Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Feminist Bloggers!

Feminist Blogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of February and March.

Donations provide for the costs of running feministblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Feminist Blogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts tagged health care

Like it or not, flu shots work

by Amanda Marcotte

This is super interesting.  (Via.) The NY Times is understandably fascinated by the cultural and effort-related aspects of this story, which involves a bunch of researchers swooping in and using an isolated religious farming communities to conduct a test on disease transmission, but the results of the test are just as, if not more fascinating. The finding was straightforward---vaccinating a little over 80% of the children and adolescents in the community against the flu vaccine created what they deemed a 60% “protective effect” in the community.  Not just in children; in the community. 

First of all, those of us who always suspected children are disease-ridden monsters are proven totally correct.  Just kidding!  Well, sort of.  It’s been a long-standing bit of folk wisdom that people who spend a lot of time around little kids get sick more.  I don’t know if that’s the reason to target children with these interventions or if it’s something else entirely, though.  But it doesn’t really matter.  What does matter is that public health officials who want to target children for mass inoculation against things like the seasonal flu or the swine flu are right to want this.  To save Grandpa, vaccinate Junior.  Well, ideally vaccinate both, but that doesn’t always happen.  Mass vaccination of children can go a long way to preventing thousands of deaths, especially amongst the elderly, every year, though.

Of course, this sort of intervention runs up against an enormous political wall in the U.S.  It’s not just the anti-vaccination movement, though that’s part of it.  The anti-vaxxers have a foothold in this country, because Americans are irrationally individualistic. To make it worse, there’s a lot of zero sum thinking in our culture.  I think the anti-vaccination theories take off for this reason; people are convinced that selfishly refusing to join in herd immunity that can save lives must mean some gain for the individual.  And without any evidence of this, they just make shit up about the dangers of vaccines that by and large don’t exist. 

Fighting this problem isn’t going to be easy.  For those interested, I highly recommend checking out this interview the National Science Foundation did with Dan Kahan about research into how attitudes and cultural alliances feed into vaccination paranoia. He’s talking about HPV vaccines, so unfortunately the results are going to be skewed by prejudices about female sexuality, but he also makes some important points about accepting that you already probably have a good idea on who the opposition is when it comes to any version of this struggle.

Though the flu shot doesn’t have the sexuality aspect to get up right wing fears, there is still a lot of resistance from both right wingers who immediately reject anything perceived as done for the common good, and from the more stereotypical anti-vaxxers, who are ostensibly liberal but tend towards an individualistic framework.  (You know, like the people whose environmentalist tendencies are expressed more in worrying about the toxins in non-organic food than the pollution in low income communities they don’t live in.) Kahan has a very immediate way to deal with science education on a case-by-case basis, which is to rely on tribal loyalties and authority.  For right wingers, get James Dobson to push it.  For yuppies, get Oprah.  God, if Oprah actually had a show promoting mass immunization of children against the flu, that would change this debate overnight.

In the long term, we really have to change the culture.  And not just because of resistance to public health initiatives that trip up the American loathing of having to think of themselves as members of a community instead of lone wolves triumphing over a cruel world.  The continued existence of libertarianism is reason enough.  I’m an optimist enough to think that people can continue to respect individuality while not being individualistic.  In fact, it’s becoming increasingly obvious in our culture that individualistic thinking is correlated with a high degree of conformity, and if you don’t think that’s true, go to a teabagger rally and check out the clones. And on the flip side, check out cities that manage to have both diversity and a sense of the common good.

Tagged with:

After Threats to Kill Health Care Reform, Stupak May Get His Own Anti-Choice Bill

It looks like Rep. Bart Stupak is out and about once again, ready to destroy the health care bill if he doesn't get his way. And this time, he very well may get it.

Stupak went public yesterday stating that if the current health care bill contains language similar to the Senate bill, him and 11 other anti-choice Democrats will strike it down because the Senate bill allows government funding of abortions. This is despite the reality that the Senate bill is actually pretty damn similar to the Stupak amendment and makes it very clear to not allow the federal funding of abortions. (If only it would...)

