Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

NZ Medical Journal calls for cheaper food

by David

In its latest editorial, the NZ Medical Journal has called for GST off healthy food and higher benefits, according to the Herald.

The good thing about this statement is that these doctors are looking at the wider social factors contributing to poor health among their patients, namely poverty and poor diet.

This leads them to call for political changes like taking tax off “healthy” food and increasing benefits (a brave stand to take in the face of the current government’s beneficiary bashing). The catch is, they also say the retirement age should be raised to pay for this.

But why should senior citizens pay this price? It’s not the cost of pensions or the pensioners themselves who have have forced up the price of food, increased unemployment, held down wages or cut benefits.

(Although I can’t help noting that Don Brash and Roger Douglas still want to call the economic shots, despite being well past the age of retirement.)

Unfortunately these good doctors seem to be buying into the cut-back mentality that insists there just isn’t enough to go around.

This simply isn’t true. There’s plenty of wealth in our society, much of it created by pensioners and those nearing retirement, throughout there working lives. The fundamental problem, underlying the affordability of food and unhealthy poverty is that this abundant wealth is concentrated in the hand of a few.

A fairer way to fund taking GST off food and increasing benefits, would be to reverse the recent cuts to corporate and top bracket incomes and tax financial speculation.

Monday, 29 March 2010

US health reform: A cause for celebration?

Alan Maass examines the claims made about the Barak Obama’s health care legislation.
From US Socialist Worker

Barack Obama signs health care legislation in front of Democratic lawmakers in the East Room of the White House (Lawrence Jackson)


LAST SUNDAY night (March 21) around 10 p.m., I was finishing up the next day’s edition of SocialistWorker.org when my e-mail inbox started filling up like a casino slot machine finally paying off.



The subject lines all had the same theme: “Historic legislation...” “Monumental effort...” “Accomplishment on a scale with Social Security...” “Salute this landmark achievement...”


The House had finally voted in favor of health care legislation, passed by the Senate and supported by the White House, and now liberal organizations were celebrating a long-delayed triumph on the issue that dominated the first year of the Obama presidency. Every pro-Democratic and progressive list-serve I’m on came alive.



Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!



Barack Obama e-mailed to thank me for my tireless efforts and for not listening to the people who said it couldn’t be done. His adviser David Plouffe even invited me to co-sign “this historic legislation.” On the BarackObama.com Web site, though—not actually in the East Room of the White House.



The enthusiasm extended beyond elected officials. “The health care reform bill passed by Congress and signed into law today by President Barack Obama is progressive reform at its finest—conceptually farsighted in design and pragmatically far reaching in scope,” wrote John Podesta of the liberal Center for American Progress.



Also weighing in were groups and figures who previously had criticized the legislation—people who protested the exclusion of voices advocating single-payer health care from the discussion; who warned that a bill without at least a strong “public option” for the uninsured was a disaster in the making; who opposed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on employer-provided insurance plans with halfway decent coverage.



One surprise came from Michael Moore, director of the excellent documentary Sicko about the health care crisis in the U.S. and a bitter opponent of both Republican smears of reform and Democratic concessions to the health care industry.

Michael Moore says US Healthcare Bill ‘A Victory for Capitalism’

 This is a long interview by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman and Sharif Abdel Kouddous with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore.

In the first half Moore talks about he thing’s Obama’s healthcare bill is ‘A Victory for Capitalism’.

It’s worth watching after the break though, because in the second half, Moore moves on to his disillusionment with Obama, while also attacking Ralph Nader (who has run several times as an anti-corporate Presidential candidate against the Republicans and Democrats).

He then goes on to outline his own “grassroots” strategy whereby left wing activists “take over” local Democrat Party branches and try to transform it into a party that will put power into the hands of working people...

I can’t even think of the best way to express how misguided that idea is, but then Moore himself wasn’t sounding too hopeful.

Sunday, 20 September 2009

Obama’s health plan - Better than nothing or worse than nothing?

President Obama speaks on health care reform to a joint session of Congress (Larry Downing | Reuters)
by Lance Selfa from Socialist Worker newspaper (US) Judging from Barack Obama’s speech, the final version of health care “reform” could be so compromised by concessions that it would amount to nothing more than a grand exercise in corporate welfare for the insurance industry.

Sunday, 3 May 2009

Mike Davis: Capitalism and the flu


by Mike Davis  
from Socialist Worker (US)
27 April 2009

Mike Davis, whose 2006 book The Monster at Our Door warned of the threat of a global bird flu pandemic, explains how globalised agribusiness set the stage for a frightening outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico.

