For over 200 years, the government has provided free health care to Native American reservations. Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, has received a 13% increase in funding  to provide this service as well as stimulus money to improve clinics.

The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. But the troubled Indian Health Service only has about half of the money it needs, leaving poor tribes in remote areas with severely underfunded facilities and substandard care. Wealthier tribes are often able to supplement the federal budget with their own dollars.

However, just because the government has been obligated to provide Native Americans free health care doesn't mean that it's actually done well.  HHS's Office of Minority Health lists grim statistics showing that Native American health fares poorer than the average American in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, HIV, and infant mortality.  The only bright spot that I see in the list is that they fare slightly better in immunization rate.  Sebelius is trying to address the issue and states:

"One of my challenges to the new head of the Indian Health Service is that we need a multiyear strategy, we need an end goal," she said.

She said health disparities between minority groups and whites are "unconscionable."

"The most severe disparity between quality care and what goes on with health outcomes is in the Native American population," she added.

One reason of many, which include cultural misunderstanding and poverty, for the state of Native American Health include that the health service provider for reservations, the Indian Health Service has "only half the money it needs."  A 13% increase isn't enough to erase years of neglect in their government provided health care system.

Furthermore, doctors and clinic workers often do not understand how most tribes see health care in general. Traditionally, health issues are dealt with by treating the whole body instead of just the problem at hand. Also, because they often are so steeped in tradition, individuals often are averse to change. This ranges from trying new treatments to receiving advice from doctors.

My wife works at an organization that helps sick people get treatment and funds research to cure disease. One problem that always crops up here out West is how hard it is to get Native Americans to get treatment or see a doctor or talk openly about a disease. This problem cuts both ways as doctors often underdiagnose problems with minorities. A really detailed account of the history of government provided health care is here.

Obviously, the problems that plague government-provided Native American health care are different than those we will face in the fight for health care for all Americans. The plight of Native Americans is often ignored by most Americans and our government. President Obama campaigned at reservations and said that he would address these issues. I think a 13% is a start, but a much more comprehensive plan is needed. Of course a nationwide, universal coverage, if extended to reservations, would probably render these problems moot.

Some on the Right are no longer just wanting for Obama to fail.  They are praying for it.  And not only that, but some are praying for him to die.  Wiley Drake, a prominent Southern Baptist, was on Fox radio giving his views:

Later in the interview, Colmes returned to Drake's answer to make sure he heard him right.

"Are you praying for his death?" Colmes asked.

"Yes," Drake replied.

"So you're praying for the death of the president of the United States?"

"Yes."

This isn't the first time that Drake has prayed for someone to die.  He claims to have been asking God to kill the recently slain women's health doctor, George Tiller.  Imprecatory prayer is a rarely performed type of prayer, cited in the Bible's Psalms, which is a curse to bring "death and misfortune" to your enemies.  Drake is proud to use God for his message of hate, and backs it up:

"It is in the Bible, and we are proud to say as Southern Baptists that we believe the Book," he said. "You've got to believe the whole Book, brother, or you don't believe any of it."

Regardless of Drake's words, some Southern Baptists have spoken out against this rhetoric, including pastor Dwight McKissic in Arlington, Texas.  McKissic is African American and has praised Obama in the past.

McKissic, who is asking the SBC this year to adopt a resolution celebrating the election of the nation's first African-American president, said if Drake was identified in the interview as a Southern Baptist, then his remarks should not go unchallenged.

Personally, I think that Drake's prayers are worthless.  But some people do listen to his words--those on the lunatic fringe.  One has already killed a doctor and now Drake is on the radio saying that he is asking God to kill Obama. 

What he really is asking is for one of his listeners to do it.

A report for the Director of National Intelligence's office released just a little while ago names Nancy Pelosi as one of the members of Congress briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html).

It also names other names.

The Senate intelligence committee's chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing "described in considerable details" the techniques used, including "how the water board was used."

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

I did a quick search for the actual report and haven't found it. 

We've talked about how Democrats had to have also been involved in the torture fiasco.  Well, we have some names in Congress to go with the surmises.  And yes, it has been suggested before here that Pelosi had to have known and had been briefed.

I've had a crazy week that's left me a bit shell-shocked that ended with me giving an extremely mediocre hour-long talk this morning, so aren't really sure what to make of this.  I'm even having trouble dragging out of my brain how much about this list of names we already know.  But to me, this is another chip needed to piece this back together.  How did America come to torture?  Who in Congress let the Bush White House steamroll our Constitution?  Why in the hell were Democrats so happy to be a part of this "rubber stamp Congress"? 

Congress are our elected leaders.  Where was the leading?  Why were they just following orders? It's enough to make one sick, literally. 

Tuesday was a good day. Specter defects to the Democratic Party.  On the same day Senator Coryn (R, TX) proclaims that in Nov. 2010 the "Republicans will regain their status as a national party," which means even they know now that they really aren't all hands on deck. But even though it was a good day for Democrats, something gives me pause.

