#62 – Dick Bernard: Long Term Care: moving from Charity to Profit Center

/in , , , , , /by

This is post #6 of 13.  The others: July 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, August 1, 2,5,6,7,10,15.
What follows is my response to a long editorial in the July 22, 2009, Minneapolis Star Tribune “Don’t ignore costs of long-term care“.  My response was sent U.S. mail to the writer of the editorial and the legislators mentioned.  I did not write it for publication – it is too long.  I may shorten it for submission as a regular newspaper column in August.
It is important to read the editorial first, as it provides the context for the response.  The editorial on which the letter is based should remain archived at www.startribune.com, (click on Opinion, click on Editorials and look through the archived list.)  I have typed the text of the editorial at the end of this post. 

July 28, 2009

Dear Editorial Writer (“Don’t ignore costs of long-term care”, July 22, 2009)

I have been letting your editorial of July 22 settle for a bit before responding.  I am armed only with personal experiences, your editorial and the enclosed [June 2, 1995 ] editorial by former Mn Governor Elmer L. Andersen.  I didn’t know about the Center of the American Experiment symposium, and in any event wouldn’t have been in their loop anyway. 

 

 To be succinct, the saying “fox guarding the chicken coop” came to mind as I was reading the proposal for (possibly) more taxes made by the Minnesota Free Market Institute representative.  Of course, in this case, the “fox” wouldn’t eat a few chickens and dash away; he’d “monetize” them by careful stewardship of the “eggs” – tough luck for Farmer Jones (the taxpayer) who accepted the “deal”…so it goes.  Money in the bank.

 

It happens that the Sunday before your editorial I was standing in the churchyard of the magnificent Cathedral of St. Boniface in Winnipeg.  We were there to close out a fascinating delving into the last days of my great-grandfather Octave, who died destitute in 1925 at what was described by my father as the “poor farm” in Winnipeg.  I envisioned what this must be.  I’d written about these recollections in a June 21st piece in my blog, and one thing led to another.  “Poor farm” came to be called “rest home” and by July 19, it turned out Great-Grandpa died in the Old Men’s section of Hospice Tache, the hospital of the Grey Nuns in Winnipeg, next door to the Cathedral.  In other words, as was true in those years, he was dealt with as a charity case, and the good nuns, who took seriously their vow of poverty, cared for him in his final days (he is buried in northeast North Dakota, appropriately at rest.)

 

In 1963, Great-Grandpa’s daughter, my grandmother, died.  This was before Medicare.  I was 23 at the time.  To my recollection, she spent most of the last six years of her life in a private room in a small town Catholic hospital.  Her husband had died.  She’d had a stroke, but she could hobble around with a walker.  Dad used to say that her hope was that she would not run out of money before her death.  She had little money to begin with.  I think she probably achieved her goal, probably with the the hospital administrators “wink” at bills. Her care was very inexpensive, and caring. 

 

About 1970, I was at a meeting with a Minnesota state legislator about some local issues.  Nice guy.  It was some years later that I learned that he and I were shirt-tail relations on Great-Grandpas side.  Some time after that I learned the legislator had made a lot of money through Nursing Homes he owned.  He’s long passed on, maybe visiting with Grandma….   Times had changed.  Cheap care had gone missing.  It was now in the Marketplace.

 

In the early 1990s it became my great good fortune to begin a dozen year friendship with Elmer L. Andersen, former MN Governor. 

 

He and I became acquainted through a column he’d written in the Anoka Union.  He was a good writer, and I looked forward to his columns, many of which I kept, including the one that is [below, following this response].  It too, speaks for itself.

 

At some point, in some other context, I learned of the problem that (so far as I know) may still be a problem in American society: people with money (or their heirs) developed strategies to protect their assets so that when it came time to go to the nursing home, their inheritance was protected and the state (“we, the people”) would pay the bill.  Of course, this was a perfectly “honest” strategy.  I seem to recall legislated efforts to close that loophole – probably they still happen – but my guess is that someone with a good lawyer and tax man can figure out ways to shelter their funds while the state pays the lion’s share of their costs.

 

The business of making money is rarely a kind and gentle one.  The astute capitalists figure out ways to figuratively pick people’s pockets.  One of those groups ripe for the picking is, likely, the older age health care sector, which is why the Free Market guy is so compassionate towards the future needs of baby-boomers: there’s lots of money to be made from them….

 

As for myself, for a long time I’ve had what I understand to be the “top of the line” Long Term Care insurance (another lucrative business).  Whether it is more than I need, or if there is a loophole that will deny me essential coverage because of something I didn’t notice, or if it becomes prohibitively expensive to maintain – all of these and other questions are unknown to me, now.  I can’t afford the necessary lawyers and accountants.  And I’m perhaps more astute about this than the average consumer.

 

Bottom line for me is that the profiteers are the ones who have driven the health care industry into the state of crisis in which it now finds itself.  I’m skeptical about the gushing “honestly and courageously” statement near the end of the editorial.  Altruism is of little matter, so long as plenty of money is made, and there is nothing to be lost if they’re hypocritical by criticizing the government at the same time as they’re making sure the government keeps their own trough plenty full.

 

No doubt your editorial is getting wide circulation in the “right-of-center” world….

 

Sincerely, Dick Bernard

 

Enclosure: Editorial of former MN Governor Elmer L. Andersen, then newspaper publisher, in the June 2, 1995, Anoka County Union:

“For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995, the state Department of Human Services had a budget of $9.2 billion.  That is an enormous amount of money and an incredible responsibility to administer.  Commissioner Maria Gomez, a highly qualified and dedicated professional, has issued a “Report to the Public” that, in plain straightforward language, states the mission and priorities of the department under federal and state law.  Copies of the report are available by calling 612-297-5627.

 

Money flows through County Human Services units, supervised by the County Board of Commissioners and directed by a professional social worker.  Services are also purchased from non-profit church related and other community welfare agencies.   There are misconceptions which the report seeks to correct with clear factual statements.

 

Foremost in the minds of most people is the question.  “Where does all that money go?”  Health Care related expenditures account for 72.7% of the entire total.  By far the single largest item is nursing home care for the elderly.  It has become a part of our culture to place older people in nursing homes at public expense.  The nursing home industry has responded with facilities and programs that provide a variety of services to meet needs in generally pleasant situations.  Increasing population as well as an increasing percentage of older people and an increasing percentage of them in nursing homes, plus rising costs of everything results in soaring expense.  The department is encouraging a program to aid older people to live independently and thus postponing the need for residential care.

 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children is 8.7% of the budget.  All other programs account for 13.2%.  Child care is only 1.2%, Food Stamps .7 of 1%, work readiness .4%. Minnesota Supplemental Aid .9% and “other services” still smaller.  It should be observed that to “get people off welfare” affects relatively small budget items, is welcomed by recieipents and administrators alike but may not accomplish as much as hoped because of the nature of disabilities and will require up front investment.

 

We can be proud to be part of a society that is concerned for the well-being of every individual but we must realize it is a huge, complicated and costly operation.  People who read the report will understand better all that is involved.”

 

Minneapolis Star-Tribune Editorial July 22, 2009

Don’t ignore costs of long-term care

 

The symposium sponsored by a right-of-center Minneapolis think tank was an unlikely place to propose a new federal tax and an even unlikelier place to find agreement that it’s time to consider one.

 

Yet that was the situation of a thoughtful gathering on entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – conducted recently by the Center of the American Experiment.  The conservative Minnesota participants – Chuck Chalberg, Laurence Cooper, Tom Kelly, Peter Nelson and moderator Mitch Pearlstein – called passionately for cost containment as baby boomers age.  Toward the end of the program, when the subject of long-term care came up, things took a surprising turn.  Kelly, a Dorsey and Whitney attorney who’s chairman of the Minnesota Free Market Institute, shared perspectives from his parents’ and grandmother’s long-term care experiences.  “We should…simply say that if you have the good fortune to live into the twilight years when you require this care, it will be provided for you.”  Pressed by Pearlstein on how to pay for this, Kelly replied: “We would have to have a tax…the same as we do for Social Security.”

 

It was a striking exchange, one calling attention not only to long-term care costs, but also the opportunity afforded by our shared experiences to explore meaningful solutions to the challenges of caring for the nation’s elderly and disabled in years to come.  Most families have seen up close how costly and frustrating the process can be.  More than just about any issue, there’s common ground on which to build real reform: policies that reduce reliance on expensive institutional care and encourage more personal savings.

 

Whether that involves a new taxpayer-supported social insurance program remains to be seen, and it’s too early to support any type of tax.  But make no mistake, it’s time to act.  The nation’s long-term care system is in crisis.  The reason is that far too few Americans save for long-term care expenses, yet the majority of them will need it – nearly 70 percent of people over age 65 will require this kind of care at some point.  Private long-term care policies pick up just 7 percent of the nation’s long-term care costs.  Those without insurance go through their savings and then turn for help to Medicaid, the $360 billion-a-year medical care program for the poor that is administered jointly by the state and federal government.

 

Medicaid’s costs are unsustainable.  In 1971, Medicaid consumed 0.7 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.  That total had climed to 2.1 percent by the early part of this decade.  Long-term care services comprise about one-third of the program’s total spending and are expected to consume dramatically more dollars as baby boomers age.  Despite the money spent, and despite recent policy fixes, families remain frustrated by the program’s institutional bias.  It’s designed to put people in nursing homes, not keep them in their own homes.

 

Minnesota is fortunate that its politicians understand the issue’s urgency.  In the state Legislature, Rep Laura Brod, R-New Prague, and Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, teamed up admirable this spring on a bill that would have allowed Minnesotans to open up tax-advantaged savings accoutns for long-term care expenses.  The bill wasn’t passed during the 2009 session, but it deserves a second change in 2010.  While a small step, it’s a start in getting more people to save for their own care.

 

Newly installed U.S. Sen. Al Franken, who sits on the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging, also understands the issue’s urgency.  Just days after taking office, Franken told the Star Tribune that long-term care must be part of the health care reform debate going forward, and his ideas bear watching as he offers specifics.

 

The new Senator’s focus is welcome.  Even during this summer’s historic health care reform discussions, long-term care has unfortunately remained an after-thought.  The U.S. House bill, introduced last week, essentially ignores it.  On the Senate side, Sen. Edward Kennedy has introduced a program that calls for Americans to voluntarily pay long-term care premiums into a new government-run long-term care insurance program.  That program, called the CLASS Act, deserves a higher-profile debate than it has gotten.

 

Kelly and his colleagues at the Center of the American Experiment symposium spoke honestly and courageously about long-term care.  Their conclusions are correct.  Drastic action is needed and all options must be on the table.  More blunt talk is needed if the nation is to continue providing the quality affordable care its most vulnerable citizens deserve. 

 

#61 – Dick Bernard: VA and Medicare

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

This is post #5 of 13.  The others: July 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, August 1, 2,5,6,7,10,15
Side note: I notice that the presentation of the FEAR case against Health Care  Reform is intensifying.  This was expected.  The anti-debate will concentrate  on the emotional.   Most of the campaign will be through dishonest and misleading marketing techniques, like television ads, talk radio, internet stuff….  The pressure on legislators to “kill the bill” will intensify. 
Along with Social Security, Veteran’s Administration Medical care and Medicare are crown jewels in America’s social safety net.  Because they are federal programs and susceptible to the epithet “socialist” the opponents of single payer option and universal coverage for all would like to hide them in a closet, or slowly amend them to death.  But they are difficult to hide, and likely impossible to kill.  They’re all around us…and they’re big success stories.
MEDICARE:  I’ve been on Medicare for four years, which gives me a bit of experience from the consumer end. 
A couple of days ago, Medicare celebrated its 44th anniversary.  President Obama celebrated the occasion at a gathering of the American Association of Retired Persons, and got a good laugh when he told about a letter he received from a lady who was against his program, and against socialized medicine, “keep your hand off my Medicare“.    That’s how confusing this topic gets.  People can rail against the government, but in one way or another, if they are of a certain age, “keep your hands off my Medicare” is a pretty firm retort whether conservative or liberal.   Some history at http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568111/Medicare_and_Medicaid.html
I’ve had a good experience with Medicare so far.  There are well documented instances of fraud, but they don’t reside with the consumers of the care like me, rather with alleged providers (“entrepreneurs”?) who game the system…criminals.
It is not necessary to go on at much length about Medicare as most everyone knows someone who’s on Medicare.  It is absolute proof positive that you have turned 65.  The people who want to get rid of Medicare generally talk very softly or obtusely.  They can’t go after it, at least not directly.  “Keep your hands off my Medicare“. 
Medicare isn’t perfect and it isn’t free.  Tens of thousands of dollars went into my Medicare account during the last twenty-four years of my working career.  Medicare recipients pay a premium for the insurance (it’s deducted from Social Security).  It has a deductible ‘out of pocket’ amount to be satisfied, and people who can afford to are well advised to buy supplements to fill the holes in coverage.  People on Medicare without other financial means are vulnerable.  The program is subject to quiet legislative mischief.  What you thought was covered, may be changed, information buried inside the big book of benefits you receive once a year.
What is very well hidden by the Free Marketers is that every Medicare dollar goes into the economy, just like their dollars.  It is not money down a black hole.  Simply, Medicare is an efficient competitor without the profit motive.
The major 2003 Medicare amendments, which basically prohibited competitive bidding on things like drugs, have proven to be an immense burden on the system, but these amendments were enacted for the primary benefit of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, not to enhance the efficiency of the system as a whole.  They were advertised as making Medicare better; they made it worse, in my opinion.  They were written by and for big business interests.  They hurt more than helped.
In my opinion, since Medicare couldn’t be killed outright, efforts have been and continue to be made to kill it quietly and slowly and thus privatize it, too. 
I think it’s fair to say that 43 million elderly and 2 million disabled recipients of Medicare would say, almost with a unanimous voice, “Keep your hands off my Medicare.”
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
I’m an honorably discharged U.S. Army veteran and thus theoretically eligible for VA benefits, but the odds of my ever truly qualifying for the wide array of VA care, including hospitalization, is not good.  There are eligibility criteria: potential recipients are divided into categories.  You can view the 8 Priority groups here http://tinyurl.com/dgknug.  They are basically self-explanatory.  Most likely I’m in category 8; I’ve never even tried to qualify.  (I am told that veterans, regardless of likely eligibility status, should make application anyway.  Certain benefits, like prescription drugs, may well be available through VA at lower cost than commercially.)
My grandfather, a Spanish American War veteran with less active service than I, and never part of the “regular Army” to my knowledge, got most of his medical treatment through VA, and died in a VA Hospital in 1957.  A veteran was a veteran, then.
I had extensive contact with the VA system during several years of major medical treatment for my brother-in-law, who died in November, 2007.   I was his representative; the rest of his family was gone.  For years, the VA system was his primary care.
I was extremely impressed with the services provided at the VA Hospitals at which he spent a considerable amount of time.
Along with his other problems Mike had been mentally ill since 1977, considered totally disabled by the illness and on Social Security Disability since 1982.  In the 2000s he was hospitalized on two occasions for major aneurysm operations.  He survived both surgeries, but a result of the second was lower extremity paralysis due to the length of the surgery and the location of the aneurysm.  He was warned of the possiblity of paralysis before the surgery.  Without the surgery he would not have lived at all.  Mike spent a lot of time in VA Hospitals.
In all of the time he was at the Minneapolis and Fargo ND VA facilities, he received outstanding treatment from a caring staff.  It was not a chore to go to see him.  In 1977 he was hospitalized at the VA Hospital in St. Cloud MN when his mental illness manifested itself.  There, too, the treatment and followup was first rate.
The treatment at these hospitals is likely rationed due to the fact that there are huge numbers of military veterans like myself, whose need for treatment in a federal facility ranges from very low to very high.  Unspoken, but probably a factor in under-funding of the VA (I was told the Minneapolis VA hospital had unused wings when my brother-in-law was there) is the matter of its competing with the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  VA Hospitals are efficient operations.  But they are a ymbolic and reat threat to “free market” types. 
So…Who do you know who’s on Medicare, Medicaid or is or has been a patient at a VA facility?  What is their story, and your interpretation?

#60 – Dick Bernard: Health Care Reform and the Middle Class: The Middle Class fighting against its own best interests?

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

This is post #4 of 13. The others: July 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, August 1, 2,5,6,7,10,15.
Please note comments filed at July 24 and 26 posts.  I also added a brief update at the end of the July 26 post.  The final planned post on this series will be tomorrow.  I hope they elicit at minimum some thought.  If there is to be change, it is up to us, not to somebody else, to bring it about.
This post is particularly difficult to write, even though, except for a couple of too-close calls to long-term “poor”, I’ve always been middle class.  Even with some serious ‘speed bumps’, I’ve been pretty fortunate so far.
It is the middle class (most broadly defined) in this country which bears (and will bear) the consequences of chaotic health care “choice”, misleading sales pitches, and profiteering by assorted entrepreneurs committed to maximizing the “monetizing” of Health Services through many assorted means.  The pinnacle of today’s medical industry, most broadly defined, is about making money, lots and lots of money.  World Class Care is a distant second, and care for all is bad economics if the monetary bottom line  is the objective.
It is ironic, then, to see that the middle class is actively recruited for – and willing to – lobby against any substantive attempts to reform the system that in far too many instances hurts them. 
If anyone will, it will be the American middle class that will truly kill health care reform. 
It is not hard to figure out how “recruitment”  happens.  Fear.  For just one example, somehow or other I got on a nationwide e-list that is, charitably, anti-government and thus anti-tax.  (I’m actually glad I’m on this list (passively) since it opens a window into the exploitation of the Fear people have of change.) 
Here’s the subject lines to date (I may update as new ones come in, as they will): July 3 – generally anti-Taxes; July 18 – Congress plans to Outlaw Private Insurance; July 26 – the insurance reform will cover 12,000,000 illegals; July 28 (three e-mails) – Congress won’t enroll in its own Government Health Care; Obama-care Night-mare; call for One million Tea Bag faxes targeting two Democratic Senators.  The bottom line for this initiative: keep the middle class fearful and confused and divided.  Works well.  Who funds this initiative?  Whatever the case, it exists.
The tone of these e-mails are on the verge of hysterical (and written to sound believable), and my guess is that plenty of middle class folks bite.
But of what benefit to the middle class is the continuation of the current system, essentially unchanged?  If you are very lucky, you are enrolled in a large group plan, you aren’t facing layoff, and the plan has a retirement supplement option which won’t disappear and which you can afford.  That is the kind of plan I’m in, I think.  But I’m in a pretty sheltered environment.  And the part of my plan that covers what Medicare doesn’t – the supplement – is never certain.
(A year ago all retirees of the company were called together for a special session where the benefits people introduced ten or more competing alternative plans that we, the consumers, were invited to look at.  There were hundreds of people there.  Why is Plan E cheaper than Plan A?  What does Plan E take away that you would get with Plan A?  The devil is always in the details, or in the fine print.  Most of us don’t have the skills or the time to navigate this morass.  But this is the choice we consumers are constantly asked to make – and then it’s our own fault if we make a dumb choice.  So, I pick a choice that barely covers chemotherapy because I don’t need that coverage, and I end up with cancer?  My problem.)
The Health Care crisis didn’t happen last week…it has been evolving for years (read tomorrow’s post).  But like the person with a suspicious symptom who refuses to go see the doctor for fear of what the doctor might find, society (based on the rhetoric of its political representatives) seems to believe that refusing to acknowledge the problem will make it go away.  Not.
I know the general parameters of the field of health care pretty well.  In addition to personal experience over the years, and close relatives in the field, for nearly 30 years I was intimately involved with negotiating and administrating several hundred collective bargaining contracts for tiny to large union locals, all of which had some form or another of group health insurance. 
These plans were good, bad or sometimes awful.  Sometimes the participants paid nothing for the coverage; in other places they paid a lot.  In every case, to belong to the plan they had to be a contracted employee, and if they were laid off or left for some other reason, their health benefit ended at some early point. 
Long before I retired in 2000, efforts were already being made to pool the small plans into a much larger state-wide plan, which would spread the risk, and thus create greater efficiencies (lower cost).  To date, so far as I know, such efforts have failed, in large part because the have’s are not (if we’re to be really honest) interested in compromising parts of their quality plans to help the have nots.  In the end, both the haves and the have nots suffer from this short-sighted approach.  But logic doesn’t often fit into this debate, which is emotional.
I’d like to see light at the end of the tunnel, but absent citizen outrage the problem will get worse.  People are and will continue to be forced to make decisions based on bad or manipulated information which, of course, will have bad consequences.
In the end the American Middle Class will decide whether to do the common sense thing and go to some kind of single payer option, or choose instead the status quo which will (my opinion) only continue to get more and more chaotic. 
The decision will be up to us….  What are YOU doing to impact?

#59 – Dick Bernard: Should there be Health Care for all? A simple exercise.

/in , , , , /by

This is post #3 of 13: the others are July 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, August 1, 2,5,6,7,10,15.
Posts #58 and #56 (July 26 and 24, 2009) are also on the Health Care Reform issue; Post #60 (not yet begun) will be on Health Care and the Middle Class conundrum; and #61 on Nursing Home and Long Term Care.  I’m not an “expert” in this area (I doubt even the “experts” are, but I know quite a bit from work and life experience.) 
What started out as a simple idea has become more complicated than I thought, but the simple exercise, below, might help individuals begin to get an idea of the complexity of health care systems in this country, how a simple system can become bewildering – a system promoting individual disasters. 
Take a single sheet of paper, crease it down the middle, making two columns.
In the first column make a list of everyone you know in your own family, among friends, colleagues, their families, etc., who in one way or another cannot economically navigate by themselves.  This could include people with serious mental, physical or emotional handicaps; people in jobs without adequate insurance, or those who might be laid off from such jobs and be without insurance for short or long terms, ETC.  (There are many et ceteras.)
In the second column, make a similar list of everyone you know personally who is “wealthy”.  For purpose of discussion, this could be anyone who could financially survive a catastrophic medical event even if uninsured. 
There could be a third column – the big majority of us, with all the unusual arrangements which make up our own health care – but the first two are good to illustrate how our system works (or doesn’t).   #60 will speak directly to the Middle Class insurance problem. 
My first column is quite lengthy, even though I come from a family that values hard work and self-reliance and would be considered middle class, and is white.   I can ask myself, and I ask you as well: “which of the folks on the first list should be set adrift, to ‘sink or swim’ on their own?  If they die, tough.  Don’t send me the bill.”  Most of the people on my personal list already receive one public benefit or another, as they do in all families, including a very large number on Medicare. The often-reviled Medicare law of 1965 assured that: when you turn 65, as I have, you’re on Medicare – no choices.  But also on my list, and probably on everyone elses, are some people now in the “middle class”, who very well may find themselves, their kids or grandkids in crisis down the road, marooned outside the health care system.  If health care for all is a gravy train, as some may suggest, who do we throw off of it?  Do we solve the problem by getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid?  These are not simple questions.  (More on Medicare history at http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568111/Medicare_and_Medicaid.html)
My second column includes a single name.  He was a very wealthy businessman, and almost 50 years ago was a governor of my state, and before that a respected state legislator.  He developed his small company into a Fortune 500 International Corporation.   He and I came to be very good friends.  He died in 2004.  It was a great personal gift to get to know him.  Most of us don’t even know a single truly wealthy person.  Not all of them fit the caricature. 
I could go on at great length about the people in my first list.  My “Exhibit A” is the relative who was caught on a home movie at a large family reunion 16 years ago.  I looked at this home movie just a week ago.  This person, who appears on screen by herself for only a few seconds, was an adult, and she was clearly cowering in the corner of a building, most likely terrified by the throng at the festive gathering.  I didn’t know of her then, but later learned that she was chronically and quite severely mentally ill and simply could not function in “normal” society.   So far as I know, she is no different today.  She lives at home; most certainly she receives public assistance, as she should.
Each of the others on the my list – and yours – have their own stories, some possibly self-inflicted (as chemical abuse); most through bad luck or no fault of their own. 
My points about these lists – and yours – are these: 
1)  Every one of us, if honest, can make similar lists of people in our own circles.  Every one in our society could.  These folks are part of humanity, deserving of treatment for their ailment, and care beyond minimal needs.  They exist everywhere in our country, no less than around the world.  They just happen to have dis-abilities.
2)  That single wealthy guy on my list?  He was no pariah, worthy of scorn.  He has important public buildings named after him.   Were he around to engage in this health care debate, it would probably be a no-brainer for him: if it is for the good of society then everyone should be covered, he would probably say, today.  He spent a good part of his young life as an orphan, and he understood what it was like to be under-privileged.  In his public policy days, group insurance was basically unknown, but medical care was also very inexpensive.   He’d probably say, “let’s figure out how to get this problem solved”.
3)  Probably the real dilemma comes for the folks in the middle – the vast majority of us.  Some of us have insurance, some don’t, some pay more, some less, for better or worse coverage.  We deal with great uncertainty, and it is in our interest to get some consistency for all. #60, on July 28, will deal with this issue.       
4)  To those who say “this is all well and good, but don’t expect me to pay for illegal aliens” or, “we can’t afford this”, or “fill in the blank” pet exclusions to universal care, a simple thought: we are in a global world, and among the problems we face is that communicable disease does not stop at state lines, or town boundaries, nor country borders.  Wouldn’t it at least make sense to take care of the basic care for all, since it would lower the odds of that killer disease reaching our doorstep?  And shouldn’t health care, like education, be a basic human right for all of us?  It is, after all, in our own selfish interest.

#58 – Health Care Policy: Some Unpleasant Realities to consider

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

This post is #2 of 13 on this topic: The others are at July 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, August 1. 2,5,6,7,10,15.  A final summary commentary is at October 9, 2009.
Note the index for previous commentaries, including #56, published on July 24, 2009.  #56 includes the “talking points” the Republicans in Congress will be taking home with them for town meetings in the upcoming recess.  It is important to understand these, and some counter arguments (included), to be well informed in this debate.
Today I am (I think) very well insured.  This has been true for many years.  (I say “I think” because one never knows for sure what surprises lurk in the fine print, not to be found until you find a specific coverage is excluded for some reason.)
I wasn’t so fortunate as  to be insured in my early adult life.  Following are two stories from my own experience.  I think they’re worth reading.
Story #1 – submitted recently as an op ed to a major newspaper, and as of today not printed.
Today the front-and-center issue is Health Care, tomorrow it will be something else.  At the end of the day, we the people will get what little we deserve for our short-sightedness.  Our legislators do our bidding: it’s called getting elected or re-elected.
We make unwise choices all the time, without considering the possibility that those choices may have dire consequences for ourselves or others we love.
Consider one real example: my own.
In mid-October, 1963, fresh out of the U.S. Army, I took a teaching job in Minnesota.  My young wife had just started her first teaching job in another district.  There was no such thing as group insurance in those days.  We were in our early twenties and healthy…we thought.  When the hospital/doctor insurance man came calling, I couldn’t afford the hospital plan, but I did get the doctor portion.  (Had I been “smart”, then, and gotten the hospital portion, it probably would have disqualified “pre-existing conditions”, just as today.)
Two weeks after I started teaching, my wife had to quit her teaching job for health reasons.  Four months later our son was born…two of those months my wife was in a hospital 70 miles away.  She was hospitalized for several weeks after the birth. From then on she was either almost totally disabled or hospitalized. [*]
By May of 1965 her only possibility for survival was a kidney transplant, and one of the few hospitals doing that procedure then was the University of Minnesota Hospital.  We had no insurance.  They finally admitted her.  I’ll never forget our wait for that decision at the hospital.
Two months later, July 26, 1965, she died in that hospital.  She didn’t live long enough to get the transplant.  At 25 I was widowed, parent of an infant, newly employed as a teacher in the twin cities, and owing the equivalent of almost four years wages primarily for medical expenses, not counting the charity of hospitals or clinics who never billed us for services they knew we could never afford.
In October, 1965, I made a list of debts and made an appointment with an attorney to file bankruptcy.  It was something I didn’t want to do.
I never filed bankruptcy.
After a long wait, North Dakota Public Welfare picked up two-thirds of the medical bills – the University of Minesota portion; and a local North Dakota Community Hospital forgave another portion.  I was able to survive.  I could make a long list of other institutions that saved me from financial disaster that two years.  I was a charity case.
If anything, I have tended to be over-insured since that long ago time.  I am one of the lucky ones who had access to insurance through a group plan during my work years and can now afford the necessary supplements to Medicare today.  (I hope I have the right coverage, which covers the right things, whenever….)
But I’ll never forget when reality slapped us in the face in two very hard years, 1963-65.
There is no excuse in this still prosperous (and very self-centered) society of ours to not fully cover every citizen, and to have our government be the provider.  After all, government is “we, the people”.
Those who think they’ve got this all figured out, and can cover every contingency by their own great planning, consider the possibility: you might be wrong.  Or that child or grandkid or cousin or nephew or friend of yours might need the benefit you said it wasn’t the governments responsibility to provide.
Those legislators we elected are in the end analysis going to do our bidding on health care and other issues.
Let’s encourage them to make wise, and not stupid, decisions.
* – Updated October 9, 2009: Four months before she died, we thought she might be pregnant – which would have certainly been a death sentence for she and the child.  Abortion would have been the only solution to save her.  She turned out not to be pregnant, but this close call has made me, an active Catholic, irrevocably “pro-choice”.

Story #2

In August, 1994, I was in Cebu City, Philippine Islands.  Cebu City was and is a major city of nearly a million population.
One day my wealthy host was taking me on a tour, and at one point he made a statement which I have never forgotten: “In the Philippines, if you’re rich you can get as high quality medical treatment as anyone in the United States.  If you’re poor, you die.”
He made the statement in a matter of fact way, and we didn’t pursue the topic.  Later we went to Catholic Mass.  Cebu City claims the Cross of Magellan, who arrived in there in 1565.  It is the seat of Philippine Christianity (Catholicism).  My host and his family were devout Catholics.
That evening, we guests were given a ride to a tourist attraction overlooking the Cebu City area.  It was dusk, and by the time we arrived at the overlook, it was dark.  Along the unlit road up the mountain were occasional fires, and gatherings of poor people, their homes and shops often in the ditches.  It gave dimension to the cityscape off in the distance, far below.
No one seemed to catch the irony of the moment: a wealthy family taking American visitors through the midst of abject poverty to a tourist attraction.
A few months earlier, back in the states, Harry and Louise, the darlings of the anti-Health reform folks in the United States, had teamed with the middle class to beat back health care reform, derisively called “Hillary care”.  Three months later, the Republicans overwhelmed the Democrats in the 1994 Congressional elections, remaining in control of the Congress for a dozen years, and getting control of the White House from 2001 through 2008.  Health related industries became a cash cow for the already wealthy.  What was bad in 1993 has likely become worse, overall.
The Health Care Reform initiatives that were passed in recent years further enriched the already  rich, and created renewed pleas for true reform of a massive and ailing industry.
Now the Republicans and the Health Industry are calling for not rushing into “reform” (“let’s do it right”) while at the same time doing everything in their power to obstruct and confuse and disrupt responsible attempts to make positive changes.  Immense amounts of money are tossed into efforts to confuse the middle class who’ll pay the price.
The contemporary version of Harry and Louise has been created for media use, and success will be measured by failure of reform, which will then be termed a success….  It’s how simple propaganda works.
The desperately poor we saw in Cebu City that night had nothing, and had no clout whatsoever.  If they were sick, they had no choice.  In good Catholic Cebu City, they either got well on their own, or they died.  The rich could fly to Manila, or on to Japan or San Francisco for top shelf medical procedures.  The poor died in the ditches.
We in the United States still have means to impact the system and prevent our descent into third world status.  But do we possess the will to fight off the profiteers and the big corporations who look on Health Care as a profit center?  I’m not at all sure we do.
We have more clout than those poor Filipinos.  But will we use it?
Its our choice: to believe the propaganda, and go with the flow…or to get engaged in fixing a broken system.
If you are the one percent of the population that is considered wealthy, or if you think you will be, then there’s perhaps not much to worry about.  Like the guy in the Philippines, you’ll get your care.  But if you’re a part of the other 99, including pretty prosperous, then you better be very concerned about what’s ahead, and get engaged.
Caveat emptor.
Update: July 26, 2009
After posting this item we went, as usual, to the 9:30 Mass at Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis.  This particular Sunday the celebrant was Fr. Greg Miller from St. John’s University, and the Gospel was the one about the Loaves and the Fishes, and Fr. Greg’s general topic was “hunger and thirst for justice”.  He talked on three themes, all from the previous weeks news:
The Professor Gates/Cambridge police affair and its message about continuing injustice in this country.
The need for Universal Health Care
The need, also, for Immigration Law reform
I suspect someone wrote the Archbishop complaining about Fr. Greg’s meddling in politics.  No matter.  A long-time pillar of the Catholic Church – one reason why I remain an active member – is its commitment to Justice (which is very different from Charity).

#57 – Dick Bernard: The Politics and Practice of Race

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The New York Times (NYT) “Breaking News Alert” came in at 3:03 PM ET on Friday, July 24, 2009.  The headline: “Obama Says He Regrets His Language on Gates Arrest“.
Anyone stopping by this internet space knows what the flap is about.
There is nothing so sacred to a political figure these days as “staying on message”.  President Obama could regret his final remarks at the news conference on Wednesday even if for no other reason than it deflected news from his main message on health care reform. 
Personally, I think President Obama’s statement and his anger and the defense of his friend were appropriate and right on, and I hope the statement in the NYT release that “Mr. Obama said he had talked to the arresting oficer and hoped the case could become “a teachable moment” to be used to improve relations between minorities and police officers” is a substantive statement.
I have no beef with police, generally.  They have a generally difficult job.  Having said that, police do screw up, and screw up very badly, and knee-jerk support of the police no matter what is uncalled for.  As for non-white “others” like Professor Gates,  generally they are not cut any slack.  If a mistake is made in their arrest, most often it comes to light long after the fact, if at all.  On the one hand, there seems a presumption of innocence for the police; on the other, a presumption of guilt for others, especially non-white.
This issue is considerably closer to my mind than it might otherwise be because last week I was involved in an intercultural conference whose venues included a rural ND Catholic Church basement, and a Community College on an Indian Reservation.  There were a number of times when I felt distinctly uncomfortable to be a white man, solely because of what I symbolized and represented.  (The feeling was embarrassment, and, perhaps, helplessness…what has happened, has happened.  I benefitted from being part of a privileged class, I learned its ways, and it is likely impossible to move completely past it.)
Involved in the conference were a number of people who were called “Africans”, because that’s what they were.  They were likely better educated than myself; they were there because French was their first language; they were all extraordinary people.  But when they came into the Church basement in rural North Dakota there was, among the assembled locals, well, you know:  “What do I say?”  “Who are they?”  That kind of thing.  (It evolved into a good discussion, and church lunches are always good!)
At the conference, at Turtle Mountain Community College http://www.turtle-mountain.cc.nd.us/, the focus was on intercultural relationships between French-Canadians, Metisse (in the old days, “half breeds”, “mixed blood”) and Native Americans (“Indians”, “natives”, “indigenous”), there was also tension: questions not asked; questions asked but not answered….  The steps to honest dialogue are slow and halting. 
The Metisse hero, Louis Riel, was hanged in Canada in 1885, and for years was a reviled symbol of a failed revolution; today he is a cultural icon in the same society that considered him a bitter enemy.  Apparently there is a Louis Riel Day in today’s Manitoba, much as there is a Martin Luther King Day in the U.S.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
The “Indians” on the Turtle Mountain Reservation have a casino, which brings good and bad to their society, and they have a confidence and assertiveness which can be uncomfortable.  It happens that way when attempts are made to level playing fields.  The assertive minority can be assumed to be  “uppity”.  For the dominant culture, uppity would be called confidence; and, of course, white males have been taught that  our “place” is superior.
I am confident that as a society we are moving away from the worst of the racist aspects that have so long identified us.   But we have a long, long, long way to go.  The incident in Cambridge, and President Obama’s response highlight this.
Change will not be easy – it never is.  I remember a long ago handout at a conference.  It was called the “Change Curve”, and it said that on the way to something better than the status quo “steady state”, the road is difficult.  In fact, in the early going things seem to be getting worse than better (think routine things like quitting smoking, or losing weight….).  Persistence brings good results, but it takes persistence.
Whatever happened in Cambridge MA in a residential neighborhood has become world news. 
To me, that occasion should be greeted as an opportunity to deepen and intensify the dialogue on race matters in this country.
Update: July 31, 2009
Yesterday, July 30, the President, the Professor, the Policeman and the Vice-President met at the White House.  The same day, the woman who had called 9-11, Lucy Whalen, made a public appearance.  The recording of her initial call has been released.  She never mentioned race in her call, which was a very calm, simple reporting of only facts that she could observe.  It remains to be seen if the incident will be viewed as an opportunity for dialogue, or as an opportunity to attack, divert attention from other issues, and divide Americans.   Now there is insistence that the lady also meet with the President; and complaints that she was not invited to the men-only meeting.  These do not seem to originate with the woman, who comes across as simply a citizen who was trying to do what was right.  Stay tuned.

#56 – Dick Bernard: Health Policy Sausage Making

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

This post is the first of thirteen on the topic of Health Care and the need for its Reform.  The rest are at July 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, August 1, 2, 5,6,7,10,15.  More will likely be added.
Yesterday my coffee shop friend and I were discussing the issue of Health Care.  I mentioned a major (and, I felt, excellent) article I had read in the New Yorker, and when I went home I e-mailed it over to him. ( The article remains accessible at http://tinyurl.com/q5krj3.)
This morning he said he’d read the article and found it useful.  “Is the New Yorker liberal?”, he asked.  The question puzzled me.  I didn’t know, though I guessed it probably was.  The reason for the question came out: his spouse is a very liberal activist, and he didn’t know if she’d like the article.  Some conclusions at the end might not be exactly what she wanted to hear.
We went our separate ways.   But the short conversation between a liberal (me) and a (likely) moderate conservative (my friend) dramatized the huge dilemma faced by anyone hoping to tackle the health care mess in this country: the sides have been chosen, and unfortunately, they’re far more than simply two sides.  There are infinite special interests, biases and points of view, and the reluctance to negotiate towards a common ground makes potential resolution extremely messy.
The same day President Obama had his news conference on health care reform, I learned that my 7-year old grandson, a Minnesotan, had been injured and was hospitalized after being thrown from a horse he was riding in a distant state.  (He’s still hospitalized, we hope soon to be released.)
Parker is hospitalized in a large children’s hospital in a major U.S. city, but it is 500 miles from his own large city and large children’s hospital.
A neighbor – a nurse – wondered if that other state would have as good medical care as Parker could receive here.  Parker’s uncle, whose daily work is with a group of physicians here, told his colleagues what the physicians in the other state were doing, and they backed what their colleague doctors were doing at the other hospital.  It was as if there needed to be some local validation of the work by other people with the same qualifications elsewhere.
(We just returned from a trip to Canada.  It is odd how one feels a certain sense of relief when finally crossing the border back into the USA, and then into Minnesota, even if some kind of crisis would be as well handled, if not even better, if it happened in Manitoba.  It’s how we’re wired, I guess.)
Of course, Parker’s release from the hospital will only begin the adventure for his parents.  They have, I think, very good insurance, but then will come the matter of dealing with bills from what is almost viewed as a foreign land.   At least they have the insurance.  What if Parker had no insurance, or his parents had no money?  What then?
Meanwhile, back in the public debate, the sides are reacting basically as could easily be predicted months ago.
The medical  industry long ago announced a $100 million war chest to at least control the debate.  $100 million is not small change, and can and is being utilized in small and large and diverse ways to successfully disrupt and confuse the public: to bother our minds.
Entrepreneurs are positioning to cash in: medicine is lucrative if you can keep the “public” out of “public health”.
A singular Republican win in this debate will be planting the perception that the President lost, no matter the consequences to the public who elected them. (Their talking points back home, and some responses: http://tinyurl.com/n9qq23)
The 47,000,000 or so who are uninsured, and are the real victims of this charade, won’t be strong advocates in their own defense.  A great share of them are young children, and the bulk of the rest are probably poor, whether working or not.  They don’t have the luxury of doing all of the things that are required of a citizen lobbyist.  Their concern is survival from day to day.  Little details like falling off a horse in a distant state are pretty far from their minds.  Getting outstanding medical care if they did fall off that horse would be a very iffy proposition.
Meanwhile, the rabble that is all the rest of us, the middle class who will bear the consequences of bad policy or no reform at all, tends to run around in circles, unable, even, to agree amongst ourselves what might be necessary in some reform initiative.  For example, for years I have watched the attempt to resolve the issue of merging multiple insurance contracts into a state-wide single system for public school teachers.  It is the teachers with the supposedly better policies who have harpooned the efforts for greater efficiency.  Other well-meaning people have done and will continue to do the same.
If only we could get our act together and simply speak out to policy makers and shapers “from the heart”.  But that is tough to do.  Giving up is a common option for us.  We are lied to, regularly, by pious sounding people.  We tend to take our belief towards supporting our personal bias, whatever that is.  We don’t help ourselves in the process.
The President and his advisors know all about this sausage making process and are more than willing to play the game, and a game is exactly what it is – a dangerous game, granted, but a necessary game nonetheless.
How this conversation will actually end, I have no clue.
I am pretty certain, however, that one way or another, putting the issue on the table, and demanding debate, will result in some kind of substantive and important change that will positively impact on everyone.
President Obama knows what he is up against, and it is not pretty.  But he deserves acclaim for forcing the issue.  At some point, and in some substantive way, there will be something good resulting.
Write that letter, make that call…just do something!  Every day.

Memorializing Eternal War?

/in , , , , , , , /by

UPDATE: August 14, 2012: This post was written July 23, 2009. Last month, James Skakoon visited the ND-Manitoba International Peace Garden, had the same general feelings I had, and when he came home searched the internet to see if he could find any opinions which were similar to his. He found my post, we got in correspondence with each other, and as a result, he submitted his own opinion, which was recently published in the Bismarck (ND) Tribune. You can read it here. (The text of this column is included at the end of this post.)
This is yet another reminder that results are possible: sometimes they just take a little while.
The original article follows:
See Updates at end of the original post.  Specific links, including contact information, are at the very end of the post.
A reader requested specific information on the location of the International Peace Garden.  Here is the link: http://www.peacegarden.com/maps.htm
international-peace-garden-day-pass-july-18-090021
The first 25 years of my life – 1940-65 – I was a resident of North Dakota.  During that time, or since, I had never visited the famed International Peace Garden, which forms part of the boundary between North Dakota and Manitoba.  (The story of the Peace Garden, which was dedicated in 1932,  is at http://www.peacegarden.com .)

International Peace Garden North Dakota-Manitoba July 18, 2009

International Peace Garden North Dakota-Manitoba July 18, 2009

July 17-18 I was at a conference at Belcourt, ND, and noted that the Peace Garden was only 35 miles or so away.  On July 18, a beautiful summer day, I decided to leave my conference early, drive up to the Peace Garden, and then head back to Winnipeg, where we were visiting relatives.
I found a most beautiful, serene and interesting place…with some dissonance.
The Peace Garden essentially consists of two parallel sidewalks, straddling the international border with beautiful gardens in between.  Off to the sides, on both sides of the borders, are scenic drives.  I had time to do the approximately one and one-half mile walk, from end to end.
About half way down the American side, off to my left, I saw a pile of what looked like construction debris.
Coming closer, I saw a plaque with the headline “Let Peace Prevail“ which described the rubble: “The International Peace Garden represents a unique and enduring symbol of the strength of our friendship as nations, our mutual respect and our shared desire for world peace.
“The events of September 11, 2001, failed to shake the foundation of our shared vision of peace and prosperity for all the word’s people.
“This cairn, composed of steel rescued from the devastation of the World Trade Center in New York , ensures the memory of this tragedy will not be lost and reminds us to cherish tolerance, understanding and freedom.
“Officially unveiled by the Honourable Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba, September 11, 2002.”

Girders from the Twin Towers at International Peace Garden July 18, 2009

Girders from the Twin Towers at International Peace Garden July 18, 2009

It startled me to see this symbol of what seems to have become justification for Eternal Fear and War occupying this place of Peace, but there it was.  The park brochure, which I looked at later, announced that “in 2010, visitors will see the creation of our 911 Memorial Contemplative Garden sponsored by Rotary Clubs International….”
I continued my walk, reaching the halfway point at the Peace Chapel, near the Peace Tower and straddling the border.  The Chapel was dedicated in 1970 and is sponsored by the General Grand Chapter Order of the Eastern Star.  http://www.ndoes.org.
The walls of this simple and beautiful chapel include 56 quotations all on the most peaceful topics…but in each of the corners were displays of many front pages of international newspapers for September 12, 2001 all, of course, featuring the World Trade Center towers in flames.  To me, it was dissonance.

One of many worldwide newspaper front pages on display in the four corners of the Peace Chapel, primarily from September 12, 2001

One of many worldwide newspaper front pages on display in the four corners of the Peace Chapel, primarily from September 12, 2001

I am glad I went to the Peace Garden, and I do think that its basic message remains as it was when it was dedicated July 14, 1932: “To God in His Glory.  We two nations dedicate this Garden and pledge ourselves that as long as man shall live; we will not take up arms against one another.”  It is “enobling peace”, but its overemphasis on the 911 tragedy is troubling, especially since that tragedy was used almost immediately to justify a war against Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 911, and the war left huge moral and financial consequences for ourselves and countless other innocents.  “Peace” and “War” became synonyms, in effect.
All the way back to Winnipeg I kept thinking of those 9-11 displays.  I am still considering the letter I plan to send to the assorted officials connected with the Memorial.  I think I will suggest that it is time for those newspapers to leave the Peace Chapel; and that I hope great care is taken to not let a message of fear and war creep into the 911 Memorial Contemplative Garden which likely will surround the twin towers debris.
The drive from the Memorial back to Winnipeg was long and peaceful.  Entering the Red River Valley west of Cavalier on highway 5 I spied a gigantic concrete structure a mile or two off the road.  I knew it was there – I’d seen it before: a visible symbol of an earlier era of fear and loathing, during the 1950s era of guided missiles aimed at the Soviet Union from numerous places in North Dakota.  I went up and took a look.
Here it is:  The story is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program.  Scroll down a bit for more on this particular site.

Cold War Relic (still used for something) off Highway 5 west of Cavalier ND July 18 2009

Cold War Relic (still used for something) off Highway 5 west of Cavalier ND July 18 2009

“Let Peace Prevail”?

 

Display of a 1960s Minuteman Missile LaMoure ND August 17 2009

Display of a 1960s Minuteman Missile LaMoure ND August 17 2009

Update August 5, 2009:
On July 23, I wrote the CEO of the International Peace Garden, Mr. Doug Hevenor (text below).  I copied the ND Governor, Manitoba Premier, Grand Secretary of the ND Order of the Eastern Star and the President of Rotary International.
On August 5, Mr. Hevenor graciously responded to my letter.  I will post his response here if/when I have his permission.
A few days ago, Madeline Simon posted as follows: “Having looked at the Peace Garden website and checking out the “What to See” item and the listing for the 9/11 memorial, I found that the winners of the competition for a design were listed with this statement:
“On November 26, 2002, their design, with the message of recall, reflect, remember, understand, forgive, and grow selected as the first place winner.”
Thus far, the first three of these are directly reflected as the titles of the three interdependent chambers titled Recall, Reflect, and Remember, and they appear to be soliciting funds for the project.” (emphasis added)
On July 30, Bob Heberle said this: “Loved and agreed with your disappointment with the Peace Garden between ND and Canada.  The use of 9/11 is appalling and irritates me too.  It’s the very subtle way of totally misdirecting our thoughts and energies.  It is not too dissimilar to the change of the original meaning of Armistice Day by converting it to Veterans Day.  This was done in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the insistence of many military lobbyists.  It is easy to see how by simply adding the word, “veterans” where “Armistice” once was so easily manipulates the thought and changes the idea of honoring perpetual peace to honoring war.  After all, soldiers are for the most part considered warriors.  With all due respect to the honored warriors of native American tradition, Veteran’s Day now promotes glorification of war.
This is why our local, now national,  Veterans for Peace group encourages us to salute November 11 as Armistice Day and ring bells eleven times in honor of the peace pledges of the world that were orginally honored.  We do not encourage the firing of rifles nor fly overs for obvious reasons.
So, for me to turn the Peace Garden into a memorial for 9/11, changes entirely the notion of peace to reminders to avenge.
Relevant portions of letter to International Peace Garden and other officials from Dick Bernard, July 23, 2009:
“The Peace Garden is a beautiful place, but I am concerned about the emphasis on and symbolism of 9-11-01 at the Peace Gardens.
I have no concern whatsoever about 9-11 as a reminder of a departure from Peace.  Indeed, when I developed my own website in March, 2002, the peace and justice section of the website featured two snapshots I had taken of the Twin Towers in June, 1972…I write about 9-11 there: www.chez-nous.net/tree_radio.html .
I am no stranger to the power of symbols.  My uncle Frank, my Dad’s brother, eternally rests aboard one of those symbols: the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.  The Arizona was his home for the last six years of his too-short life.  Each December 7 I see his home blow up.
My concern with the Peace Gardens I saw [July 18] is the distinctly negative symbolism that 9-11-01 has come to represent after 2002.  It has been and still is used as a reminder to fear and despise others, rather than as a symbol of Peace.
Of course, I am only one person, with a very limited ability to influence decisions.  But I hope those of you receiving this letter will pay more than casual attention to my concern.
*
More specific info on who manages the International Peace Garden and about the 9-11 project at:
http://www.peacegarden.com/gardeninfo.htm
http://www.peacegarden.com/allpdf/911%20recall.pdf
Mailing address for letters Mr. Doug Hevenor, CEO, International Peace Garden, 10939 Highway 281, Dunseith ND 58329.
October 9, 2009: Relevant portion of letter sent to all 16 members of the Board of the International Peace Garden.
“,,,The matter of the Peace Garden focus on 9-11-01 is never far from my mind.
I think the seeming continuing emphasis on the terroristic aspect of 9-11 is inappropriate at this stage in our history (if it ever was appropriate), and sends a message contrary to the very mission of the International Peace Garden.  9-11 has come to be a symbol of war and enmity more than of peace and reconciliation.  It is most especially inappropriate at a place of peace, as the Peace Garden is supposed to be.
At the absolute minimum, I would ask that the website reference #mce_temp_url# be cleaned up and expanded to include all aspects of the proposed memorial*.  But I’d like the efforts to go beyond just that.
I am very well aware that actions such as implanting girders from the World Trade Center complex are, once taken, often difficult to impossible to reverse, for all sorts of reasons, good and not so good.  It is easier to dismiss solitary objections like mine, than to seriously look at their possible validity.
About all I can do is to call attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dick Bernard
* – This page at the website gives only passing, almost invisible, mention to the other three components of the 9-11 Memorial at the Peace Garden: UNDERSTAND, FORGIVE and GROW.  They are mentioned in the letter, but given no emphasis whatever, compared with the other words.
Crisis Sequence handout also sent to the Board.  This is a handout from some long ago workshop I attended, and it well identifies how human beings normally react to major crises (like the World Trade Center attack) – it’s a matter of months, not years.  I prefer to use the original somewhat ragged copy, rather than reconstruct it.  Succinctly,  a continuing crisis needs to be nurtured, and that is what I think has happened with 9-11.  The words are not visible below, but in the heading, and the line, where the two words are circled, these are the words, from left to right:
Phase: – Impact – Recoil-Turmoil – Adjustment – Reconstruction
Time Period: – Hours – Days – Weeks – Months
The other lines:
Time Perspective: – Present – Past – Future
Emotions – Fight-Flight – Rage-Anxiety-Guilt-Depression – Hope
Thought: – Disorientation/Distractibility – Ambiguity/Uncertainty – Problem-Solving
Direction: – Search for lost object – Detachment – Search for new object – Re-attachment
Search Behavior: Reminiscence – Perplexed Scanning – Exploration – Testing

Crisis Sequence circa 1972

Crisis Sequence circa 1972

James Skakoon column in August 13, 2012 Bismarck Tribune (direct link is at beginning of this post):
The International Peace Garden lies in the Turtle Mountains between Manitoba and North Dakota. Its long central garden parallels the border, with one half in Canada, one half in the United States.
Approaching the Peace Garden from north or south, one can drive unimpeded into the garden grounds. Returning to either country, however, requires re-entering through Customs at the border crossings. This suggests that the International Peace Garden sits outside any national boundaries and is thus devoid of political and national conflict.
I recently visited the International Peace Garden. Although I had been there many times before, it has been some 40 years since my last visit. My expectations, however, had not changed. I expected a pleasant, beautiful, calming place where I could experience positive thoughts of peace and good will.
My expectations were quickly dashed upon seeing a gruesome memorial to 9/11 within the International Peace Garden. The memorial is centered around a mass of 10 damaged, twisted girders salvaged from the World Trade Center rubble. I was appalled to see something so incongruously out of place in a space dedicated to peace. The sight of these girders is hardly calming and not at all peaceful.
To be fair, the Carillon Bell Tower at the Peace Garden is dedicated to war veterans, perhaps suggesting a precedent for other memorials on the garden grounds. It was erected by the North Dakota Veterans Organization in 1976 as a bicentennial project. Also to be fair, an attempt has been made by the Peace Garden to make something positive, if not quite suggesting peace, out of its 9/11 memorial. For example, the headline on a placard at the display reads, “Let Peace Prevail.”
The winning entry of a student design competition for the area around the girders offered a message of “recall, reflect, remember, understand, forgive, and grow.”
This compassionate entry is the theme for the final display areas around the girders. But neither these elements, nor anything else about the memorial are likely to change our automatic emotional reaction to 9/11, and a memorial to veterans such as the Carillon Bell Tower is unlikely to evoke a similar reaction.
September 11th and its aftermath represent religious zealotry, terrorism, revenge, destruction, political strife, military and civilian casualties, hatred, and war. And yes, heroism, service, bravery, and loss as well. One peace-like word, cooperation, applies to the Western world’s response to 9/11 (although it was largely one nation imposing its political will on others). Then again, this cooperation led most prominently to waging a war.
At a Sept. 10, 2003, ceremony at the Peace Garden remembering the terrorist attacks, Kent Conrad, a U.S. senator from North Dakota, said of 9/11, “It was a day that roused a mighty nation to anger, and to action.“
None of this relates to peace, at least not now or in the foreseeable future.
I have no untoward contempt for memorials to human tragedies, wars, and other catastrophes. In Berlin, I visited the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (Holocaust Memorial). I cried. I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. I cried there, too.
I visited Wounded Knee, S.D., the site of an 1890 massacre of Native Americans by U. S. Cavalry. I cried again.
These memorials are either in their original locations or in spaces dedicated to and evoking their purpose. The same is true of every other memorial I have visited or can think of. Removed from its immediate context, the Peace Garden’s 9/11 memorial poignantly accomplishes its mission.
The articles of incorporation for the International Peace Garden, which was dedicated in 1932, state the purpose as “Creation and maintenance of [a] garden or gardens…as a memorial to the peace that has existed between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada.” The inscription on the stone cairn at the entrance to the Garden pledges eternal peace between Canada and the United States: “…as long as man shall live we shall not take up arms against each other.”
A June 3, 2002, Manitoba government press release quoted then Manitoba Premier Gary Doer as saying, “The International Peace Garden is a magnificent and unique site and I can think of no place more appropriate or fitting for a memorial of this kind.”
Although Doer surely intended a purely positive comment for the 9/11 memorial effort, perhaps he should have examined the garden’s purpose beforehand. Everyone is allowed his or her opinion; some are quite different.
When I explained about the 9/11 memorial on the Peace Garden grounds to a friend, he replied, “9/11 doesn’t have to be everywhere.”
What 9/11 has to do with peace is beyond me. Visitors to the International Peace Garden should not have to be reminded of terrorism, hatred and war. This memorial does not belong there.
(James G. Skakoon is an engineer, inventor, and author. He was born and raised in North Dakota and now lives in St. Paul.)

#54 – Dick Bernard: "The Eagle has Landed", and Walter Cronkite

/in , , , , , /by

Forty years ago today my attention was riveted on a man setting foot on the moon.  Six years earlier, November 22, 1963, a television news anchor named Walter Cronkite helped us through the agony of one of the darkest moments in my lifetime: the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Somehow it seems almost fitting that the anniversary of the moon landing (July 20) and the death of the broadcast icon (July 17) came within days of each other. 
Recollection of these separate events brought attention to the past, and to inevitability of time passing, and with it, change.
I was a young school teacher the day President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas.  My even younger wife had a few weeks earlier left her own teaching position due to what turned out, less than two years later, to be a terminal illness.  November 22, 1963, she was pregnant with our first child.  
November 22, 1963, we lived in an upstairs apartment in a house near my school, and a short time before that sad day we had purchased (on credit) a 9″ black and white television.  At $10 a month, the television payment stretched our meager budget, but it was at least a window to the outside world for my wife.
That time in history is well documented and I would not pretend to add to any accounts about the person, Walter Cronkite, or the event on which he reported that day, the assassination of a President.
In those years, long before cable, internet, and hundreds of television channels, most country folks lucky enough to have television, perhaps had access to one or two channels whose signal came from very high transmission towers many miles away.  What we saw, then, would not pass anyones muster for quality in this day and age.  I know we received CBS, and thus heard and saw Walter Cronkite’s reporting  on the unfolding events during that dreadful time in our nation’s history.
Cronkite died last week at 92.  Shortly before November 22, 1963, he had celebrated his 47th birthday.  He seemed like a pretty old guy to me, then.  Our first child, Tom, was born February 26, 1964.  At his last birthday Tom turned 45, nearly Cronkite’s then-age.  Time flies…one notices….
July 20, 1969, is another day vivid in my memory.  I was enroute home from a visit with my parents in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and following the moon landing on the car radio.  Sometime in mid-afternoon, along U.S. Highway 2 between Grand Forks and Bemidji MN, I pulled over along the highway at the exact time the actual drama of the moon landing took place.  It was a powerful moment.  I had only the announcer and my imagination to help me live that moment.
Back home in suburban Minneapolis a few hours later, I watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon: “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.  I did my best to take a photograph of the television screen when Armstrong was on the moon.  Somewhere I have a copy of that photograph, in what passed for color in those days.   The image I saw that night has been replayed numerous times this day.
Those events in 1963 and 1969 were only two of the innumerable memorable events of the 1960s.  It was in many ways a tumultuous decade, but even more significantly it was a relatively carefree and simple time.  The seniors in the high school classes of 1964 were the first high school graduates of the post-war “baby boom”. 
With all the problems of the decade, people had a sense of optimism about the future.  1984, the year portrayed in George Orwell’s novel of the same name, was 15 years in the distant future when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.  Today, that same year is 25 years in the past and we have come too close to experiencing some of the prophesies of that story.
Next year ends the first decade of the 21st century.
How will future generations remember us?  How optimistic about the future can todays youngsters be?

Two 1960s postage stamps

Two 1960s postage stamps

#53 – Bob Barkley: Fact vs Theory

/in , , /by

I play golf at a private club where those I play with, quite predictably, are predominately conservative to right-wingers.  And I am the vocal counter agent to all of their views.  Many of them would be surprised, however, at how many of the silent ones come up to me privately and encourage me not to let up.  They needn’t worry. I won’t!

 

Nevertheless, in a recent exchange the subject of global warming came up.  And the gentleman who raised the issue said – using it as a parallel example to another we had been debating – that “it’s sorta like all that Al Gore stuff on global warming where half the scientists believe one way and half believe the other way.”  Then he added, apparently to astonish me, “And the earth’s temperature is actually lowering!”

 

I responded with, “I think Gore is supported by considerably more than half.  And I believe the earth’s temperature is actually declining precisely because of global warming.”  This last statement threw him completely, but it was time to tee off and we left it at that. He ended up, I think, more astonished at me than me at him.

 

But I decided to do a little homework when I got home. And it brought me to the point of a better understanding of the whole area of fact versus theory.

 

Most of what we argue about these days is based upon theory, although we take our positions as though we know the “facts.”  As it turns out, global warming is a very good example of just that.

Wikipedia tells us: “A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: 1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.”

“In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term ‘theory’ is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.”

 

Given that definition, I would have to conclude that global warming may be approaching classification as a theory, but may not be fully there.  For example, the “simplest possible tool” for explaining global warming may yet be the normal cycles that have occurred over the eons of the earth’s existence.  For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that all that is true.  It means that no matter how convincing all the global warming arguments may be, we are still left to believe what we find most appealing, and that may be a long way from “fact.”

 

Fact, on the other hand, is defined in the dictionary as, “1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences, 2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed, 3. A real occurrence, 4. A thing that has been done.”

 

Well, global warming is “based on real occurrences,” and it “can be demonstrated to exist.”

 

But I have to conclude that global warming is certainly more theory than fact.  So where does that leave us?  Where it leaves me is that we need to lighten up a little and quit trying to take absolute positions on things that are at best still marginal theory.  After all, not too long ago, in the long existence of this earth, most people were convinced beyond doubt that this place was flat. [And Thomas L Freidman still thinks it is.]

 

Here’s what I learned so far on global warming. There are petitions, garnered by the pros and cons alike, signed by thousands. To quote a Yahoo Answers response I got, “There is a very large majority of scientists whom support the idea of global warming and anthropogenic climate change in general. Hundreds of surveys and studies and meta-surveys have long since confirmed that this is occurring and that mankind has contributed to the concern.”
”However, there is a minority viewpoint held by several dozen climate scientists who feel – for various reasons – that the climate is not changing or that the change is not primarily human-caused, however, personally speaking, I find that a lot of the scientists – appear to have been “compromised” at some point.”

 

There is a lot more, and it certainly appears that there is better scientific consensus on global warming than on many other current debates.  But the skeptics remain, although it seems they are gradually falling away. Most scientists do agree that man is contributing to this phenomenon, although many are not as alarmed as some.  Then, as always, there’s the corporate interest at play – as the quote just above suggests when using the word “compromised.”  As one guy says, “Follow the money.”  The Exxon/Mobils of the world spend untold millions on pooh-poohing the whole thing while the so-called green industries are advocating that global warming will kill us all in a few months.  We are being spun to death on this issue like many others.

 

It seems that a new study on this topic comes out almost weekly.  But from it all, I believe man’s contribution to global warming is real and substantial.  I believe that “theory” holds more water than any countervailing one.  That said, while action is justified and necessary, panic may not be.

 

We are a long way from “fact” in much of this.  We need to pay attention, react, but not over-react.  We need to share information but not preach.  We need to rid ourselves of reliance on fossil fuels no matter global warming or not.  This phenomenon may not be killing the earth, but it is killing many of us on it.

 

And then there’s this from Phil Chapman writing in “The Australian.” Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead,” he writes. Then he adds, “It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.”

 

And on top of all this out comes a new study telling us that there is a large gap between what scientists think and what ordinary citizens think. One article covering the release of this Pew Research Center survey states, “And while almost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human beings evolved by natural processes and that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming, general public is far less sure.” It adds, “Only about half of the public agrees that people are behind climate change, and 11 percent does not believe there is any warming at all.” Further, it concludes, “The report said 85 percent of science association members surveyed said public ignorance of science was a major problem. And by large margins they deride as only “fair” or “poor” the coverage of science by newspapers and television”

 

So I suspect from that we must assume that most of us are arguing over things we really know very little about whether it be fact or theory. Apparently we believe what we wish to believe – what makes most sense to us and what we’re most comfortable believing.  But often it’s not fact, and often not even real theory that we seem to argue about so vociferously.  It’s all mere supposition.

 

Supposition: “A guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence,” or, “a hypothesis that is taken for granted.”  I guess we should all begin our arguments with the phrase, “I suppose…” and let it go at that.  And then maybe we should also lighten up, but certainly listen.

 

Now, back to improving my golf game – where I have all too many theories at play all at once.