The spring break hordes returned from Cancun this year with an invisible but sinister souvenir. The Mexican swine flu, a genetic chimera probably conceived in the fecal mire of an industrial pigsty, suddenly threatens to give the whole world a fever.

Initial outbreaks across North America reveal an infection rate already travelling at higher velocity than the last official pandemic strain, the 1968 Hong Kong flu.  

Continue at http://socialistworker.org/print/2009/04/27/capitalism-and-the-flu  

See also Swine flu and a sick social system: Why the poor die and the rich sniffle

Sunday, 6 July 2008

Hone Harawira on Maori health

Below are the notes for a formal speech Hone Harawira, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, was to give at the Public Health Association Conference Tapu Noa: Environmental, Physical or Both? in Waitangi, 1 July.

As the meeting was held on a marae Hone spoke without notes, though covering many of the points made here.

Kia ora koutou katoa

On this day in 1842, the governor's newspaper Te Karere o Niu Tireni, made the following comment:

"...e hoa ma, kua wareware pea koutou ki te pukapuka i tuhituhia ki Waitangi, i roto i taua pukapuka ka waiho nga kauri katoa, nga awa, nga aha katoa ma te tangata Maori hei aha noa atu ki a ia."

[Translation] "...friends, perhaps you have forgotten that document written at Waitangi where in that document all the kauri, the rivers, everything is left to the Maori to do with as he wishes."

Three years later, the British launched a full-blown assault on Kawiti's pa at Ohaeawai, with cannon and troops outnumbering Kawiti's followers by six to one.

Saturday, 14 June 2008

A Hunger for Justice

by Health Unionist

So it’s happening already. Rising food prices in this country are “making people more prone to sickness”. That’s what food specialists say in a recent Dominion Post article Families' health hit as food costs soar.

The Wellington managing director of Foodstuffs (Pak’N’Save, New World and 4 Square supermarkets) rattles off the usual suspects behind the price rises. Poor harvests, high fuel costs, higher demand from Asia, biofuels. You have to dig a little deeper to get the full picture, which corporate managing directors can’t, and won’t tell you. Poor harvests are linked to climate change, which rolls on unabated thanks to corporate opposition to measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Oil prices are rising for the same reason. High oil prices, in turn, make it profitable for corporate agribusinesses to grow crops for biofuels instead of food. “Higher demand” from Asia is actually driven by the growth of a small, wealthy middle class, mainly in China, which has a taste for meat. Grain is now being diverted to animal feed, to produce meat for this lucrative new market. The corporate elite behind the food crisis, which is now growing here in New Zealand as the Dominion Post reports, have no answers. Neither do all the mainstream political parties which serve them. It’s an absolute disgrace that National, ACT, Labour and the Greens all reject such a simple, immediate step as scrapping GST on food. Ultimately, there is no global food shortage. There’s only a shortage of politicians willing to stand up to the corporate agenda. RAM (Residents Action Movement) has the answers that the corporate elite and all the mainstream politicians lack. RAM is building a grassroots movement that puts people and the environment before the almighty dollar – starting by scrapping GST tax on all our food.

Tuesday, 1 January 2008

Hone Harawira on Maori health

Below are the notes for a formal speech Hone Harawira, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, was to give at the Public Health Association Conference Tapu Noa: Environmental, Physical or Both? in Waitangi, 1 July.

As the meeting was held on a marae Hone spoke without notes, though covering many of the points made here.

Kia ora koutou katoa

On this day in 1842, the governor's newspaper Te Karere o Niu Tireni, made the following comment:

"...e hoa ma, kua wareware pea koutou ki te pukapuka i tuhituhia ki Waitangi, i roto i taua pukapuka ka waiho nga kauri katoa, nga awa, nga aha katoa ma te tangata Maori hei aha noa atu ki a ia."

[Translation] "...friends, perhaps you have forgotten that document written at Waitangi where in that document all the kauri, the rivers, everything is left to the Maori to do with as he wishes."


Three years later, the British launched a full-blown assault on Kawiti's pa at Ohaeawai, with cannon and troops outnumbering Kawiti's followers by six to one.

Thirty years later, troops were rampaging through the central North Island, looting, pillaging, stealing and killing, and they were so successful in their campaign of death and destruction that by 1 July 1900, a memorial was erected in Auckland to "the dying Maori race".

