Change on the site...

We've decided to change the word selection of one of our focus issues. I just went and made the change and wanted to let everyone know the what and why. Instead of Universal Health Care as an issue. We've changed it to Health Care for all. The reason being is that in discussing our goals, people often get confused on what the group wants. Universal Health Care makes people think reflexively we are opposed to private insurance, or companies making money providing a medical service. As a policy we want every single citizen in this country to have health care coverage. How we as a society make that happen is far more flexible. But if you think every single citizen should have quality health care coverage then 3rd District Common Agenda is looking for you! Be a part of changing the status quo health care system, stay involved, stay informed, stay active...

Economic snapshots...

Infrastructure cuts and consequences over at Economic Policy Institute.

The recent tragedies of the collapse of the Interstate-35 bridge in Minneapolis and the crash of an Airbus A320 at Congonha Airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil have two things in common: both pieces of infrastructure had been identified as potentially dangerous and their repair or replacement had been put off as governments chose to spend shrinking resources on other priorities.

The sharp reduction in Brazil's infrastructure spending corresponds with the institution of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) program in 1999.1 The IMF demanded a 20% reduction in government spending that year. Government spending has remained low since then and plans to replace the aging airport were put off indefinitely. Brazil's executive director to the IMF warned three years ago of dire consequences if Brazil did not break from the IMF regimen and increase spending on infrastructure.2 Only now that 200 people have died has a new airport become an urgent priority.

Infrastructure spending in the United States has also declined as a share of GDP from its peak in the late 1960s (see Chart ). This neglect stems from the increased political difficulty of generating public investment revenue by raising taxes. The federal tax on gasoline—the main source of federal highway funds—has not risen in 14 years. Two years ago, Congress proposed a four-cents-per-gallon boost in the fuel tax that would have financed a $375 billion, five-year highway bill. President Bush threatened to veto any highway bill that included a tax increase and Congress backed off, instead presenting a $286 billion spending plan.

After the graph they note that

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of repairing or replacing obsolete or deteriorating bridges at $7.4 billion per year. This year's appropriations bill provides slightly less than $4 billion for such infrastructure maintenance, leaving many U.S. roadways in a state of disrepair, and drivers wondering about the safety of their daily commute.

I went over to the budget calculator at the Center for Economic and Policy Research website. Plugged in 7.4 billion over a year in 2007 and got the dollar amount of $24.08. That is an additonal $10.96--about the cost of a movie ticket for me. To get everyone--including an overall economy that depends on the infrastructure--safer roads.

You too can buy influence...

Convention Party Favors Include Face Time

Congress just completed ethics legislation designed to put distance between lawmakers and the interests that seek favors from them.

But the people in charge of next summer's presidential nominating conventions are busy selling package deals that would put them closer together.

The host committees of 2008's biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get.

New York TImes Editorial

on Health Care Crisis...

Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor.

Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada.

That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected.

Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines.

Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best.

Direct from a talking head...

First where did the term talking head come from???

Anyways, people often discuss how nonconstructive and negative political talk shows are. Two or three people yelling at or past each other is bad if its about politics or anything else for that matter. Part of the issue is the time constraints to actually contextualize the issue at hand--politics is often a complex mixture of congressional bills filled to the brim with legal e's and very important minutia that truly do need to be explained. As Dean Baker often points out over at Beat the Press in regards to budget reporting--if you don't give the context of the numbers, very few people, aside from a handful of budget wonks in the beltway are going to know what the numbers mean. Well the same can be said for complex political discussion as a whole.

Well Ezra Klien was discussing his recent appearance on hardball and said this

Neither of us were briefed on the day's topics before the show. This is, it should be said, a rarity in my experience, as Hardball has always told me the issues lineup in the past. But for whatever reason, we were sent in blind. And, sadly, it showed. I just don't know much about the US attorneys scandal and the wrongdoings of Alberto Gonzales. I can only track so many topics in a day, and the time spent reading health policy is time not spent reading Senate testimony. I'm aware enough that I can speak to Gonzales's actions as unethical, but without preparation or any preexisting familiarity with the penal code, I can't speak to the specifics of their legality -- and I don't want to get anything wrong on air, where I can't correct it.

Maybe it was a fluke, maybe a decision to help make a spectacle of a segment. I don't know. All I know is that I wasted 20 minutes of my evening watching hardball, to see a segment that was not very insightful or informative. I kept thinking, this is how most people get their news? And it turns out in this case you can't blame the guests. I know for a fact the Ezra is very articulate and is very well versed in his field. We like him over here at 3rd District (putting to the side the partisan discussions and political horse race commentary) because of his support of Universal health care and the fact that he gives citizens who want to make ideas more important than attack ads--lots of ideas to chew on.

So for once I can verify its not the talking heads fault!!

CFR interviews senior UN peacekeeping official

The Council on Foreign Relations recently interviewed Jane Holl Lute, Assistant Secretary-General, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations

On July 31, the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a joint United Nations/African Union (AU) peacekeeping operation for Sudan’s Darfur region. Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary-general for UN peacekeeping operations, calls the joint force an “unprecedented” operation for the United Nations, including the challenges in locating troops and supplies in the vast, remote stretches of Darfur. She says the complexity of the operation means the full force of some 26,000 troops will not be deployed until 2008.

Reporters do get reflective from grassroots media criticism...

Tim Grieve from Slate gets reflective about grassroots media criticism...

As the panel at YearlyKos showed today, reporters across the board are being forced to look inward and question how we do our job. And we are discovering the following: Thoughtful press criticism, facilitated by the Internet, has an impact and is often useful. We reporters are professionals, always struggling to soar higher, but we are also often like everyone else, just getting by, stumbling down a dark hallway hoping not to fall on our face. Here's to all of us, reporter and reader together, making the news better.