Voters have long suspected that politicians are corrupt, so much so that they’ve demanded a long list of ethics rules and anti-bribery regulations over the years. But it turns out there are still plenty of tricks left up their sleeves. The question is, do they use those tricks? Do they really have the power to enrich themselves at our expense? Today, we have a wealth of new evidence that finally answers those questions…
In this episode, Jordan Carr Peterson unveils the concerning conclusions of a series of research papers that pull back the veil on the financial interests of our policymakers—and the power they wield in their own favor.
Continue reading “Our American Discourse, Ep. 20: When Politicians Get Rich and Voters Pay the Price”
As a member of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, I’m proud to add my name to this letter to the editor in the New York Times:
To the Editor:
We, many of the nation’s health law and health policy professors from law, medical, public health and graduate schools across the United States, write to address one of the most fundamental issues impacting our country: the potential repeal and replacement of the “Affordable Care Act” (“Obamacare”). It is clear that the House-passed “American Health Care Act,” as well as the legislation likely to be considered by the Senate, will cause severe, lasting harm to all of us, especially our society’s most vulnerable and middle class.
Today we raise our voices to oppose these proposals. While the Affordable Care Act has its shortcomings that should be fixed, the current proposals are merely “repeal,” with no effective “replace.” These proposals are wrong, and must be rejected. At a time when we are seeing significant declines in the number of uninsured and inadequately insured in our country, the House and Senate proposals represent a giant step backward. By cutting Medicaid funding, eliminating federal assistance for families securing private coverage, and encouraging individuals to either not purchase insurance or to buy barebones coverage, these proposals will result in a less equitable, less accessible system of health care. Ultimately, the public’s health will decline as needed care is forestalled or not sought, and costs will rise as a shrinking pool of Americans with “good” insurance pay more to subsidize those without.
Given the many health care challenges that we face— an aging population needing an increasing amount of health care services; a young and middle age population facing growing rates of obesity, heart disease, and other chronic conditions; a rapidly expanding “gig” economy of independent contractors needing to secure insurance without employer subsidies; and a rising number of individuals addicted to new and more prevalent illegal drugs— reducing access to health care services simply cannot be an acceptable policy option.
We also are deeply concerned about what this new legislation portends for women and children. Currently, the United States leads the developed world in maternal mortality. More women die during childbirth in the United States than in any other Western nation. Despite the urgency to protect women’s health and strive for better outcomes, lawmakers have specifically targeted maternal health coverage for cuts.
The same is true for infants in the U.S, whose health care is also at risk with these proposals. Our nation ranks 50th in the world on infant mortality. By shifting more families off of Medicaid, and creating a larger uninsured and under-insured population, children’s access to health care services will decline.
The Affordable Care Act protects all Americans from discrimination based on preexisting conditions, expands coverage for mental health treatment and drug addiction, and fosters preventive care. Millions of Americans have health insurance for the first time, and we are at an all-time low in the percentage of citizens who lack coverage. The reform legislation under development proposes to wipe away these essential gains, returning Americans to the pre-Affordable Care Act era of coverage limitations and exclusions thwarting the provision of essential health care services.
In 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King explained to a group of health providers, “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane.” We agree.
Democracy is a dialogue. It requires our leaders to ask, to listen, and to react. Good governance thus hinges on conversation and consent—and whether we like it or not, conflict. Planners and policymakers have to balance competing needs, never more so than in today’s polarized environment. How do they do the right thing? Does such a thing even exist? Citizenship demands that we engage with these uncomfortable questions, especially in this troubled era.
In this episode, we find sagacity and even humor in the hard work of ethical governing with Lisa Schweitzer.
Prof. Schweitzer is an associate professor of urban planning in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. She teaches classes in city life and structure, justice in public policy, and public transit. Her research has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. She blogs regularly, provocatively, and wittily at lisaschweitzer.com.
To listen to this episode of Our American Discourse, click the orange arrow in the Soundcloud player at the top of this post. Or you can download it and subscribe through iTunes, Soundcloud, or Google Play.
“Our American Discourse” is produced by Aubrey Hicks, Jonathan Schwartz, and myself, and mixed by Corey Hedden.
Notice how people both feel that they (a) deserve their bonus and (b) budget their fixed expenses and lifestyle as if they are going to get their bonus. Is there any wonder you see so many people not report problems or actively “race to the bottom” in terms of ethics?
— Mike Konczal (Roosevelt Institute), on Wall Street
by Norman Horowitz
In the 1950s, while I was defending our country in the Air Force during the Korean War, I was an electronics teacher.
During my teaching career, I encountered well over 1,000 students from all over the world, but primarily from the United States. Most of these kids — average age 18 — had never seen a Jew before (that they were aware of).
Here are some of the things I was asked in class by my students:
- Sergeant, where do you hide your horns?
- Sergeant, what do you do with the bodies of the Christians after you have drained their blood for your rituals?
- Sergeant, how come the fucking Jews get to have a day off to celebrate certain holidays?
There were many more, but enough already. Continue reading “The Responsibility of a Free Press”