We tried retreating to our papakainga to survive, we tried new religions, we tried our own parliament, we created our own monarchy, we tried living like white folks, we tried hiding our culture, we accepted having our language thrashed out of us, we adopted Pakeha names, we gave our lives in every overseas conflict this country has ever been involved in, hell, for the last 120 years we even taught ourselves to vote for Pakeha political parties and to deny our own right to self determination ­ all in the name of survival.

So when I hear Michael Cullen and John Key say that war never happened in Aotearoa, all I know is that if it wasn't war that killed off generations of my people and deprived us of millions of acres of our own land, then it¹s been a pretty rat-shit peace we've had to live with for the last one hundred years.

And when I hear Michael Cullen and John Key say that war never happened in Aotearoa, I would dearly love to offer them some of the peace my people have had to suffer.

And yet, I know that here, at this conference, I'm talking to the converted.

I know that people at this conference will understand me when I condemn this nation's decision to pursue corporate profit at the expense of an ever-increasing population of the poor.

And I know you'll understand me when I tell you how angry I get when I realise that in this era of multi-billion dollar surpluses:
  • we still have kids being hospitalised and dying from the symptoms of poverty;
  • we still have families forced to live in damp, mouldy and unheated houses, making illnesses like asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis worse; and
  • we still have too many families forced to live in cowsheds, caravans, garages, vans, and even car crates.

And I know you'll also understand how angry I get at power companies charging exorbitant rates, and cutting off power to poor families, and I know too that you know that when the power gets cut off:

  • the fridge turns off, food spoils, milk curdles, and people get sick trying to eat kai they should have chucked out;
  • families turn to dangerous ways of heating, cooking and lighting ­ starting fires in old cracked chimneys, bringing old gas-fired BBQ¹s inside to cook, and putting candles in unsafe places for lighting;
  • and people die.

And here, in these lush surroundings, here at the birthplace of the nation, right up the Waitangi river, I can also tell you that we have our own horror stories:

  • of kaimoana beds draped in condoms, tampons, faeces and toilet paper because the local authority wouldn't fix the breaks in the sewage lines;

  • of people being so poor that in spite of the pollution, they eat kaimoana because they have no other food, and their kids end up in hospital with a sore stomach;

  • of water-quality so poor that you wouldn't let your dog drink it;

  • and of pollution of kai moana in Northland caused by farm run-off, septic tanks, boaties, and failed sewerage systems, being so bad that the Northland Medical Officer of Health has actually described it as "crapping in our own food basket".

The challenge for the PHA is how to improve the health of all New Zealanders, and the challenge for Maori is how to improve the health of our own people.

How do we show leadership in public health?

How do we promote wellbeing instead of just fighting sickness?

How do we support research that will have a positive impact on public health?

Well, if I might be so bold as to say so, let me first give credit to the Maori renaissance of the 70s and the 80s for much of the turnaround in Maori thinking.

Let me also credit the Maori Protest Movement for providing us with much of the medicine we needed to ease the pain of past suffering, and let me pay homage to heroes like Syd Jackson, Whina Cooper and Eva Rickard for reigniting that fighting spirit within Maoridom, and challenging us to overcome all adversity, and to be proud, to be positive, and to be winners.

Because prior to those times, too many of us were happy to let our lives be determined by somebody else.

Nga Tamatoa changed all that in the seventies by refusing to nod, and by refusing to accept our status as second-class citizens, good for playing guitars, driving bulldozers, and for being happy with nothing. They woke us up.

The Maori Language petition in 1972, led by people who could hardly speak the language, but which led to the Maori Broadcasting Act, Maori Radio and Maori Television ­ they normalised Maori language, and created the avenue for the whole world to appreciate beautiful Maori music.
The 1975 Land March ­ not one acre more ­ forced Maori to realise how much we had lost and how much we were still losing, and forced the government to establish the Waitangi Tribunal to consider the massive land alienations.

The marches to Waitangi challenged the nation to recognise the importance of the Treaty to our whole society, and challenged Maoridom to make the Treaty a central plank in our lives.

The Kohanga Reo Movement which gave the language back to our mokopuna, and gave birth to Kura Kaupapa, Wharekura and Wananga in the 80s and the 90s.

Sure there were blips.

In 2003, Don Brash confirmed what we always knew ­ that National had no time for Maori, and I'll remind everybody here tonight, that for all of John Key's charisma and smiles, not one of the anti-Maori proposals put forward by Don Brash have been dropped,­ not one.

And the Takutaimoana Hikoi in 2004 made us realise that in the fight to hang desperately onto the Pakeha vote, Labour would follow the same path ­ by seeking to limit the role of the Treaty, downsize government commitment to Maori people, take Maori language out of schools, take the Treaty out of the curriculum, and vote to take the Treaty out of all legislation.