Last month, Senator Bayh formed the Moderate Dems Working Group, a coalition linked through the Third Way to the House's Blue Dogs. He posited the formation of this group in December after the Democrats had taken everything in November. Members of both coalitions are "Honorary Chairs" in the Third Way, a group that "is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement."   When commenting on posts, such as Tuesday's Specter defection (or "addition", depending upon your taste), I called Specter an instant "Blue Dog"--which I am assuming that he will be.  And though the reasons of his defection are many, including the fact that he has little chance of being re-elected next year as a Republican, one big one is the security that the Moderate Dem Working Group (from now on, I'm just going to call a spade a spade: Blue Dogs) will offer him.

 

The Blue Dogs, now that they are essentially active in the House and Senate, are now often the group that "mainstream" Democrats are having to negotiate with (especially since the Republicans keep voting "no" and refusing to play ball with anyone).  They are a boon to the Democrats, as they caucus and vote with them, mostly.  But it's obvious to me that they now are growing in power--especially with the self destruction of the Republicans.  The House's Blue Dogs boycotted dues to the DCCC in 2007, now negotiate with the Democrats as a semi-independent body, and frankly have more influence over policy than the Republicans. With their official formation in the Senate as well, I'm starting to see them as a de-facto party of their own.

I guess my point is that we should acknowledge that the Democrats are a coalition, one party of many.  But within this coalition is an ever growing, ever independent group. While the Republicans are pounding sand with an ever dwindling moderate/economic/business wing and a steady staunch Christian wing, the Blue Dogs are stealing their thunder.

I finally figured out how to link with Coryn above, but had already done this, so here's some reference links:

Brian Beutler's take on the formation of the Moderate Dem Working Group: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/disunity-09.php

 

The Third Way's take on the formation of the Moderate Dem Working Group: <http://www.thirdway.org/press/release/71>

 

Bayh's announcement in March: http://bayh.senate.gov/news/press/release/?id=b30d7f79-9eb1-4819-980f-9489825825ba

Bayh's announcement in December that he wanted to form a new coalition: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/evan-bayh-forming-conserv_n_150874.html

 

The Blue Dogs: http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html

Well, yes, he's not going to be Secretary of Commerce. He's back to the ordinary duties of running a state and defending his people against a "Pay for Play" allegations.  But, all that aside, apparently he's now re-growing his famed beard:

http://abqjournal.magnify.net/video/The-Beard-is-Back

Judas jokes aside, and, yes, the reporter makes one, it still looks pretty thin.

Here's a q and a that was on Election Central awhile ago.  I tried to answer it, but maybe I missed something.
 

This is a must read, alarming and occasionally funny:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

I can't shake the feeling that momentum has shifted in a big way in the presidential race: 

Two polls in VA show Obama with a 10+ lead.  New Hampshire.  People, including military types, basically calling McCain's campaign a liar.  Michigan pullout.  People getting sick of all of the "way out there" attack ads. And the biggest indicator of all, the economy. 

The future ain't going to be easy, but I still say that this Monday's a good day.

  Obama this week answered questions from ScienceDebate 2008, a group of 38k scientists and science supporters. It looks good.

 I am a geologist and have been concerned over our government's anti-science stance-documented in many publications, including The Republican War on Science.  I mean, some of their decisions have been ludicrous to the point of idiocy, which is scary when your leaders discount rationality.  Examples range from what everyone knows, i.e. global warming, to the endangered species act, HIV policy, and even allowing endless lawsuits questioning the science of decisions of government agencies to allow companies to do what they wish. I'm especially encouraged by his scientific integrity in government stance (one of the questions given).

Obama's stances seem to be on the level.  Hell, his thinking seems to be far more rational than McCain or Bush. But does the American public care about rationality?  Science and engineering innovation keep America strong.  Not invading a country and pissing away your allies and your budget because God told you to do it also keeps America strong.  But does America care?  Obama this week answered questions from ScienceDebate 2008, a group of 38k scientists and science supporters. It looks good.

 I've been reading a few political books lately, like The Republican War on Science. I am a geologist and have been concerned over our government's anti-science stance.  I mean, some of their decisions have been ludicrous to the point of idiocy, which is scary when your leaders discount rationality.  Examples range from what everyone knows, i.e. global warming, to the endangered species act, HIV policy, and even allowing endless lawsuits questioning the science of decisions of government agencies to allow companies to do what they wish.

Obama's stances seem to be on the level.  Hell, his thinking seems to be far more rational than McCain or Bush. But does the American public care about rationality?  Science and engineering innovation keep America strong.  Not invading a country and pissing away your allies and your budget because God told you to do it also keeps America strong.  But does America care?

One thing I am perplexed about is how adamant each side is in the FISA immunity debate.  I hear no talk of compromise--just either that it's good or it's bad.  Could language be constructed that said an investigation will take place, list capitulations to the White House that are ok, and list infractions that are not?  We could call it "limited immunity" or "the line in the sand that telecoms may not cross".  Thoughts?