But while the Senate bill would, in fact, make matters even worse than the already shitty law we currently have (the Hyde Amendment already prohibits government funding for abortion), Stupak wants to take it even a step further, and he may get the opportunity to do that. TPM reports that Stupak has reentered negotiations with Democratic leadership, with rumors of a potential separate legislation:

"Separate pieces of legislation could be passed that would relate to that," [House Majority Leader] Hoyer said in response to a question from TPMDC. "That's a possibility. I talked to Mr. Stupak today, and I'm going to be talking to him next week and he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people. And I will do that."

I asked whether abortion remains the biggest sticking point for leadership as they pursue passing comprehensive reform. Hoyer demurred: "There are a number of points that people have concerns about, and we have to discuss them all."

Passage of this potential new legislation could make Stupak's efforts not only fully realized, but make an even bigger rollback of abortion rights than Hyde. But could this be avoided? Because between the media validating Stupak's threats with scary headlines, folks like Chris Matthews confirming the blatant lie that his amendment would maintain current law, and Democrats now starting to bow down, Stupak's threats may actually be pretty empty. Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus leader Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) stated yesterday that Stupak doesn't have the votes to kill the bill. Additionally, Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check points out that Stupak's number of supporters have been dwindling by the week:

Today, he claims 11 other representatives will vote against reform if they don't get their way on "that language." But on February 24th, he told The Hill he had "15 to 20." On February 26th, it was down to "10 to 12" members declaring an official tantrum unless they can impose their will, yesterday it was 12, and today it is 11.

Either he didn't get a passing grade in math, or he is bluffing.

So, for the love of pete, why are there negotiations being made? Someone, anyone has got to be courageous here and call Stupak out on exactly what he's trying to do: use health care reform as a vehicle to make abortion even more difficult and more accessible than it already is for millions of women. If no one does, we may have ourselves a brand, spanking new restriction to access on our hands.

In the meantime, Here are the other members of House backing Stupak:

Joe Cao (R-LA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Steve Dreihaus (D-OH)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Jim Oberstar (D-MN)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)

If they're your representative, call their offices (linked to above) and demand they step back from Stupak's crusade against women's health.

National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers

Abortion providers – and clinic directors, and nurses, and medical students, and clinic escorts, and volunteers* – dedicate their lives to ensuring women have access to safe abortion care. March 10th is the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers – show your support for these amazing health care professionals!

*And probably more people I’m forgetting – please help complete the list!

The war on health care access

by Amanda Marcotte

This week’s column at RH Reality Check is about the use of wedge issues by anti-choicers, and what they get out of it.  The ones I identify as popular now are pretending to care about racism, pretending to care about women’s health, pretending to care about disability rights, and acting like huge victims of censorship (while actively supporting it in other ways).  Antis love this shit; I get more “but you’re supposed to be tolerant!” whining on Twitter from fetus obsessives than any other conservatives---as if “tolerance” requires liberal women to hand our bodies over to the control of misogynist Jesus freaks.  The article was about wedge issues as a strategy, and not the particular meaning of any one wedge issue, so please read it if you’re interested in the strategic issues at stake.  But because of this, I wasn’t able to address in depth the “genocide” conspiracy theory that Jesse wrote about recently.  RH Reality Check has put together an excellent series documenting how the claim is based in a racist, sexist view of women of color as uniquely unable to think for themselves and make their own decisions.  Here’s Miriam Perez’s piece, which contains links to many others. Shani Hilton also wrote about this at the American Prospect. Jodi Jacobson has put together information explaining why the abortion rate for black women is higher than that of white women---basically lack of access to decent contraception leaves black women far more open to unintended pregnancy.  Interestingly, anti-choicers do everything in their power to avoid talking about main reason for the vast majority of abortions---unwanted pregnancy---so it’s important when dealing with them to remind them every few minutes or so that abortions don’t happen because evil feminists (working with perverted men) force them, or because women who get abortions are painfully stupid and don’t know what they’re doing.  It’s because of unwanted pregnancies, and the stopping of them. Duh.

Access is what I want to talk about now.  The “genocide” claim is a classic wedge issue strategy, and it’s important to view it with that lens---the way that anti-choicers claiming to be anti-racist reinforce racist arguments, the way that these sorts of things create confusing and misleading stories in the mainstream media, the way it’s intended to make liberals run scared of having this discussion.  But the “genocide” claim is also part of a strategy to deprive many women of necessary health care they often can’t get anywhere else.  And some men, too.

