OLEAN -- Let us forget Iraq for the briefest of moments, even as we remember American fighting men and women in our Christmas prayers. As 2005 approaches, let us consider a domestic issue that President Bush must face up to soon.
|
JUMP TO STORY:
Editorial Anello Year 1 Hudson Gallagher Mt. Views Local History Billstuff Letters |
Health care. Ignoring it will ruin this nation and its economy.
The figures are horrendous.
In 2000, says the Census Bureau, about 14 percent of Americans went without health care coverage. Last year, in 2003, that figure was up to almost 16 percent.
Meanwhile, spending on health care soars. Even three years ago, it accounted for 14 percent of our gross domestic product. By contrast, countries with universal health care such as the much-criticized Canada and France have about 9 to 10 percent of gross domestic product represented by health care costs.
Average family health care premiums in 2005 are expected to go up another $1,800 to about $12,500. For companies, providing health care to employees -- a standard of the American Way of Life for decades -- is becoming simply unaffordable. Between 2000 and 2003, such costs for American firms rose 38 percent -- and another 11 percent in the first half of this year. In 2004, workers receiving health benefits numbered 5 million fewer than in 2001.
Morton Mintz, former chairman of the Fund for Investigative Journalism and a terrific reporter for three decades in Washington, has included the above figures and many more in an article first appearing in "The Nation" magazine last month, and now distributed in Public Citizen's health newsletter.
Mintz notes the peculiarity of corporate leaders -- who justifiably bitch about the cost of buying private health care for workers -- completely ignoring and eschewing the possibility of a publicly financed system that would cost them far less in taxes than they now pay in premiums. One thing universal health care would do is eliminate employer-paid workmen's compensation, which cost American businesses more than $38 billion two years ago.
Both presidential candidates got through the recent campaign without being forced to focus on national health care -- although each paid lip service. But the current complicated system is ruining the economy and provides generally inadequate care.
Double-digit premium increases each year slow job growth, freeze wage increases, wreck pension funds, make government budgeting impossible, and put American firms at a disadvantage in world market competition.
Bush should sideline his intended Social Security reform and privatization in favor of a long, hard look at health care. It's a far bigger crisis at this point than Social Security.
Being in the business I'm in -- teaching college students how to report and write -- I'm constantly on the lookout for new words that have crept into the language through slang, Internet usage, or other linguistic avenues. My favorites are words that relate to government or politics.
A couple of months ago, I stumbled onto a treasure trove of these in The New York Times, in an article by Tom Kuntz. He was reviewing a new volume published in 2004 titled "Hatchet Jobs and Hardball: The Oxford Dictionary of Political Slang."
I forgot about the clipping until just before Christmas, when I was sorting through a bunch of lesson plan material I never had time to present. Here, for your edification, enjoyment, or possible disgust, are a few such definitions -- some of them creeping into news columns already -- contained in the new book:
bafflegab -- Unintelligible speech. Baffling doublespeak, often used in chambers of Congress.
barking heads -- Aggressive and loud broadcast commentators. (I'm sure you can think of several.)
belligerati -- Any belligerent persons belonging to an identifiable group, such as some of the e-mail writers to this paper.
caves -- Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
globaloney -- Unrealistic foreign policy.
Mister Whiskers -- The United States government or one of its law enforcement agencies.
sheeple -- Submissive citizens. A word fusion of "sheep" and "people."
turkey farm -- A government agency staffed with political patronage hires.
Vampire State -- A country or state that consumes resources, taxes and the wealth of citizens in excessive fashion, yet delivers services poorly or not at all. The etymology of this designation suggests it came from our own state's nickname, the "Empire State."
There are many more, but you get the picture. Readers should feel free to submit their own.
Speaking of belligerati, I am in receipt of a couple of e-mails from readers who interpreted content in the last two columns critical of the Bush administration's performance in Iraq as evidence that I'm a pointy-headed liberal wimp who should not be allowed near young persons.
They weren't much more specific than that. I may be pointy-headed but I am neither a wimp nor a liberal. I am a registered Republican who has quite conservative views on a whole range of national issues. My point in the previous columns deals with support of America's fighting men and women, not denigration of them or their cause. My point is that the damage to our national security by virtually destroying our military from within by boneheaded policy and actions may be far greater than sustenance of casualties in Iraq -- dire as that toll is.
The shortsighted mistakes of the Pentagon and White House are turning true patriots and brave defenders into bitter haters of the military they once loved and joined voluntarily. And is it any wonder? In addition to the idiocy of making amputees pay their travel expenses to hospital treatment, we now are hearing of another slap in the face to returning troops. Because of aging barracks and extreme housing shortages on several armed forces bases, many fighting men and women lived in off-base housing in the states or near bases abroad before they deployed to the Middle East. They received a housing allowance for this, depending on marital status and how many children they had -- commonly several hundred dollars a month.
Some correspondents, in reaction to the previous columns, are complaining that soldiers returning from Iraq are finding their off-base housing allowances are not being reinstated, or are being delayed so long as to cause family financial crisis. Not only that, but many of the returnees are short-timers, due to muster out of service soon, and some commanding officers -- the complaints go -- are using the housing allowance sums owed as incentive to re-enlist. In other words, the quid pro quo is "you will get your money faster if you sign on for another stint."
We know the Pentagon is desperately short of troops. And we know it is short of money. Apparently it is not short of dumb ideas. The belligerati who brook no criticism of our Iraqi venture -- none, no matter what the motivation -- seem to be working from a mental template of World War II spirit and unity. American men dropped their shovels and wrenches, left their jobs for the good of the nation, and marched off to save the country and western civilization -- and they didn't whimper about it either, did they?
There's another angle -- never mind the unilateral nature of our invasion of Iraq, nor the scope of the Iraqi threat that is so controversial. These armed forces are of volunteer makeup. These airmen and marines and soldiers and sailors joined to make a living at an honorable job. They didn't have jobs. They were promised certain benefits and job conditions in return for an adventurous career in defending the land and people they loved. Now they notice, after serving in the worst of circumstances and watching comrades die, that some of those promises are being reneged upon in cavalier fashion. It infuriates them. It infuriated veterans of the first Gulf War, in which about one-seventh of those who fought honorably (and successfully) returned from Kuwait and Iraq suffering chronic illnesses and mystery symptoms. For their pains they were subjected to vitriolic and unexpected accusations from within and without the Washington establishment that they were goldbrickers, hypochondriacs, scammers and sissies -- and that they were merely stressed by their experiences and were trying to get a government check for it. Only this year -- more than a dozen after that short war -- has the federal government and military establishment reversed position on that issue, too late for many.
Continued mistreatment of recent veterans and active duty personnel will have the same result as it has through history -- deterioration of morale, spirit, and performance on the battlefield and off. Go see "Alexander" or read about the Roman Empire.
Last week, recruiting figures for the National Guard were released. The recruiting drive fell short of Pentagon targets in the previous two months -- by about 30 percent each period. That may be a mystery to the Defense Department, but it's no mystery to me or millions of other thinking Americans.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | Dec. 28 2004 |