help.

Rove brings up the issue of portability -- the ability to change jobs and keep the same insurance -- but, since you're basically buying it yourself, that should go without saying. But that's Karl Rove for you; liabilities are assets. He also brings up tort reform in the same way -- if you get screwed, you stay screwed. Without your constitutional right to redress, you're stuck with the bill for bad medical care. Like the issue of portability, this is a bad thing spun into a good thing -- suing quacks increases costs. As if dealing with the consequences of quackery is free.

This is pretty much what you expect from the Bush White House, which is basically a bad idea factory. The idea is to pretend we have a health care policy, then apply patches to it. But there's nothing to patch -- the US has no health care policy. You can't fix what doesn't exist. Our health care policy is the same as our bread policy or our toothbrush policy or our bicycle policy; you put it on a shelf and you sell it. Period. And those who can afford better, get better. This plan doesn't do anything to change that. It's just a way to keep the insurance industry intact.

If Bush wants to put this forward himself, he's got a tough sell. The right hates health care reform with the burning passion of a thousand suns. And, if Bush dead immigration reform taught us anything, it's that Bush is such a lame duck that he can't even lead his party. If they don't like this, it's not going anywhere. The President's bully-pulpit lacks a bully.

Of course, it's always possible that Bush wants to put this across as a plan for someone ealse to run on. The right side of the presidential race is embarrassingly light on health care proposals. Accoring to the New York Times, John McCain "has not said anything substantial about health care, nor has he even included it among issues listed on his campaign Web site." Fred Thompson hits a lot of right wing talking points, without actually saying anything. NYT tells us he "opposes new mandates, higher taxes or a Washington-controlled program, and calls for free-market solutions." In other words, a lot of nothing.

Rudy Giuliani has a plan, which is "sketchy." His plan most resembles the one Rove put across -- with tax breaks. Like Thompson, Rudy calls for "free-market approaches," as if what we have now isn't capitalistic. Mitt Romney, the only candidate who's actually done health care reform (Massachusetts has it's own plan), is pretty much abandoning the issue entirely. Although NYT says Mitt "has the most developed health plan among the Republicans," it's hard to see how this is any plan at all. He wants each state to deal with the problem.

But the indications seem to be that Bush will put forward the Rove plan himself, to take the sting out of vetoing a popular children's health care bill. "Bush, according to [Health and Human Services Secretary Mike] Leavitt, will urge Congress to join him in seeking health-care coverage for all Americans while also promising to veto a Democratic plan to provide $35 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the Children's Health Insurance Program over five years," says Rowland Nethaway for Cox News Service.

If this plan dies -- and there's no reason to believe it won't -- then it's unlikely that any of the '08 candidates will take up any part of it. Like Iraq, Republicans will cede the health care issue to Democrats, leaving them sitting out the top two issues of the campaign. If that's the case, any Democrat -- no matter who it is -- wins.

In a walk.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; and have for s -- and that's the bad news

Friday, September 07, 2007

Non-Combat Related?

Army Spc. Travis M. VirgadamoFrom the Department of Defense:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No. 1072-07
September 03, 2007

DoD Identifies Army Casualty


The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Spc. Travis M. Virgadamo, 19, of Las Vegas, Nev., died Aug. 30 in Taji, Iraq, in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 3d Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.

The circumstances surrounding the death are under investigation.

For more information related to this release, the media may contact the Fort Stewart public affairs office at (912) 767-2479.


That's pretty much all you get from the DoD when it comes to soldiers' deaths. Who he was, where he was, and nothing else. "Non-combat related" means... Hit by a bus? Heatstroke? It may be under investigation, but you'd assume the cause of death would be obvious in such a young man.

It was, according to his local newspaper, the Pahrump Valley Times, "The soldiers who notified Vergadamo's family about his death reportedly said he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound." Just another victim of the Army's suicide crisis.

Like all big stories involving huge numbers, we tend to see the Army suicide rate as matter of appalling numbers -- 17.3 per 100,000, up from a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001. They're just numbers and it's hard to see what they really mean. Newspapers turn them into bars on a graph -- they're so much more digestable that way.

We have an inherent fear of suicide -- we don't want to linger over the loss for too long. The survivors recover and the world moves on. The media, for their part, seem to have moved on. After the Associated Press broke the story that Army suicides were at a 26 year high, they moved on to the next story. After all, Paris Hilton probably sneezed or somebody running for president said something stupid. The military suicide rate became a two or three day story, then down the memory hole.

Spc. Virgadamo's story must be typical of all of the stories in this crisis. Pahrump Valley Times quotes Virgadamo's grandmother, Katie O'Brien, as telling them, "I don't know what happened, and I may never know what happened." The piece goes on:

One thing of which she is certain, however, is that Virgadamo was not in any condition to be sent to a war zone, where he transported ammunition.

O'Brien said her grandson, who had wanted to be either a soldier or a police officer since he was 4 years old, was having psychiatric problems about which the Army was aware when it sent him back into combat.


The Las Vegas SUN goes further. They tell of a visit Virgadamo made to his home in Pahrump, where he told his family "of being ordered into houses without knowing what was behind strangers' doors" and "walking along roadsides fearing the next step could trigger lethal explosives."

"Virgadamo told them he had been so frightened, he had sought and received psychiatric counseling from the military in Iraq," the SUN tells us. "He received additional counseling during a trip home in late July, his family said."

"They gave him Prozac and sent him back to Iraq," says his aunt, Rebecca McHugh. "They (military) knew his circumstances. They gave him counseling in Iraq before he came home and they gave him counseling in Georgia before he was sent back to Iraq. Now he's dead. What good is a dead soldier to them?" What good is a dead soldier to anyone?

This disregard for emotional trauma is typical and may be the root of the problem. In 2006, CBS News reported:

Army Staff Sgt. Bryce Syverson spent 15 months in Iraq before he was diagnosed by military doctors with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sent to the psychiatric unit at Walter Reed Medical Center, CBS News correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi reports.

"It ended up they just took his weapon away from him and said he was non-deployable and couldn't have a weapon," says his father, Larry Syverson. "He was on suicide watch in a lockdown."

That was last August. This August, he was deployed to Ramadi, in the heart of the Sunni triangle -- and he had a weapon.


The Army has been "recycling" soldiers with PTSD and other emotional traumas back into deployment. This isn't extremely surprising. The goal of the military health system isn't the health of military members, it's referred to as "preserving the fighting force." The goal is not to heal soldiers, but to make them fit enough for duty again. And with Bush's big "surge" stretching the limits of our military, the bar of "fitness for duty" has been set so low that nearly anyone can clear it.

"The DOD admits they are sending mentally unfit soldiers into combat in Iraq," Alternet quotes Steve Robinson of Veterans for America as saying. "This is not supposed to happen... what were they thinking and what does it say about the overstretched military?"

"For sure, it needs to be known he had problems," O'Brien said of Virgadamo. "They were going to discharge him. I really think they (military) are at fault to keep someone there. I think he just knew he was going to die." I suppose in Virgadamo's case the only way to overcome that fear of death -- given his lack of support and resources -- was to make it a certainty. He's fearless now.

As the war goes on, as the military is stretched beyond the breaking point, remember that the term "non-combat related death" is often BS. It was combat that made Army Spc. Travis M. Virgadamo sick and it was throwing him back into combat that aggravated that illness to the point of becoming terminal.

The Army's investigation won't show that. The word "suicide" will be stamped on this case and that word assigns blame to the victim. In this case, the fault lies elsewhere. And there's absolutely no way the Army will admit their guilt.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; 's big comes with a huge rate