The “genocide” rhetoric is being used to push for policy, and not just to confuse the debate about reproductive rights.  The policy desired by anti-choicers?  Defunding Planned Parenthood branches that serve low-income communities, especially ones that are predominantly black or Hispanic.  There’s no doubt other goals, but that’s the biggie.  The idea is to pretend that Planned Parenthood does nothing but abortion, and under the cover of “concern”, take clinics out of communities that often don’t have their reproductive health care needs met even with Planned Parenthood filling in the gaps. 

For instance, of the “genocide” argument being used to fight the building of a specific Planned Parenthood branch in Houston.  The niceness of the clinic is being held out as further proof that it’s “evil”, though even though there’s all this feigned concern for the heavily minority population of the neighborhood, the underlying belief that non-white citizens don’t deserve nice things comes through loud and clear.  Under the guise of stopping “genocide”, in other words, anti-choicers are trying to cut off access to health care for the very people they feign concern for.  The fact that black women are less likely than white women to have regular access to health care services is surely one of the reasons that the abortion rate is higher for black women---the most reliable forms of contraception for women who really don’t want to have more kids for reasons we should respect are mostly forms of contraception you have to see a doctor to get.  Cutting off access to Planned Parenthood will only make this situation worse.

But Planned Parenthood has a lot more health care services than those geared strictly towards contraception and abortion. I went to the Houston Planned Parenthood website to find out exactly how many services anti-choicers are trying to snatch away from the citizens of Houston who rely on Planned Parenthood.  The list is very long indeed: diabetes testing, anemia testing, flu vaccinations, blood pressure screening, smoking cessation, cholesterol screening, cancer screening for women, extensive gynecological services, STD testing.  Just to name a few.  Planned Parenthood has expanded its services in a lot of areas based on what the community needs.  In parts of California, Planned Parenthood works with WIC, for instance.

According to Planned Parenthood’s demographics research, 75% of their patients are at or below 150% of the poverty level.  That’s about $33,000 for a family of four, and for a single parent with one child, that’s surviving on $22,000 or less a year.  In other words, you’re looking at a lot of women who don’t have health insurance, and so the cost controlled services at Planned Parenthood are often the only access they’ve got.  When anti-choicers attack Planned Parenthood, the people they’re attacking are those who have very little money and very little access to health care and who often have to go without or get substandard care if they don’t have Planned Parenthood.  That’s the ugly truth of the matter.  Behind all this feigned concern is a dark, sadistic plan to deprive people in need of health care. 

The Feministing Five: Heather Corinna

hcheadshot.jpgHeather Corinna, a writer and activist, is the founder of Scarleteen, one of the internet's best sex ed resources for young people, and the author of S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide for Getting You Through High School and College. Scarleteen, which Corinna started in 1998, tries to fill the gaps left - whether intentionally or unintentionally - in sex education provided by teachers and parents. Scarleteen is for and by young people, aims to equip young people with all the information they need to make the best choices they can make. It also provides a space for them to talk, in an honest and safe way, about issues that they might not otherwise be able to explore, like bisexuality, coming out and abusive relationships. I particularly like this post, about men, masculinity and breakups.

Corinna is also one of the founders of the All Girl Army, a blogger collective for young feminists (some as young as 10, and who doesn't love a 10-year-old feminist?). Each of their bloggers was asked to define what feminism means to them. Check it out - it'll put a smile on your face.

Corinna, whose writing has been published in the Chicago Tribune, Bitch and Bust, among many, many others. She also writes erotica, and publishes her erotic photography online at her site Femmerotic. Those of you who read RH Reality Check will recognize Corinna from her Get Real! series, answering readers' questions about sex, sexuality and sexual health. In this week's column, about sex and guilt, she writes: "I have yet to see any sound evidence that people enjoying pleasure, sexual or otherwise, in ways that do not hurt anyone -- that everyone involves wants and engages in with basic care and respect for themselves and others -- has anything but positive benefits for people and the world as a whole." Amen to that.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Heather Corinna.

Chloe Angyal: What led you to sex and sexuality education and activism?

