MoJo Blog Posts: mojo

Veterans Die from Lack of Health Insurance

By James Ridgeway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:24:24 -0800

From the web site of Physicians for a National Health Plan comes this summary of a new study on American veterans' limited access to health care. These figures as an estimate, extrapolated from an earlier study--but if they are right, they dwarf the number of deaths from combat, and rival the suicide figures I wrote about earlier today.

A research team at Harvard Medical School estimates 2,266 U.S. military veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they lacked health insurance and thus had reduced access to care. That figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001.

The researchers, who released their analysis today [Tuesday], pointedly say the health reform legislation pending in the House and Senate will not significantly affect this grim picture.

The Harvard group analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, which surveyed Americans about their insurance coverage and veteran status, and found that 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured in 2008. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals or clinics.

Using their recently published findings in the American Journal of Public Health that show being uninsured raises an individual’s odds of dying by 40 percent (causing 44,798 deaths in the United States annually among those aged 17 to 64), they arrived at their estimate of 2,266 preventable deaths of non-elderly veterans in 2008.

As the PNHP piece points out, many veterans do not have free access to government-funded health care through the VA system:

While many Americans believe that all veterans can get care from the VA, even combat veterans may not be able to obtain VA care, Woolhandler said. As a rule, VA facilities provide care for any veteran who is disabled by a condition connected to his or her military service and care for specific medical conditions acquired during military service.

Woolhandler said veterans who pass a means test are eligible for care in VA facilities, but have lower priority status...Veterans with higher incomes are classified in the lowest priority group and are not eligible for VA enrollment.

So after these men and women risk their lives in the military, we throw them on the mercy of the private system of medicine-for-profit, which is touted as a cherished part of the American way of life. It all gives a whole new meaning to dying for your country.

The Veteran Suicides

By James Ridgeway — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:05:49 -0800

On this Veterans Day, tributes continue for the 13 soldiers who died last week at Ford Hood, gunned down by one of their own. It was a shocking and terrible event, which warranted the outpouring of sorrow it inspired. Yet every single day, on average, more current and past members of the U.S. armed services die by their own hands than were killed on November 5 at Fort Hood.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ own calculations (which it tried to conceal from a CBS News probe, Congress, and the public), there are “about 18 suicides per day among America’s 25 million veterans.” That's well over 6,000 a year. In addition, the VA admits that “suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our medical facilities.” Rates are highest among young men in their twenties, veterans of our current wars. And these numbers do not include suicides by active duty members of the military. In 2008 alone, these numbered nearly 250 (Army 128, Navy 41, Marines 41, Air Force 38)--an average of five every week.

There are no public outpourings of grief for these servicemen and women, whose deaths must often have followed prolonged suffering from PTSD, traumatic brain injury, depression, or plain old despair. There are no memorial services with eulogies by the president, no tributes at Veterans’ Day parades, no week-long stretches of nonstop media coverage.

Instead, there are sporadic news reports, and the occassional Congressional hearing. And while increasing lip service has been paid to improving mental health care for veterans, in reality, the VA has set up multiple obstacles to such care.

As The Nation reported last year, the VA has delayed or denied disability and medical benefits to thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans because they couldn’t “prove” that their conditions were “service-related.” In addition, ”a recent Inspector General report found that 70 percent of VA facilities don’t have a system to track suicidal veterans. Only a handful of VA hospitals have rehab programs that include families. And soldiers injured today face a benefits waiting list more than 650,000 veterans long.” One doctor in the VA’s leadership who publicly criticized these shortcomings was summarily fired.

Even the true statistics on veteran suicides would never have come out were it not for a class action lawsuit by Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) and Veterans United for Truth, who sued the VA in federal court. According to the veterans’ groups:

Many veterans who have fought in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, as well as those who served in earlier conflicts, are not being given the disability compensation, medical services and care they need. A much higher percentage of these veterans suffer with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) than veterans of any previous war, due to the multiple tours many are serving, the unrelenting vigilance required by the circumstances, the greater prevalence of brain injuries caused by the types of weaponry in use, among other reasons. Despite this, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“DVA”) is failing to provide adequate and timely benefits and medical care.

The judge who heard the case in federal district court in San Francisco--himself an 86-year-old veteran of World War II--said he was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ cause, but he found against them. According to VCS, “In his decision, Judge Conti held that although it is clear to the Court that the VA may need ‘a complete overhaul’ the the power to remedy this crisis lies with the other branches of government.”

