Gross Disproportion in Health Care Funding

by Monreale

From the Center for Disease Control, Sept. 27, 2015:

"National Gay Men's HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each year on September 27 to direct attention to the ongoing and disproportionate impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States. MSM represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population. However, MSM accounted for 67% of all new HIV diagnoses." (emphasis supplied)

In the last few weeks the San Francisco Chronicle has run a series of stories, often making the front page, on the heroism and selflessness of gay men who have combated AIDS. Today the story turned in a similar vein toward women with AIDS. Some reflections follow. 

Act Up is the international direct action advocacy group that presses for legislation and funding to benefit those with HIV/AIDS. They have been astoundingly successful. Their primary tactic has been to sell the notion that HIV/AIDS is largely a heterosexual disease.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases involve homosexual men, often men who have vehemently rejected prudent measures to limit the spread of the disease, measures that are mandatory concerning every other serious infectious disease. Testifying to their influence is the recent capitulation by the FDA in lifting its long-standing ban on gays donating blood, a ban which Act Up decried as "stigmatizing." A friend of mine, an internationally recognized blood researcher whose work on the Zika virus was recently mentioned in the New York Times, told me there is no medical justification for the FDA's action--"it's all politics."

The signal victory scored by Act Up and their allies has been the imbalance in Federal funds spent on HIV/AIDS medical research. NIH spends more on this research than on any one of the other 70 diseases and medical conditions it funds, more than breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, substance abuse, mental health and so on. Not to mention the enormous sums, much more than on research, that the government spends on the care of those with HIV/AIDS.

Significant progress has been made in treating HIV/AIDS, a disease that affects a very small segment of our population, much of which has exhibited a reckless disregard for their own safety as well as the safety of the broader public. Regardless, this progress has saved lives and deserves applause. At the same time we should understand that the huge taxpayer sums that produced breakthroughs in HIV/AIDS could well have resulted in similar breakthroughs had they been directed against any one of the 70 other diseases that have a much broader impact on the American people.

We need to restore a sense of proportion in health care funding.

New Writer Joins Common Sense

Monreale has joined writers Chris and John as a new contributor to Common Sense.  We are delighted to welcome Monreale.  See his first posting Protest Identity Politics.

Protest Identity Politics

by Monreale

Trump drew millions of votes protesting identity politics. The average American no longer wilts at accusations of racism, sexism or other unfair discrimination, which have become omnipresent.  We know such name calling today is often illegitimate, a bad faith ploy to seek the upper hand.  We see no ethical reason why at this late date in the advancement of civil rights minorities should feel entitled to the kind of governmental advantage that amounts to reverse discrimination.  In short we refuse to acquiesce to things as they are and we expect change for the better under the new administration.

To that end we subscribe to the following tenets:

--Nothing can be reliably judged solely by the race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth of its supporter or of its opponent.

--A minority's claim is not always more deserving than that of a majority.

--Many important truths can be conveyed without reference to race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth.

--The views of white males are not by that very fact unworthy.

--Claimed oppression does not equal merit.

--Questions are best answered by investigation, not by assertion.

Plain Old Partisanship, Or…?

by John Stevenson

Remember, faithful readers , that I have never yet written in support of our President-elect Donald Trump.  And I do not do so here---although I might in the future, depending upon what he delivers while in office.  I write instead to point out the hypocrisy of his critics on the Left.  So I offer this:

President-elect The Donald promised us an end---or at least a reduction---of illegal immigration.   Consider this statement: 

“All Americans….in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service (sic) they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration [will move] aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens….We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace….We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

Anti-Trumpers call such comments racist, xenophobic, mean-spirited, even white nationalist.  Did I leave anything out?---insert your preferred insult.  Hillary Clinton says that those who harbor such thoughts are deplorable and irredeemable.

Whoa!  Hold your horses!  Maybe it ain’t so bad!

The quote is not from Trump.  It’s actually from the Top-Dog Democrat, President Bill Clinton, in his Jan. 24, 1995, State of the Union Address.  Ooooops!

Well, If that’s true (google it), then what we have here is a textbook example of a double standard and hypocrisy.

 

Did Democrats denounce President Clinton’s statement as anti-immigrant, xenophobic, mean spirited, racist, and so on?  Nope.  They gave him a standing ovation---as well they should have.

Although Trump’s rhetoric and tone have been more blunt and harsh than President Clinton’s, their message is the same: illegal immigration is “self-defeating” and “we must do more to stop it.”

To vilify Trump and his supporters for taking essentially the same stance as President Clinton is hypocritical and indefensible.

Perhaps the reason for the criticism is just plain old partisanship.  Or maybe it’s the fear that instead of just saying “we must do more to stop it” Trump might actually do it.

"Have Yourself a Merry, Scary Christmas*......"

by Chris James

*With apologies to Ralph Blane.                

     Paraphrasing Richard Nixon, I hereby publicly declare that: "I am not an economist."  Yes, I admit that I am pathologically obsessed with the brilliant, weekly magazine, The Economist.  But I do not sift the sustenance of my columns from this potentially abundant resource.  No sir.  But I may occasionally use it to support my literary wanderings, as circumstances dictate.  And that's about it.  So, what am I about to do here?  Answer: To take an ignoramus' dive into the Stygian pool of what is - or should be - making the U.S. economy tick today.  And to throw in a soupcon of historical hot sauce, just for the hell of it.

     This intention stems from the recent torrent of yowls and howls about "bringing jobs back" and "America first," blah, blah, blah.  The burning torch and pitchfork mob rages at a number of unspecified countries for taking jobs away from innocent, red-blooded Americans and, by golly, we're going to go right out and bring those jobs back home - where they belong.  And, naturally, I am confident that our wise, sensitive and alert government is already training a couple of million out of work individuals to seamlessly assimilate these tasks at a moment's notice and then to match, if not exceed, previous off-shore productivity.  All of the new capital equipment, resources, and facilities necessary to begin immediate production in the U.S. will be satisfyingly in place - at a trivialized cost.  In which event, overall (fake) costs of the re-established operations will be lowered, and U.S. consumers - a pillar of the U.S. economy - will benefit healthily from the change.

     Yeah, right.  In reality, any mindless implementation of such a strategy would trigger near-titanic economic, social, and political mayhem.  Not just in the U.S., but also in the countries that are left holding the (empty) bag.  Just so you know, the U.S. has a negative balance of payments with many of these countries.  That is to say, we owe them for goods and services that they have provided.  If we dump them, then it'll be no more nicey-nicey on their part.  They will want to be paid what we owe them.  RIGHT NOW!!  If, for no other reason, than to cushion the resulting negative economic impact of lost jobs and idle capital equipment imposed on their jurisdictions.  

     The victimized nations are also going be highly motivated to cash in any U.S. government debt that they may be carrying.  And where would our government get the money to pay off its share of this Great Flood of called-in I.O.U.s?  Certainly not from the government's usual trick of raising funds to pay off debts.  Namely, their Ponzi scheme of issuing more debt to satisfy their current debt repayment obligations.  With the catastrophic consequences of this utterly misguided bring-home-the-jobs strategy on full display, nobody is going to trust the U.S.  Especially the financial markets, where there will be little or no trust in whatever financial instruments that our government can conjure up to try to bail us out.  Remember the financial debacle in Greece?  Luckily, they were bailed out by the European Union.  Any volunteers out there to help the good ol' U.S.of A., as we thrash around in that same kind of quicksand?   

     And the situation could get much worse.  But since it's the Season of Happiness and Good Will, then I won't lay it on any thicker.  Instead, I would like to celebrate Trump's heroic action over at Carrier as a timely and delicious metaphor for exactly the wrong approach.  Now, don't get mad.  I'm fully aware that there is a human cost.  Focus, instead, on the abstract metaphorical dimension.  To help you do that, allow me give you a hot sauce, actual data, wake-up call.  A recent massive study by Ball University Business College determined that loss of jobs in the U.S. - some of the data going back as far as 1997 - was 88% due to technological changes in the U.S. and only 13% due to jobs being transferred off-shore.  Yeah, I know that it doesn't add up to 100%.  One person rounds up, another rounds down - it's a cup half empty, half full, thing.  

     Therefore, not only is Trump's objective barking up the wrong tree, but - Holy Toledo -  his strategy is also open to suspicion.  Because, as the erudite Mr. George Will deftly pointed out, government interference in the legal management affairs of private sector businesses is a bastion of Socialism.  It originated with Karl Marx's call for governments to "take over the means of production."  And lo, Comrade Trump is now revealed as a practicing, closet Socialist!  Arch-socialist Bernie Sanders must be wetting his pants with laughter.  Hopefully, Trump's outlandish performance is a one-off publicity stunt and is not a foreshadowing of a second Manchurian Candidate presidency in a row!    

     The totally dominant role of technology in the economy is exactly the way it should be.  Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain around 1750, the transition of technology replacing labor has been paramount.  Costs go down, consumers benefit, the economy thrives.  Standards of living rise, which inspires further capital investment in the economy.  This cycle is one of the bed-rock foundations of capitalism.  Of course, displaced workers in industries undergoing technological change may suffer.  But it is the job of the government and of corporate leaders to ameliorate that suffering.  Not by bringing lower tech jobs back into the country, but by training and retraining the work force to higher skill levels.  This will be harder to accomplish with a 50 year old worker than with a high-schooler, but it is better all round to provide the older, non-transposable victims with a reasonably comfortable, pensioned life - richly deserved - and then to focus on the upcoming generations in an well-planned, coherent fashion.