But what the Foreshore and Seabed March did do though, was give birth to the Maori Party ­an opportunity for a strong and independent Maori voice in parliament, and believe me when I tell you that if it hadn't been for Tariana Turia pushing it, I guarantee that in the current climate, the TREATY CLAUSE would not have seen the light of day in the revised Public Health Bill issued last week.

So I see hope in our future.

I see hope in my tuahine Paparangi Reid, Te Rarawa by heritage, Tumuaki of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland by profession, Public Health Champion of 2007, and foundation member of the Kawariki by choice ­ correctly calling this government's attempts to remove Treaty clauses, as being part of the movement against equity set in chain by Don Brash, and continuing through to this day in all spheres of government endeavor.

I see hope in the Maori caucus of Healthcare Aotearoa protesting against the decision to remove Treaty clauses from health plans.

I see hope in Peace Movement Aotearoa taking Treaty issues to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

I see hope in the Public Health Association telling the Select Committee that a Public Health Bill without the Treaty clause, would not only result in a clouded and confused approach to Maori involvement in health, but also be seen as institutional racism, enshrined in government legislation.

I see hope in the Child Poverty Action Group legally challenging the government to end discrimination against those 150,000 kids living in poverty and denied support through the Working for Families package.

I see hope in the fight to cut back on pokie machines and alcohol outlets in our poorer communities, and I see hope in the efforts of the smoke-free groups to battle the tobacco giants, and free our people from an addiction that kills 4,700 Kiwis every year.

And I see hope in gatherings like this, accepting the challenges, setting aside our fears, and having the courage to set a course that leads to good health, good attitude, good decision-making, and the opportunity to realise our dreams.

"Happy are those who dream dreams, and a re prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true."

Saturday, 1 January 2000

Obama’s health plan - Better than nothing or worse than nothing?