In other words, if the VA can’t or won’t fix itself, it’s time for Congress and the White House to step up and do something about this travesty. (Elizabeth Gettleman's piece today mentions one such effort---which is, unsurprisingly, being blocked by House Republicans.)

Should Wall Street Apologize?

By Nick Baumann — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:42:33 -0800

This, from Andrew Ross Sorkin's New York Times Q&A, will probably make you angry:

Q. This may sound Pollyannish, but while you have been interviewing the Wall Street chief executives for your book, did you ever get the sense that they felt responsible or remorseful for the damage they had done? Or for that matter, did they feel any gratitude toward the average taxpayer for saving them?

Much of the anger in the country could be abated with a simple "I'm sorry" and "Thank you for coming to our rescue."

— Craig Wensberg, Millburn, N.J.

A. I must say that one of the frustrating parts of researching my book came when I finally got to ask the question of Wall Street chief executives and board members that you just raised: Do you have any remorse? Are you sorry? The answer, almost unequivocally, was no. (Or they just didn't answer.) They see themselves as just one part of a larger problem, with many constituencies to blame.

Many of the most senior members of management on Wall Street now consider themselves "survivors," as if they were cancer survivors or something. That’s the word they use. While many of them are self-aware enough to politely nod at the notion that they received help and were part of the problem, they seem reluctant to acknowledge they were "rescued" or "saved." There are probably a few exceptions, so I shouldn’t paint them all with the same brush, but on the whole, that was the takeaway.

I recognize that that answer will only increase public outrage. But it is true.

David Corn asked a bunch of Wall Street CEOs this same question back in March, and got basically the same answer. David came away with the impression that "high finance means never having to say you're sorry." If we haven't seen any remorse yet, we're probably not going to see any going forward—the stock market has rebounded and risk-taking and bonuses are getting back to their pre-crash highs. I'd rather have real reform than an apology, anyway. I don't think we'll get either—But if we don't get real reform, maybe the next crisis will be so bad that even trillions of government dollars won't be able to stop the bleeding and CEOs will have to face the music. If that happens, I look forward to telling Ken Lewis and his ilk to go tell it to Timbaland.

Birther Lawyer Raising Money on Climate Treaty "Dictatorship"

By Nick Baumann — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:35:13 -0800

Lawyer Gary Kreep has drawn attention for defending Glenn Beck and fighting a court battle for a client who embraces the "birther" conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. Now Kreep and his conservative legal group, the United States Justice Foundation, are trying to raise money off a new cause: protecting Americans from the "Global Socialism" and "Global Dictatorship" that will come if a global climate treaty is signed in Copenhagen, Denmark later this year.

USJF, which calls itself "your conservative voice in the courts," is involved in many extreme conservative causes. Kreep has fought to protect the anti-immigrant "Minutemen," railed against gay marriage, and allied with the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. But this anti-Copenhagen advocacy seems to be new. In an email to members of a conservative website's mailing list, Kreep warns of dire consequences if Obama is allowed to pursue a climate treaty and suggests that only by donating to his organization can conservatives avert disaster:

The sovereign and independent status that America has cherished for over 200 years may come to an abrupt end in December, 2009, if Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

What is the Copenhagen Climate Treaty?

The Copenhagen Treaty has two stated goals:

* Transfer wealth from Industrial Nations (The United States) to Developing Countries.
* Dictate energy use and consumption to Industrial Nations (The United States)

Now, just so we are clear...

* Goal Number One is Global Socialism
* Goal Number Two is a Global Dictatorship

Kreep's list of the "devastating immediate economic impact of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty" is a complete roundup of conservative paranoia about climate change mitigation measures:

Limit manufacturing in the U.S. by cap and trade regulations = Loss of Jobs

Limit personal consumption of energy by law and costs = Loss of Freedom

Hyper Energy cost Inflation

ALL goods and materials to become more expensive = Double Digit Inflation

Transportation to become more expensive = $10 per gallon gas prices

Halt the US Recovery = Prolonged Recession / Depression

Assure and accelerate the shift of economic growth and profitability from the U.S to emerging markets = Loss of Opportunity

Increase Imports for emerging countries who will not be subject to the same carbon emissions limits = Unfair Competition, Increased Trade Deficit

Cause the U.S. to become an even greater debtor while China becomes an even bigger creditor = More Red Debt

