World Health Day 2010

In New Mexico we often view the state as a rural place. In truth, much of it is. But it is fairly safe to say that about half of the state population now lives in an urban environment. This is challenging because of the traditional New Mexican cultures are tied to land.

The work of maintaining and supporting traditional land uses and healthy urban development in balance will require vision, leadership, and dedication. Urban health is best approached by dealing with a regional perspective rather than a city only view. Food, water, clean air, housing, jobs, and so much more really benefit from the regional coordination.

Today is World Health Day, and the focus is urbanization. So even if you only have a few minutes reflect on our cities and health. Cities are great for bringing lots of interesting things together. They are also places for the development of great inequities. Take a minute and think about what you can do to improve your local environment or social conditions.

Shifting the Center

Thanks to Norman Goldman who gave a great metaphor relating the political spectrum to a football field. He stated that the US is on the right side from the goal line to the 25 yard line, with Obama on about the 20. He put Europe on about the 50 yard line, and pure communism/socialism on the left goal line.

Shifting the Center:

As we have seen throughout US history, much of the mainstream political discussion is guided to the right. From the original version of US politics with white, land-owners being the only ones allowed to vote to current neo-con and neo-liberal politics – the propertied class (owning or corporate class today) fights for its interests only. Democracy, common wealth, and liberty are tossed aside for a lecherous form of capitalism.

In a “first past the post” or “winner take all” political system the competing political parties need a simple majority to win. And this system tends toward to major parties and some minor parties. In pursuit of the magic 51% parties need to be broad enough and end up fighting for “the middle.” In our case corporate propaganda has helped to push this to the right and marginalize any real “left” ideas and politics. As Norman Goldman points out – even Obama, who is declared a socialist by the fascists is really much nearer the capitalist and corporatist side of politics.

Normally, “progressive” (which sounds very middle of the road in this context), “left,” and “radical” parties have gone after the Democrats in an attempt to show that they really do not have the interests of the working-class, environment, or social justice in mind. In a two party system additional candidates tend to take votes that may have gone toward one of the two primary candidates or energize voters who feel they are not represented by either of those candidates. In the US the additional voters are usually not counted because that would take too much mental energy on behalf of those reporting on politics and it would be an inconvenient fact to deal with.

In general left-of-Democrat* candidates are blamed for losses, sometimes correctly, of Democratic candidates. Often the Democratic candidates were the target as much as the actual seat of power. This leads towards a backlash against third parties. And for the most part it has been the Democratic party who has, in very anti-democratic ways, tightened up ballot access, and other electoral laws that make it difficult for people and parties to get on the ballot unless they belong to one of the corporate-sponsored parties. So much for being “democratic.”

If the left-of-Democrat parties began to target uncontested Republicans that would shift the center. The US is uncommon for having ZERO left elected officials at the federal level. (The rest of the world doesn't see the Democratic party as a “left” party.) So even one at this level would act as an anchor to the other side of the spectrum. If the Republican party becomes weaker in terms of representation then the center would shift to the other side of the Democratic party.

Of course that change at the federal level will not happen quickly. But if you look at US history, there have been local and regional parties that have had influence on the national scene. The best example is the 1912 elections.

More than likely it will be a long road that requires real “lefties” to run for local offices, then take on uncontested Republicans locally, then go from there. Universal health care has happened in countries where a left party has been in power. In Canada that was at the province (our version of States) level.

Policies such as free education, six weeks paid time off for all workers, and universal health care happen in countries with an empowered and broad political spectrum. REAL progressives would argue for the democratic reforms that would allow ideas and democracy to flourish. There are very few of those in positions to speak and influence.

REAL progressives would stand for Instant Runoff Voting so that no vote is wasted. REAL progressives would stand for fair ballot access so that there was a range of choices for Americans. REAL progressives would be leading the march toward an open and participatory democracy!

There aren't many real progressives, but when we find one we need to work with them for real change, real hope, and real family values!

###

*People commonly refer to members of the Democratic party as Democrats and not Democratics.

CDC Quote from Health Equity Guidebook

“Inequalities in health status in the U.S. are large, persistent, and increasing. Research documents that poverty, income and wealth inequality, poor quality of life, racism, sex discrimination, and low socioeconomic conditions are the major risk factors for ill health and health inequalities… conditions such as polluted environments, inadequate housing, absence of mass transportation, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and unsafe working conditions are implicated in producing inequitable health outcomes. These systematic, avoidable disadvantages are interconnected, cumulative, intergenerational, and associated with lower capacity for full participation in society….Great social costs arise from these inequities, including threats to economic development, democracy, and the social health of the nation.”

- Centers for Disease Control

Reproductive Rights

New Health Care Legislation Includes Troubling Setbacks For Reproductive Rights

The landmark health care legislation signed by President Obama today includes troubling setbacks for women’s reproductive rights, said the American Civil Liberties Union.

While the bill signed by the president today contains positive changes to health care policies that discriminate against women and provides women with access to needed and often life-saving health care services, it also restricts abortion coverage, creating hurdles for both the insurer that wants to include abortion care in its health plan and the insured who wants the coverage. The president, in a move meant to garner the votes of Democrats who oppose abortion rights, also signed an Executive Order today to ensure that current law prohibiting public funding of abortion also applied to any subsidies used to purchase insurance in the exchange.

Today’s law also revives federal funding for an abstinence-only- until-marriage program that Congress correctly allowed to expire in 2008. The ACLU has long opposed abstinence-only programs on the grounds that they censor vital health information, promote gender stereotypes, discriminate against gays and lesbians and sometimes use federal dollars to promote one religious perspective.

The following can be attributed to Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“Unfortunately, health care reform came at a very high price for women’s right to reproductive health care. Providing health care to Americans should not come at the expense of limits on constitutionally protected access to abortion. Moreover, the law wastes millions of dollars by raising from the dead a failed sexual education program – abstinence-only- until-marriage – that thwarts healthy, more effective and life-saving education that is greatly needed by our young people.

“The ACLU looks forward to working with the president and Congress to amend these troubling provisions and ensure that every woman retains the ability to access truly comprehensive health care.”

Not everyone is excited

The health insurance bill that recently passed is not getting poor reviews from just the right wing. Physicians for a National Health Program is also not excited. They see it as a false promise of reform, and note that 23 million Americans will still go uninsured.

And while most of the Democrat commentators on talk radio are ecstatic about the bill's passage. Norman Goldman is still taking the Democrats to task for falling short in this process in so many ways. There are a growing number of people discussing third parties, so if you want to promote that on a media source, this is the place.

Health Care Legislation Passes House

Now we will see where this leads. The President is hailing this a major victory in a 100 year struggle. If this is all we can get after 100 years, it is no wonder that45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance!

45,000 Americans

If something killed 45,000 Americans each year would you do something about it?

That's what lack of health insurance does. Every 12 minutes an American dies because of lack of health insurance.

What can you do? Contact your elected officials and let them know you support universal health care access!

Or, work to build the changes in our "system" that would make this possible:

Clean Elections,
Instant Runoff Voting or Proportional Representation,
Fair Ballot Access,
Same Day Voter Registration!

And maybe point out that ultra-conservatives go to Canada for health care!