INTRODUCTION
Having retired six years ago and taken some time to travel,
my wife Sally and I have now joined this group of fun and talented fellow
residents in our wonderful new community. The sharing of our individual stories
has been inspiring and thought provoking. Looking back over the life that
brought us here led to a broader consideration of our generation’s impact on
the world and the legacy we are handing off to our children and grand-children.
In a series of posts, I would like to share some concerns about significant issues which affect everyone, here and abroad, regardless of our individual affiliations, political or otherwise. Despite the undeniable advances made in technology and economic development, there still remain societal issues that our children and grand-children are already having to grapple with. I believe that our experience, accumulated wisdom and life-skills can help support their efforts to create a better world.
ONE
A woman in Massachusetts recently retired to her mobile home
community and formed a habit of walking around the park getting to know her
neighbors. When the property’s owner planned to sell out to a developer, she
used those connections to rally the residents to buy the park themselves. The
community succeeded together.
Our instinct is to share experiences. Successes and failures,
good news and bad news. We gain strength and comfort from those around us. Groups form constantly to work together. Sadly though,
that common purpose is breaking down at the national level.
We are seeing a troubling trend of isolationism. The international
alliances that were formed to promote peace and prosperity in the aftermath of
war are being threatened by factions intent upon narrow-minded and exclusionary
policies. The enormous sacrifices
made by our parents, together with our allies, helped defeat extreme
nationalism 75 years ago. Now we find it being embraced by leaders and
politicians here and abroad. Even while the internet and social media have
spread knowledge and understanding and brought people together.
The current global problems of poverty, homelessness, racial
and ethnic strife, regional wars and climate change, will only be overcome by working
together. These are problems that we can identify and comprehend and it should
be possible to agree on solutions if we have the resolve. We here can be
grateful to belong to a community
and to enjoy sharing our lifestyle
with others. It bears remembering that
others may only be less fortunate due to the accident of birth or unforseen
circumstance and that no one person is more entitled to safety and happiness
than any other.
TWO
Some members of Congress have voted 70+ times to reduce their
our health care options. Invoking a derogatory and misleading claim of
socialized medicine, they dismiss the effective systems in all other
industrialized democracies. In reality, this nation pays uniquely for an
inefficient, overpriced and inconsistent system that benefits the healthcare
industry over the population at large. While costing more than double per
capita on average, when compared to other major countries, the US consistently
rates at or near last for actual health outcomes. The data to support this are
easy to find online from trustworthy, non-partisan sources.
Talk to a Canadian or a European and you will find that access
to affordable care does not intrude on their planning to re-locate, seek
advancement through a change of employment, start a family or other
consequential life decisions. Perhaps the most tragic justification for the US
system is the ability to attend an emergency department at a hospital and
refuse to pay. In truth, that is a measure of last resort. The uninsured wait
until it is often too late to treat a serious disease, when proactive care
could have resolved the problem without the inflated cost or loss of a
productive citizen. At best, they clog emergency departments, delaying response
to true emergencies. There are claims that other countries ration care. Yes,
acute needs are prioritized but that happens here too, even in well-served
cities. Severe pain will get a prompt appointment with your doctor, while a
wellness check, routine colonoscopy or other non-critical matters can take six
weeks or more and lead-time varies with the quality of your coverage. Those who
have access to health insurance through employment are reluctant to change a
system that they are happy with. Fair enough, but stop a minute and think about
who, ultimately, is paying for that system, even if it doesn’t show on a
pay-stub.
Administrative costs for Medicare add less than 2%, in part
by sharing registration information with Social Security. Private insurance
adds more than 12%. The drug and health care industry has effectively lobbied
and funded Congress to create a system with excessive cost and inconsistent
results. They are even using the US administration to now threaten the UK National
Health Service into dropping stringent drug price controls.
My sister in Wales has COPD. She has received doctor visits
at home, long ambulance trips and weeks in hospital. She worried about leaving
her cat, but not about receiving a bill.
My father, needing radiation, was checked into a residential cancer
clinic near London, along with my mother, who was able to cook meals and
otherwise care for him, in their private room, between treatments. Would he
have been better treated in the US? Did the cost add to his stress? No to both.
In neither of these examples was my family put on a waiting
list, nor sent to second-class facilities with second-class medical staff.