     Obviously, not everyone can be trained in the mysteries of "technology."  Not everyone will want to be.  Frankly, not everyone is up to it.  But the technological nucleus must be protected and continuously nourished.  It is the vital inventive engine of the economy.  Not just in the form of R & D, but also in its pragmatic application to manufacturing - a bountiful field where inventiveness can pay off.  Then there is the service sector - the biggest in the U.S. economy.  This sector exploits much of the technology embodied in manufactured products.  For example, think data transmission, manipulation, and storage.  And the multi-million-employed service sector covers a vast range of jobs.  A colleague succinctly gauged the size and importance of the service sector in a simple, non-condescending phrase: The world needs burger flippers too.

     Clearly, the Holy Grail that allows the United States to sustain its position as a world power - perhaps THE world power - is to stay ahead of everyone else technologically.  Not just for military reasons but, equally important, so that consumers can benefit from an on-going improved life-style.  Beating a dead horse, I reiterate that raising the standard of living equates to consumers playing their vital part in stimulating the economy.  Yet, if we still have to transfer some manufacturing capacity to off-shore, low-cost countries, then let it be today's, or yesterday's, technology. Our country must maintain the freedom and the supportive political climate to routinely get ahead - and remain ahead - of the technological curve.  For U.S. business this is, indisputably, the glory road to "Making America Great Again."  Returning second-hand manufacturing and been-there-done-that technology to this country is not.  Indeed, a more appropriate slogan for Trump's risky jobs strategy is: "Moving Forward by Going Backward.”

Banishing George Washington

by John Stevenson

There is a George Washington High School in San Francisco---for now.

School Board head Matt Haney (who takes inspiration from Colin Kaepernick’s antics) has proposed renaming of San Francisco schools, beginning with Washington High.  Second on the list is Francis Scott Key Elementary, perhaps because Key wrote the words to the Anthem that Kaepernick disrespects. 

Haney objects on the grounds that schools should not be “named after people who bought and owned human beings.”  He proposes that schools named after historical figures with “questionable human rights legacies” should be renamed for people of color, LGBT figures, and women. 

Haney points out that “we now have a school district that is overwhelmingly children of color.”  He explains “there might be a more appropriate, meaningful name” and he suggests Maya Angelou, a Washington grad.  This would be more meaningful, apparently, to Washington High’s population---which is overwhelmingly Asian, eight percent white, and five percent black.

It is sad, even tragic, that any American would advocate erasing the name of any of our founding fathers---let alone “the father of our country.”  But the foregoing is all prologue.  The real issue here is the intellectual fallacy of judging yesteryear’s figures by today’s standards.

In his essay “Holier than Them,” Anthony Esolen describes how “the inestimable Robert George likes to ask his college students how many of them, if they lived in the South before the Civil War, would have opposed slavery.”  They all raise their hands.

Then Professor George advises his students “what their opposition would have cost them: ridicule from the most visible political and intellectual leaders of their society, slander of their motives, incomprehension at best from their families, loss of employment, loneliness…”  He also says that it is unclear how members of the slave-holding society “…could form a moral position running athwart so much of what they must have taken for granted from the time they were born.”

The professor goes on to tell his students that, if they had lived in Nazi Germany, it is unlikely they would have become Oskar Schindler, going “…against what everybody knows, what everybody says, what everybody does.”  Similarly, he tells them that, had they lived in communist Russia, it would be extremely doubtful that they would have chosen the gulag by opposing the government of the workers’ paradise.

Of course Professor George does not support slavery or totalitarian regimes.  He uses them to illustrate how unlikely it is that individuals will turn against the societal norms and institutions with which they grew up and which are accepted by all (or nearly all) of their contemporaries.

In addition to slavery, societies have embraced polygamy, public executions, even cannibalism.  The Romans fed Christians to the lions.  During the age of exploration, Europeans colonized and subjugated much of the non-white world, which previously had subjugated each other.  Against what standard could members of those societies be judged, except for the standards of their own time and location?

Who is so morally pure and so clairvoyant as to be willing to be judged by standards which will emerge decades or even centuries in the future? 

Consider consumption of meat, game hunting, sport fishing, capital punishment, abortion, the keeping of pets, the confinement of zoo animals, etc.    Might future generations view these things with revulsion?  We can speculate, but none of us can accurately predict the moral standards of the future.  And we should not evaluate our predecessors against standards of their future.

Here is historian and classicist Professor Sir Ronald Syme:  “It is presumptuous to hold judgement over the dead at all, improper to adduce any standards other than those of a man’s time, class, and station.”