President Obama speaks on health care reform to a joint session of Congress (Larry Downing | Reuters)
by Lance Selfa from Socialist Worker newspaper (US) Judging from Barack Obama’s speech, the final version of health care “reform” could be so compromised by concessions that it would amount to nothing more than a grand exercise in corporate welfare for the insurance industry. PRESIDENT OBAMA’S September 9 speech on health care reform seemed to regain some of the momentum he lost during the summer. The question is whether that will turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. Certainly, many people who want a genuine reform of the irrational, wasteful and cruel system of health care delivery in this country were happy to see Obama draw the line against right-wing smears that have been flung his way. But reform supporters shouldn’t get carried away. While they were still clapping for Obama’s calling out of the hysteria around “death panels” as “a lie, pure and simple,” Obama managed to slip in two concessions to the right--his hitherto unannounced health care plan wouldn’t cover undocumented workers (the rebuttal that prompted cracker congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout “you lie” at the president), nor would it allow federal funding for abortion. Liberals like MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were so enthralled with Obama’s refutation of right-wing talking points--and so happy to give Wilson a well-deserved bashing--that they didn’t even ask two key questions: Why shouldn’t anyone, regardless of immigration status, be eligible for health care? And why shouldn’t women expect to have an essential health care procedure, abortion, covered under a reformed health care system? Apparently, “universal health care” isn’t really universal after all. If Obama’s and the Democrats’ health care plans are so willing to toss immigrants and women’s health care overboard, what does this say about the rest of the health care reform? When you peel away all the rhetoric, you find a pro-corporate program that offers the carrots of “insurance reform” and subsidies for low-income people in return for the stick of forcing the uninsured to buy insurance. In his speech, Obama used stories of insurance industry atrocities to make the case for measures like barring companies from denying people coverage because of “preexisting conditions.” No doubt, these were among the most well-received parts of his speech, aimed as they were at health insurance companies, one of the most hated institutions in the country. Yet Obama moved on to describe the requirement for people to carry insurance as comparable to state requirements for drivers to carry auto insurance--and he said this was necessary to prevent individuals from “gaming the system.” However flippantly, he at least made clear what has been obscured in the health care debate so far--that “universal health care” is a euphemism for forcing people, under penalty of law, to buy health insurance. In all the tumult over “death panels,” the “public option” and Medicare funding, hardly anyone has even commented on whether requiring people to buy health insurance is fair or feasible. Even the “don’t tread on me” tea-party types--always ready to object to the oppressive hand of government--have hardly raised an objection to this. Why? In the main, the prospect of a new, 40 million-strong, government-created “market” for its defective product has kept the insurance industry--though it has nevertheless helped to fund some of the opposition to health reform--on board with the administration’s overall approach. The industry is willing to furnish propaganda against the “socialism” of allowing the uninsured to have the choice of buying insurance from a publicly funded vendor--the so-called “public option. But it has no problem with the government forcing people to buy its product, no matter how expensive or insufficient it is. Despite the town hall theatrics of August, none of the major industry players that have been working with the Obama administration--the insurance lobby, big Pharma, hospitals, the American Medical Association--have jumped ship. This, more than anything else, should assure that something called “health care reform” will pass the Congress. IN AUGUST, when the right wing captured the initiative with its demonstrations at congressional town hall meetings, it became common for liberals to mock elderly protesters who warned members of Congress to “keep your hands off my Medicare.” Either these people were too stupid to know that Medicare is a government program, or they were too selfish to care about the uninsured, the argument went. Bob Cesca, writing on Huffington Post, put it this way: “I don’t claim to know the full stories behind the variety of senior citizens who have been recruited to disrupt these town halls, but one thing is clear. They’re participating in a corporate lobbyist-driven campaign to prevent the rest of us from acquiring the same affordable, reliable public health care they enjoy.” But conservatives, however cynically, have tapped into genuine anxiety among the elderly about Medicare, and the left would be foolish to discount it. After all, when Obama talks about financing his plan with $500 billion in “savings” from “waste, fraud and abuse” in the Medicare program, the elderly hear “cuts”--and they’re right. When Obama called for, in a little-noticed passage in his speech, the creation of an “independent commission of doctors and medical experts” charged with searching for waste in the program, he was endorsing a policy-wonk idea of an unelected commission to lower hospital reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors--another way to enforce cuts to Medicare spending without making elected representatives implement the cuts. And if Medicare recipients are skeptical of government promises, perhaps it’s also because their experience with Medicare itself isn’t as great as proponents of health care reform often assume. Although liberals hold up Medicare as an example of an efficient and generous health insurance system, it actually suffers from many of the deficiencies and irrationalities of the private insurance system on which it is modeled. Medicare recipients pay premiums, co-pays and substantial parts (between 20 percent and 50 percent) of their medical bills. Medicare Parts A and B don’t even cover many essential types of health care. Medicare Part C fills the gaps in Parts A and B, but at a cost to seniors. And Part D, the prescription drug benefit, requires seniors to buy insurance from private insurance companies. As Medicare recipient and health care advocate Mary Lynn Cramer wrote recently on CounterPunch: There is no way anyone could say that Medicare by itself is adequate coverage for all. It is not even adequate for the seniors who rely on it. I would like to see the Obamas and members of Congress try to cover their medical expenses with this so-called “single-payer” program. They would never trade the comprehensive coverage they have for Medicare. Medicare needs to be expanded to cover all basic medical needs (set out above). However, that is not in the President’s plan for health care reform. FOR OBAMA and progressives on Capitol Hill, all of the problems that remain in preserving the private health insurance-based system are supposed to be solved with a “public option” that will, as Obama said, hold the insurance companies “accountable.” The public option, a government-funded entity offering health insurance for the uninsured in competition with private insurers, is the main part of Obama’s plans that liberals have pledged to fight for. In July, members of the House Progressive Caucus even threatened to vote against health care reform if a strong public option wasn’t part of the bill. Ever the clever speaker, Obama managed to say enough in his speech about the “public option” to give progressives the feeling that he would fight for it, while not actually committing to it being in the bill. And since the speech, a number of conservative Democrats, Republicans and Washington pundits have already proclaimed it a dead letter. If these efforts succeed, a bill could pass that requires the uninsured to buy insurance from private health insurance companies that are responsible for much of the mess in the current health care system. Without even the pretence of “accountability” that the public option is supposed to provide, health care reform would simply be a grand exercise in corporate welfare for the insurance industry. More likely, a bill including something called a public option will pass, but it will apply to so few Americans (Obama suggested “fewer than 5 percent”) and be so hemmed in by industry-friendly regulations that it will, at best, resemble something like Medicare Parts A and B described above. In case you think that the House Progressive Caucus won’t allow such a travesty to pass, think again. Already, many leading progressives are qualifying their strong stands in favor of a “robust public option” so as to ready themselves to vote for whatever health reform package makes its way through the Byzantine protocols of the U.S. Senate. So we may end up with health care reform by the end of this year. The real question will be whether it helps ordinary Americans--or the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance-industrial complex. See also: An industry built on restricting care