Heather Corinna: I've been a general educator since college: I started out working with developmentally disabled adults, then went into Montessori and alternative early childhood and elementary education, while at the same time still working on my arts, including my writing. I grew up with a father who was a political activist, and a mother who worked in healthcare. In a lot of ways, my sexuality and sexual life was a lone place of real freedom for me in my teens during the 80's, a notion that stands so counter to so much of what people say about young adult sexuality but which was so true for me. That given, I was often the unofficial sex expert in high school and college, so while I'm sure my advice back them wasn't as informed as it could have been, I got started in this early. I've also been writing for the whole of my life, so when you put all of those ingredients in the pot, I think it's tough to see how I would have wound up anywhere BUT in sexuality education and activism.

When I first started publishing online in the mid-late 90's, I was working centrally with adult women's sexuality and sexuality in the arts, as well as writing erotica for anthologies, and young people began to send me advice questions, likely because a) there just wasn't much on the 'net to choose from at the time (so finding my stuff was mighty easy), and b) most of the sexuality spaces there were around then were some skeevy BBS' (which seemed primarily to be manned and used by adult men who got off on teenagers talking about sex and offered very little actual support or factual information) that I don't imagine felt like safe spaces for young people. There wasn't anything for young people I could refer them to, so we just gradually built Scarleteen as we went, until it got to the point where it became my full-time job.

At this point, most of my week is based on directing and operating Scarleteen and doing other kinds of written sex ed/sexuality articles, but I also direct an in-person sex education outreach program in Seattle. At the current time through that program, I serve both homeless or transient youth as well as patients or clients at abortion clinics under 25 who can get an in-depth one-on-one sex education consult with me on the day of their procedures.

CA: Who is your favorite fictional heroine, and who are your heroines in real life?

HC: It's crazy tough to pick just one, but Oothoon in William Blake's Visions of the Daughters of Albion would have to win it if it was just one. It's a short piece, but in but a few pages, mostly composed of Oothoon speaking and telling her own tale, she does those most magnificent telling-off on everything from how crazy it is for anyone to suggest that a woman raped is somehow "tainted" or "impure," to what's really at the core of sexual jealousy to what sexual freedom and women's sexuality could really be like in a better world. It also contains Blake's concept of what innocence is, which is radically different from how we usually hear it defined. For Blake, innocence was simply where we are at without experience, less about purity and more about an open wonder, then we get life experience, and the ideal state -- unlike the one we often see, which is this perpetual state of innocence or "purity" -- is to return to innocence informed and deepened by experience.

On the whole, it's a giant rant about so many of the things that infuriate and frustrate me the most, and I don't know that I've ever seen a better one. (And goodness knows I rant enough about it myself to have personally made the attempt many times over.) This from 1793, no less, and from a male writer and artist, too. The first time I read it, it blew my socks off so much that my professor at the time allowed me to skip class for several days so I could read and reread it over and over again and just let myself drown in it. One of my fave passages in it is:

Infancy! fearless, lustful, happy, nestling for delight
In laps of pleasure: Innocence! honest, open, seeking
The vigorous joys of morning light, open to virgin bliss,
Who taught thee modesty, subtil modesty, child of night and sleep?
When thou awakest wilt thou dissemble all thy secret joys,
Or wert thou not awake when all this mystery was disclos'd?
Then com'st thou forth a modest virgin knowing to dissemble,
With nets found under thy night pillow, to catch virgin joy
And brand it with the name of whore, and sell it in the night
In silence, ev'n without a whisper, and in seeming sleep.
Religious dreams and holy vespers light thy smoky fires:
Once were thy fires lighted by the eyes of honest morn.
And does my Theotormon seek this hypocrite modesty,
This knowing, artful, secret, fearful, cautious, trembling hypocrite?
Then is Oothoon a whore indeed! and all the virgin joys
Of life are harlots; and Theotormon is a sick man's dream;
And Oothoon is the crafty slave of selfish holiness.

CA: What recent news story made you want to scream?