Add momentum to the movement away from the U.S. Dollar toward an alternate single or composite world reserve currency = One World Currency

Increase the cost of Treasury borrowings = Ballooning Deficit

Drive up federal and state taxes = Suffocating Taxes

His conclusion drives the paranoia home:

The Copenhagen Climate Treaty will strip America of its Sovereignty, and subject us to laws, rules and huge taxes levied by a one-world, leftist, elitist governing body that wants to steal America's wealth to punish us for our success as a nation. Worst of all, Americans will NOT have the power to vote these elitists out of office, impeach them, or hold them accountable in any way whatsoever.... If we do not stand firm and united against this treasonous treaty, the greatest country in the world may be forever subservient to a One World Order and it will have happened on our watch.

Kreep's not alone in his worries that climate change mitigation measures will lead to dictatorship or one-world-government. Fox News host Sean Hannity is a big fan of pushing similar fears. So, for the matter, is Sen. Dave Vitter (R-La.). It's just another example of how congressional Republicans are increasingly embracing the ideas and rhetoric of the far right.

Happy 90th, Mikhail Kalashnikov

By Nick Baumann — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:07:10 -0800

Photo by flickr user barjack used under a Creative Commons license.I was interested to learn, via Spencer Ackerman, that yesterday was AK-47 designer Mikhail Kalashnikov's 90th birthday. Joe Harlan fills in some details:

The most common assault rifle on earth, being used by children in Africa and old men in Paktia, is the end result of an arms glut never before witnessed in history. The armies of some two to three dozen countries use Kalashnikovs or an unlicensed copy. Armed non state actors on every continent except Antarctica have used it. The production of these weapons is estimated at roughly 100 million units, give or take, and is being copied — by hand in some places, or by industrial manufacturers in others.

[F]or most entities to carry out what we’ll call "industrial" warfare, they require industrial arms production. After WWII, unprecedented levels of production and also proliferation by the two Cold War superpowers changed that; major armored vehicles, artillery, and nearly ubiquitous small arms made their way into the dusty forgotten corners of the world. By allowing that, we have given medieval societies the modern means to make war.

Two years ago Good magazine had an awesome issue about good design. The AK-47 was on the cover. Here's what they said about it:

The problem is that "good design" didn’t look much beyond the object itself. An AK-47 rifle, for example, makes use of sound and appropriate materials and it demonstrates other criteria of good design, such as solid workmanship, efficiency, and suitability of purpose—the gun was designed so that nothing, from sand to ice, could get in and prevent it from firing. Plus, its robust and “honest” appearance is pleasing. For many, the AK-47 is a classic in the annals of good design (it also happens to be most popular firearm in the world). But the question then is: good for what and for whom?

I know it's a cliché, but people's ability to constantly develop with new, more interesting, and more efficient ways to kill each other always impresses me.

Graham Censured for Sensible Climate Stance

By Kate Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:36:46 -0800

The Republican Party of Charleston County, S.C. on Monday voted to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham over his support for climate legislation and his willingness to work across party lines on the issue.

The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.

The party resolution passed Monday says Graham has weakened the Republican brand. Bennett expects a similar resolution to be introduced at the state GOP convention next year.

Bennett called his views "out of step with the beliefs of Republican voters."

Graham hasn't been able to catch a break back home lately. The American Energy Alliance, a shadowy group backed by dirty energy interests, has spent $300,000 on television, radio, and online advertisements in the state lambasting Graham for supporting "a national energy tax called cap-and-trade."

UPDATE: Plum Line has the full resolution from the Charleston GOP, which we've reprinted in full below the fold.

Whereas, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kerry (MA) have called for a bipartisan bill dealing with “climate change” via a “Cap & Trade” energy bill;

Whereas, the basis of Cap & Trade – global warming caused by carbon emissions – is still in doubt as evidenced by the past decade of cooling temperatures;

Whereas, the people of South Carolina can ill afford the job-killing Cap & Trade bill’s ripple effects on our state’s economy and on personal energy bills;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham supported TARP and has shown a willingness to discuss nationalizing U.S. banking institutions;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them “bigots” when they oppose his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated on many occasions that his primary concern is to “be relevant”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham continues to hold the Republican Party hostage and undermines Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit by joining the “Gang of 10” and the “Gang of 14”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham – in the name of bipartisanship – continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.