Many of us, as retirees, have hybrid Medicare Advantage
policies allowing us to afford comprehensive healthcare as individuals. It is
our option to use these policies instead of simple Medicare and maybe that
could be a blueprint for a blended system that provides healthcare to everyone.
Private insurance is also available in the UK, Europe and elsewhere as an
optional enhancement to the basic national coverage.
Healthcare is a greater national aspect of safety and security than terrorism, street violence, traffic accidents and other threats that we assign to government protection. It merits more consideration than being dismissed with partisan slogans.
THREE
A nineteen year-old student in Bangladesh was burned to death
by her fellow students for reporting the school principal for assault. Eleven
conspirators, many of them adults, were arrested and the event sparked
world-wide revulsion.
In comparison, US gun deaths for 2017 totalled 39,773 with over
107,000 injuries. The response was resignation more than revulsion.
There is an opportunity for many of us with grandchildren,
even great-grandchildren, to reflect on a legacy that we know little is being
done to address. For we know that many of those shootings were in a school and innocent
children died. Consider too, the enormous
psychological and economic toll suffered by the affected families and
communities. When including suicide, the 2017 death toll from gunshot was
63,627. Current statistics are incomplete, but the trend clearly continues.
Among all the many arguments involving gun control, one fact is clear. Loopholes can and should be closed in the patchwork of Federal and State laws. Logic is being defied in a tragic absence of leadership and common interest. We can decry the craven self-dealing of legislators seeking re-election or the suspect arguments from lobbyists but, better yet, we can help our children and grandchildren take control of their future. Voter polling shows that the younger generation already understands the threat to their safety and that, in other countries, gun use, while permitted, is more responsible and disciplined. In the meantime, we are the population group most likely to vote and we can do so with our precious grandchildren in mind.
FOUR
In 2008, my wife and I took our first Alaska cruise. During a
port call in Juneau, we took an excursion to the Mendenhall Glacier just
outside of town. In 2017, we did the exact same cruise. Standing again at the
panoramic windows of the Mendenhall visitor center, I turned to a nearby ranger
to ask if the glacier had shrunk. He directed me to a video screen playing a
time-lapse on a continuous loop. I was stunned. You can view it here: https://vimeo.com/229580930. I had made my own climate change observation and it was
deeply disturbing. Recognizing that the glacier will soon not even be visible
from the existing visitor center, plans are being made for a portable structure
that can be placed further back as the ice recedes.
The UN recently reported that a million species are at
imminent risk of extinction, because their habitat is changing more rapidly
than they can evolve to keep pace. The disappearance of the dinosaurs was one of five previously recognized
extinction events. We are now in the sixth and the situation is critical.
Reversing current trends will take decades and willful disregard of climate
change and deforestation threatens the world as we have known it.
Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker won the Pulitzer Prize for her very readable 2014 book titled The Sixth Extinction. She chronicles her quest to visit the sometimes remote locations where scientific studies are being conducted and she takes us along on the field trips to observe the findings first-hand. It brings true meaning to the disputed concept. The book is available in hard-cover, ebook or audio book formats at the local Timberland library.
FIVE
Outside the happy oasis we know as
Ovation, the nation is angry. Parts of the media and many in Congress are
devoted to keeping it that way. Don’t go to bed angry our mothers told us.
Well, maybe yours did, but it’s good advice anyway.
Humans are irrational and
impulsive when they are angry and they damage the people and the things that
they love and value. Later, they may be sorry but it is often too late. Multiply
the individual discontent by many millions of us and the hurt that is created
becomes deep and long lasting. Who suffers as a result? The provocateurs of the
media? Of course not, they are making millions in a cynical play on the
nation’s emotions. The victims are the angry people themselves.
This is not an issue confined to
the United States, but we have most to gain by concentrating our efforts here. Currently,
it is clearly a strategy of our politicians to foment fear and anger as a way
to maintain a devoted following. Again, a self-serving policy. As long as we
continue to play along, the strategy works. So, let’s all do something
different.