HC: This piece, about Utah potentially criminalizing women who abort and miscarry.
Not only does it infuriate me as a feminist and as someone in reproductive health including abortion, but also as an educator. By no means do I think that people really being educated about sexuality, our bodies and the whole process of reproduction will magically fix or prevent the kind of ideology and dynamics really at the heart of this proposal. However, barely a day passes where I don't read someone, including the media, legislators, magazines in the market, saying or suggesting something really freaking ignorant about women's bodies, reproduction or sex which makes clear that their own sex ed was sorely lacking.

Miscarriage is often totally unavoidable (and in some ways is actually about our bodies being very smart, and doing things to help to try and protect our own health). It is not, as it is often suggested to be, often about women doing something wrong, something being wrong with women, or women being "careless" with their pregnancies. A great many pregnancies, potentially as many as half, end in miscarriage, many before women even knew they were pregnant. These are the indisputable facts of our bodies and how they work. The idea that pregnancy is certain or guaranteed to end in a birth unless a woman mucks it up or doesn't do all the right things not only is inaccurate, it clearly comes from the notion that anything unwanted or bad that happens to women must be our fault or doing.

Criminalizing any reproduction choice is heinous enough. But seeking to criminalize women's own bodily functions -- and doing so based on a few cases which are not representative of most women or most miscarriages -- outside of our control is beyond the pale many steps further. The worst part is, folks like this may even know these facts and simply act like they don't on purpose, but so much of the general population doesn't know the facts that snowing people is all too easy. There is a substantial segment of people in the world who aren't as outraged over things like this as I think they would be if they got that it isn't just the ideology that's horrifying, it's an ideology held up in part because of a collective (and often purposefully sustained, such as by abstinence-only sex education) ignorance about something no one should be ignorant about: not even being educated accurately about the bodies we inhabit and live your lives through is an outrage to me.

CA: What, in your opinion, is the greatest challenge facing feminism today?

HC: The idea that we don't need it anymore, that everyone is all equal and equitable and there aren't any more gender disparities. Not only is that either a tremendous falsehood or a very deep ignorance, it is often either said by people who either have a ton of privilege or by those who clearly need feminism the most because they're so deeply disempowered that it seems like they need to say that to try and protect what little agency they have.

We don't have gender equality or gender equity. Certainly not globally, and we don't have it yet in the states, either. Women still do not have pay equity. Women's right to full autonomy over our bodies, something the majority of male-bodied people have, is still not complete and is often tenuous at best, particularly when we're talking about reproductive choice and health and full sexual freedom. Marginalized women in particular -- either by virtue of race, immigration status, age, gender identity or sexual orientation, economic class, what have you -- still usually have far less rights than men of those same marginalized groups.

The saddest thing to me in the espousal of the idea that we're post-feminist is how many women who suggest as much are doing so (I think Ariel Levy speaks very well to aspects of this) for their own personal gain on the backs of their sisters. Of course, it's nearly as sad to me how many women think that where we are at with equity isn't about having made progress, but about still needing much more, but that this is either as good as we can expect, or worse still, that we should be grateful for being given any crumbs of equity at all.

CA: You're going to a desert island, and you get to take one food, one drink and one feminist. What do you take?

HC: Pistachios. And water. I have so many other beverages of choice I'd earnestly prefer, but I am really bad at drinking enough water and feel like being on a desert island might be just the thing that finally motivates me to care for myself properly in that regard. Victoria Woodhull, if dead feminists count. If we need someone living, bell hooks.

Quick Hit: Obama’s Healthcare Summit Leads to More Partisan Wrangling

Exhibit A, according to CNN:

12:30 p.m.: Sen. John McCain slams the special deals inserted in the Senate health care bill, saying those should be removed so that the American people will know "that geography does not dictate what kind of health care they will receive."

Obama shoots back, "Let me just make this point, John, because we're not campaigning anymore. The election is over."

McCain interjects, "I'm reminded of that every day."

You know what we're reminded of every day McCain? That we no longer have a form of government that actually serves the American people. Rather, we are subjected to politicians obsessed with re-election, special interests, and the media spotlight. I honor what Obama is trying to do, even as the spectacle is further depressing me. Ugh.

Categories: Politics
Tagged with: ,

HPV and boys: new concerns

My sources tell me that today, the immunization committee at the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is debating whether to recommend the use of Gardasil, a vaccine against HPV, for use with male patients. HPV, or the human papillomavirus, is the most common of sexually-transmitted infections; the CDC estimates that 50% of sexually active adults will acquire HPV at one point over the course of their lives. Some suggest that the percentage is higher still.

