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.
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.
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.
Another thought is that we at
TPM often joke about the splitting of the Republican Party and its demise. Somehow I've always pictured it as an actual
split, the business/ moderates and the Far Right. But the split is actually a migration of many
to the Blue Dogs, leaving the ever-marginalized behind. Many posters on TPM voice their wish that Democratic
moderates would leave the Party. As the
Blue Dogs gain more independence and continue to assert it, maybe someday they
are going to get their wish. But the real splitting would happen here within the Democrats.
So yeah, let's toast to the addition of another Democrat to the Senate! But also let's think a bit on what Specter's addition actually means.
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
Ok, I'll bite:
1. You be respectful of other's countries/cultures. A deep resentment of America's policies in a populace in general will always lead to the possibility of extreme resenters turning pro.
2. You have a reputation for not backing down/letting wrong-doers go. There's gotta be consequences for fucking with America.
3. You don't act so much on your own as with the U.N. It gives you more credit than unilateral action will when there's a lot of backing (Here's where my personal politics most comes into play--I absolutely think it's stupid for America to be a policeman. I mean, we don't get paid for that shit.)
4. The obvious one: You try, again, to solve the Palestinian/Israeli(and Lebanon/Syrian/Jordan) conflict. This one's hard, but at least make a real effort. And we can't just act like Israel's our "51st state" (quote was from some Italians who got into an argument with me once).
5. Oil. How many petrodictatorships are we funding here? We gotta get our energy consumption/Independence thing done for real this time. There are studies showing that the higher oil prices go, the less freedom in the providing countries (take Russia for instance).
Ok, I'm done for now. Add your own. I'm just saying that how we look at problems can go a long way to stymieing terrorism.
Michigoose: Ya know, I've always wondered about that "prevent a terrorist attack" question. I mean, really, how much impact does a president have on preventing folks from coming onto our turf and trying to do something to hurt us?