The nation has been turning
backward in its thinking – the irrational part, and tearing down policies and
institutions which have served for the collective benefit of us all – the
impulsive part. The impacts of poor health, toxic environments and climate
change, for instance, are not selective. Everyone is exposed equally. Sadly, approximately
half of the country has been led to believe that it is acceptable to increase
these and other risks to themselves by reversing or blocking honest efforts to
protect all citizens. My mother called that behavior shooting yourself in the
foot.
Of course, the anger is real and
justifiable as a result of the deterioration of many individual circumstances.
Resolving poverty, poor housing and accessible education should be a priority
for a nation as rich as ours. While the causes will be hard to reverse, they will
worsen if not properly addressed. However, anger associated with discriminating
against and demonizing others is a destructive attitude that we are free to
alter. Avoiding the inevitable conflict should be a priority for all our sakes.
We can choose to unite with a common sense of purpose or we can continue with
the cynical and hypocritical politics that reflect a contest to win at all
costs, in a mindless pursuit of power for its own sake.
Proportional representation, ethical behavior, control of election spending ($3 billion in 2016) and eradicating the corruption at the core of preserving incumbency will have to be part of the conversation. None of that will be easy, but what do we gain from maintaining the status quo?
SIX
You have
probably heard the well-worn phrase “you get the government you deserve”. Usually
offered in conversational response to grumbling about some political issue, it
makes some sense; in a democratic process, whether you vote and how you vote
determines the party in power and hence the governmental policies enacted.
How should
we consider that phrase now?
It presumes a democratic government, so let’s examine that
presumption. There is another relevant phrase, “one man, one vote”. Yes, to
digress, one person, one vote would be preferable, but it was coined back then and
we have made some progress in that area. It refers to the fact that everyone
has a say in the government, more than that you cannot vote twice. Democracy is
a word we all use frequently but, if asked, might define differently. Here are
some comparisons between the UK and US; two democracies we are all familiar
with.
Voting is by
parliamentary constituency in the UK and by congressional district in the US.
The terms differ but the effect is the same. We elect representatives by
geographical areas and the population within each area varies. The effect in
the UK is somewhat tempered by the fact that voters elect a majority party and
the party representatives in Parliament elect the Prime Minister. Here in the
US, the President is elected by a direct national vote, albeit with the
complication of the Electoral College. Bottom line – the candidate receiving
the most votes can, and does, sometimes lose. One person, one vote is an ideal,
not the reality.
How are the
voting areas determined? In the UK it is by a Boundary Commission, which
operates under strict legal rules independent of the parties and must hold
public hearings before changes can be confirmed. In the US, the process is
political. Census information is used every ten years by the States to create
districts which often favor the party currently controlling the State House –
the process called gerrymandering.
How are the
eligible voters determined? In both cases by age, legal status and voting
district. In the UK under the direction of the politically independent
Electoral Commission. Exceptions for lack of a permanent residence and to
maintain anonymity are permitted. In the US, the situation varies by state.
While many states have introduced policies to encourage and facilitate
registration and voting, others have used political influence in various ways
to discourage voting, either by cancelling registrations or by placing
obstacles to registering, visiting a polling place or casting a postal vote.
How are
their votes influenced? In the UK, paid political
broadcast advertising is forbidden. During the short active election period,
defined in a complicated process I will refer you to Wikipedia to understand,
the UK parties are allowed access to broadcast channels for “party political
broadcasts” under strict rules. In the US, especially since the Supreme Court’s
Citizens United decision, it is effectively a free-for-all.
To simplify, the present government of the US is founded on the US Constitution signed on September 17, 1787, while the UK parliament established independence from the Monarchy with the Bill of Rights dated December 16, 1689, followed by numerous acts passed over the years. Reliant on adherence to tradition, rather than a formal document, the UK parliament has historically maintained a consistent set of procedures.
In this
increasingly divided era, all the European democracies are facing challenges
from activist positions, none more so than the UK. Recent un-democratic
maneuvers to establish a separation from the European Union have pushed the UK
parliament towards a political crisis.
In the US, extreme
partisanship has compromised the fundamental separation of powers, the
independence of the Judiciary, the Congressional and Senate rules, the freedom
to vote and participate in Presidential primaries, and empowered corruption and
influence-peddling on a significant scale. Recently, an embrace of behavior
more appropriate to a dictatorship has further distorted the democratic ideal.
Which leaves
the question: is this what we deserve?
Left To Write 