HPV has been conclusively linked to cervical cancer. Since 2006, Gardasil has been approved by the FDA for use in inoculating women against HPV. Because the best form of protection is prevention, many health experts recommend vaccinating girls before they become sexually active. Given the grim reality that HPV can be easily transmitted through non-consensual sex, and given the ease with which the virus is spread through oral sex, vaccinating girls before the onset of puberty is encouraged. (This has led, of course, to predictable howls from the religious right, who are less concerned with protecting young women’s health and more concerned that a vaccine against HPV might encourage pre-marital sexual exploration.)

But as an article in the brand-new issue of Ms. Magazine makes clear, HPV poses a greater threat to men and boys than was previously known. The Adina Nack piece is not available online, but here’s a quote from what’s available on your newsstand:

While it is fears of cervical cancer that
have motivated young women to get HPV vaccines,
that’s not the only cancer caused by this virus: It can lead
to oral, anal and penile cancers as well. In fact, the combined
U.S. death rates for these cancers are at least twice
that of cervical cancers… Some researchers, in fact, believe that
HPV may soon cause more oral cancers in the U.S. than
alcohol or tobacco combined.

As a result of this research, the CDC may well soon recommend that boys and young men also be inoculated with Gardasil, as the connection between HPV and oral/anal cancer becomes as apparent as it already is with cervical cancer.

Nack emphasizes that men’s health is a feminist issue:

Women’s health—especially reproductive health—is usually
the focus of sexual-health discussions but men’s health
also deserves women’s attention—and not just because
women care about their sons, male partners and male
friends. It almost goes without saying that women can also
be infected by their intimate partners, and since the great
majority of women primarily have heterosexual relations,
that usually means by men.

In fact, men’s health is an even larger feminist issue.
“Feminists have a vested interest in advocating for policies
and circumstances around the world that shape men’s ability
to develop healthy sex lives, which, by definition, has
to include respect for the rights of those with whom they
partner, regardless of gender,” says Patricia Rieker, Ph.D.,
a sociologist at Boston University and Harvard Medical
School and coauthor of Gender and Health (Cambridge
University Press, 2008).

The truth is, if women don’t prioritize men’s health,
we’re not just losing a chance to foster the overall health
of our communities, we’re actually putting ourselves and
future generations at risk

It is axiomatic that women of all ages are more willing to seek medical treatment than are men. The “sturdy oak” myth of robust masculinity makes it difficult for boys and men to acknowledge vulnerability. Our cultural narrative about heterosexuality tends to suggest that women are emotionally and physiologically more fragile — and more likely to “suffer” from sex. That “expectation of female suffering” (associated with everything from first penetration to pregnancy to increased vulnerability to STIs to the guarantee of heartbreak after a break-up or abortion) is matched with a narrative of male imperviousness to harm. We like to pretend that boys are dense, violent, and comparatively shallow. But boys do cry, and boys do get hurt, and as the latest research shows, boys do get HPV-related cancers too.

Feminists have done much to dispatch the myth of female frailty. They have also been on the frontlines of fighting against this myth of the invulnerable male. It is no surprise then that we find this important clarion call for male sexual health in the pages of Ms. Magazine.

Limbaugh calls health care reform “reparations” and “civil rights”

by Amanda Marcotte

This is really hard to listen to, since Rush Limbaugh is being even angrier and nastier and egotistical than usual, but it’s nonetheless important if you want to understand the opposition to health care reform:

In it, Limbaugh uses high racialized language to denounce health care reform, calling it “civil rights” and “reparations” in these tones that are dripping with anger and disdain.  The context for this is a discussion about the evils of social welfare spending that allows the people who build wealth through labor to enjoy some of the fruits of that wealth through taxing people who build wealth through capital and hoard most of the wealth for themselves.  From a fairness point of view, people who work to build wealth should get part of the bounty for the country, and the most efficient way to do this is through taxation.  Most people, if they think about it, do think that the social contract should include those who labor as well as those who invest money.  So the way that Rush and his comrades are able to distract people and have them offer their loyalties not to their fellow citizens who have to work for a living, but to those whose work is mainly in investing, is to draw on race.  He’s using language that basically says, “Working white people: Ignore the fact that you have the same concerns and hopes and dreams as working black Americans.  Instead, your loyalty and decisions should be made on hoarding wealth in the hands of white people and keeping it from black people.  That doing this means you don’t get your share of the pie is too bad, but at least most of the people who get most of the money are white.”