Therefore, let it be resolved: The Charleston County Republican Party Executive Committee respectfully requests, with sincere sadness that the South Carolina Republican Party withdraw their resolution commending U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and that the Charleston Country Republican Party censure U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a “Cap & Trade” energy bill, bailing out banks, and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Next Year?

By Nick Baumann — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:08:22 -0800

Next year's defense bill will probably include a provision repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Advocate on Wednesday. Kerry Eleveld has the fascinating details:

Frank said he has been in direct communication with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, and other Congressional leaders about the strategy for ending the 1993 ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Though some moderate Democrats have recently expressed concern about repealing the policy during a midterm election year, Frank said resolve at the White House has never wavered. "The Administration is totally committed to this and has been from the beginning," he said.

Anecdotally, Frank recalled an incident earlier this year when Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a statement to reporters suggesting that repeal was still an open question.

"There was a point where Gates said, 'If we repeal "don’t ask, don’t tell,"'— and the next day he said, 'When we repeal "don’t ask, don’t tell,"'" said Frank. "That's because Rahm called him up. The White House has been consistently committed."

If the administration wanted, it could almost certainly put off DADT repeal until after the midterms without suffering a significant political price. The fact that, according to Frank, the White House is choosing to push for repeal before the midterms suggests that gay rights may be part of of the administration's political strategy. One can make the case that focusing on certain social issues could actually be the right move for Democrats in 2010.

Despite conventional wisdom, not all social and moral debates play to the Republicans' advantage. The Terri Schiavo fiasco in 2005 turned many voters against the Republicans. Interfering in that most private of family battles made the GOP look out of touch and reactionary. The most negative stereotypes about Republicans center around social issues: that they are bigoted and hateful and reactionary. If Democrats can make voters think that congressional Republicans fit that stereotype, Democrats will win.

This is not 1993. The country has changed dramatically in a decade and a half. Three-quarters of Americans, including 66 percent of conservatives and 64 percent of Republicans, think gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. Many of the "Obama surge" voters are young and definitely pro-gay rights. A fight over something many of them believe is an issue of basic fairness could get them to the polls. The move will fire up the Christian right in opposition, but the far right is already enraged—they'll be at the polls regardless.

Of course, if the Obama administration does think that DADT repeal is a good election-year issue for Democrats, gay people would undoubtedly feel icky to be used as a political football yet again. (The timing is also cold comfort for the gay servicemembers who will be fired between now and whenever Congress gets around to overturning the policy.) But it would be a real shift in American politics if it could be convincingly demonstrated on a national scale that supporting gay rights can help politicians instead of hurting them.

Cantwell's Alternate Climate Bill

By Kate Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:00:27 -0800

Having cleared the Environment and Public Works committee, the cap-and-trade bill is now being considered by Sen. Max Baucus' finance panel, which has jurisdiction over how carbon permits will be allocated. But at a hearing on Thursday, committee member Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) signaled that she thinks cap and trade contains too many opportunities for manipulation of carbon markets, and instead wants to offer her alternative—a proposal for a "cap-and-dividend" scheme.

Cap-and-dividend works by only limiting emissions by "upstream" industries—that is, the first sellers of fossil fuels, like oil refineries and coal mines. All pollution permits under the cap would be auctioned, and most of the revenues would be returned to energy consumers. As with cap-and-trade, the limit on emissions becomes stricter over time.

Now Cantwell may have a chance to offer elements of her bill for consideration. "When the right time is there we'll certainly be putting ideas on the table," she told reporters. The dividend idea, Cantwell said, "would be something that the committee want to discuss and have a lot of input on."

Cantwell has a far better acronym than the Kerry-Boxer bill—hers is called the "Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal– or CLEAR, for short. In part because her proposal only covers first sellers, her bill is more concise than the cap-and-trade proposals, coming in at just 32 pages. By comparison, the chairman's mark of the Kerry-Boxer bill is 925 pages, and Waxman-Markey totaled 1,427 pages in the end. Granted, legislation is by nature complex and brevity does not necessarily make good policy. But at a time when complicated, inscrutable market structures have wreaked havoc on our financial system and distrust about climate legislation doling handouts to big business runs rampant, the appeal of something simple and direct is clear.

Cantwell's bill requires all carbon trading to be done on exchanges, and would allow only polluters to participate in trading. (Cap and trade allows speculators to participate in its carbon market.) And where her measure requires 100 percent of pollution permits to be auctioned, Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey both distribute roughly 85 percent of those permits free of charge. Seventy-five percent of the revenues from the sale of the permits would then be refunded to consumers, in the form of a "carbon refund payment," to offset the increase in energy prices. The other 25 percent would go to a dedicated trust fund for job training programs, clean energy research and development, and climate mitigation and adaptation programs.

Baucus declined to offer a time line for his committee work on Tuesday. "No date set," he told reporters. "It really depends on a lot of factors: other committee's actions on health care, Copenhagen ... There will be other hearings though. We're taking this very seriously." Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), who along with Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). is spearheading a separate track of negotiations in the Senate, now says it's unlikely that this effort will produce a full bill before early next year.

Right-Wing Talkers Exploiting Ft. Hood

By David Corn — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:04:43 -0800

Over at PoliticsDaily.com, I have a column noting how right-wing TV and radio ranters have been exploiting the Fort Hood tragedy to sow division and bash political foes—while accusing liberals and Democrats of using the event to divide the nation. It's a mind-bending development. A few examples:

* Chris Plante, a Rush-wannabe with his own radio show, says that liberals are "trying desperately to convince America" that Nidal Hasan, the presumed shooter, was "just a crazy guy who spent too much time around deployed soldiers and caught [post-traumatic stress disorder] and oh he happened to be a muslim [sic], but we should ignore that. We shouldn't jump to conclusions." On his show, he has repeatedly declared that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before firing on his comrades—even though it's not been confirmed that Hasan did so. Isn't that a bit divisive?

* Syndicated talker Laura Ingraham also claimed it was a fact that Hasan was "screaming Allah-u-Akbar" —as she argued that Hasan had been moved to kill by his "religious fervor" (read: Muslim religious fervor).

* Sean Hannity proclaimed, "There is a chance our government knew all about" Hasan and "did nothing because nobody wanted to be called an Islamophobe." Yet there's no evidence of that. And given that the US government has been arresting alleged Muslim radicals in the United States and bombing Islamic jihadists in Pakistan, it seems top officials are hardly inhibited by the fear of being branded Islamophobes. Hannity has also blasted the Obama administration for not catching Hasan before his killing spree, bellowing, "What does it say about Barack Obama and our government?" Actually, it says nothing about Obama. Two terrorism task forces learned that Hasan had been in contact with a radical imam in late 2008 and subsequently did nothing, after an analyst concluded Hasan's contacts with the imam were consistent with research he was conducting.

* Rush Limbaugh, of course, has gotten into this act. He first blamed Obama for the event, contending that Obama's policy moves had pushed Hasan to become a killer. Then he slammed Obama for not calling the Fort Hood an act of terror.

Nothing like a national discussion based on reason and evidence, right? My column on this is drawing an unusually high number of comments. I can just imagine how calm and rational they are.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Exit Wounds: Defending Our Vets

By Elizabeth Gettelman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:00:00 -0800

Another Veterans' Day is upon us, and there's perhaps no more appropriate time to pause and consider the challenges facing our 23 million military vets. There's the obvious: wars on two fronts, which affect our troops-to-be-vets and the VA system at large, and the Ft. Hood massacre, which magnifies the severity of dual (and expanding) wars, being fought by a beleaguered and traumatized fighting force.

Today will be full of symbolism and remembrances, but there are also real policies being negotiated on Capitol Hill that can help support vets in the long-run. Two weeks ago, President Obama signed a bill to keep funding steady for veterans' health care services during protracted budget negotiations. Yesterday, Sen. Tom ("Dr. No") Coburn (R-Okla.) continued to be the roadblock on a $3.7 billion bill that would expand mental care and offer home assistance to wounded veterans, citing "wasteful spending" in his opposition to the bill. This was the same day that the VA settled a lawsuit pending over a two-tour Michigan vet with PTSD who died after an overdose; his family said the VA failed to hospitalize him or enter into a mental-health facility.

Mental- and other health-care funding, troop levels in Afghanistan, the state of our taxed VA system, these all have residual effects on vets today and vets tomorrow. And we can Support Our Troops with banners and bumper stickers all we want, but when it takes a domestic attack on a military base by one of our own for Texas to ramp up mental health funding for its veterans, we all must not be paying close enough attention.

Have a look at some of Mother Jones' coverage over the past few years on the state of veterans' affairs. These are stories that investigate all fronts, from ex-torturers back stateside, photos of hidden caskets (and of the hidden-from-sight injured), to a military with combat fatigue, and the Pentagon's PTSD problem. There's more, and we can do more. Look around, tell us what you think.