Conservatives like to pretend that liberals “cry racism” about opposition to health care reform because of President Obama, as if we’re saying all criticism of the man is racist in and of itself because of his race.  And of course they like to pretend that; it’s easier to argue with than the actual argument.  The actual argument is that opposition to social welfare spending is largely rooted in this race-baiting that Limbaugh is engaging in.  The argument is that the tea parties are mainly white because some white people are so opposed to sharing with people they think are inferior to them that they will shoot themselves in the foot in the process of hitting those folks with the bullet. We’re saying that they see America in terms of black and white and not in terms of rich and not-rich, and so when they think of “wealth redistribution”, they think of it as going from a mostly white upper class to a more racially diverse working and middle class, and they get upset at that.  This would all be true if we had President Clinton instead of President Obama, though I do think the fact that we have President Obama is probably escalating the racism of the teabagger movement.  But it’s not the source of it by a long shot.

That’s also why the fact that most teabaggers are tipping the age scale is relevant, as well.  While there’s no shortage of racial resentment with younger white Americans, it’s certainly milder on the whole than with the older crowd. The younger you go, the more likely you are to find a willingness to get along and share and see ourselves as a single group---Americans---and less as a bunch of racially separate people at odds with each other.  Also, the younger you go, the more racial diversity you find, so again, you’re less likely to see that group as a whole choose preserving the extreme wealth of the few on top because they’re white over self-interest.  Conservatives are genuinely in trouble in the long run because of this, which is why some of their attempts to appeal to young people are so laughable.

Tagged with: ,

Debunking myths about immigrants and health care costs

Fears and negative assumptions about immigrants have been used by opponents of health care reform to build opposition, appealing to an already large anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. This came to a head when Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" after President Obama spoke the sad truth that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health insurance.

Via the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health's blog comes word of a study conducted by Project HOPE that refutes the assumption that providing health care to immigrants requires too much public funding:

An examination of health care spending during 1999-2006 for adult naturalized citizens and immigrant noncitizens (which includes some undocumented immigrants) finds that the cost of providing health care to immigrants is lower than that of providing care to U.S. natives and that immigrants are not contributing disproportionately to high health care costs in public programs such as Medicaid.

...

In fact, noncitizens, most of whom are recent immigrants, use fewer health care resources than even naturalized citizens. The one exception appears to be that noncitizens have a significantly greater proportion of uncompensated and charity care than naturalized citizens or U.S. natives. However, this finding likely reflects noncitizens' poor access to care and low socioeconomic status.

These findings have important implications regarding both immigration reform and health care reform. The debate about health reform throughout 2009 ignored how the immigrant population, and particularly noncitizens, would be treated under a new system. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act blocked immigrants' access to much public health insurance coverage, which we suspect is partly responsible for the high level of uncompensated and charity care being provided to noncitizens. The noncitizen and recent immigrant populations have been given few options to obtain high-quality, affordable health care.

Anti-immigrant and anti-government sentiments combine well to serve those spreading false information in their attempts to block health care reform. Sadly these myths have played into legislation that makes it harder for immigrants to access the care they need. The real issue, in fact, is a lack of access.

I don't think cost should be a reason to give up on the idea of providing necessary care and support, but this study shows money's not even the issue. Immigrant's lives are being caught in the middle of a fight that has nothing to do with reality.

Tagged with: ,

Quick Hit: White House releases new health care plan

In advance of the White House organized health care summit this Thursday, President Obama and his team have just released their health care plan.

From what has been said about the plan so far, it follows closely along with the senate version of the health care reform bill, including on it's stance on abortion. The Senate version still had limits on health insurance funding for abortion, including a system that would force women who wanted abortion coverage to write two separate checks each month for their insurance premiums.

There is no public option in this plan either.

For more, go to the White House website.

Tagged with: