Hancock County Democrats Blog

As those of us who are greeted each morning with The Courier, we are never surprised to see the absurd statements of our putative U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan.  Jim was at it again in Bluffton on Wednesday.  This was reported in The Courier in the Thursday, November 12, 2009 edition.  I suggest that at some point this swill must stop, unfortunately, area newspaper reporters do not have the fortitude to ask questions or think.  Let me provide a little response.  You may recall that when I ran for the Ohio House, I made some very specific statements about health care.  You may check these by visiting www.johnfkostyo.com.  I paid to make sure these were in local papers through the 76^th District.  Mr. Hite has said nothing about health care – yet.

We know that the United States must fully embrace a health care system that provides care for health, seeks to prevent illness and rewards practices for good health.  We must also embrace health care as a moral imperative and duty to each American. 

Mr. Jordan's views of health care are based on self-serving myths and his fulfillment of a do nothing political agenda.   His statement that it is a moral question sound good, but has no basis in fact or any morality associated with humanity.  With reference to his defense of Joe Wilson, Jim Jordan is person who is not being straightforward with his constituents. 

It is now an established fact that nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published on September 17, 2009  by the American Journal of Public Health.  The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Call this whatever you want, it is a moral statement.

Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease. An increase in the number of uninsured and an eroding medical safety net for the disadvantaged likely explain the substantial increase in the number of deaths, as the uninsured are more likely to go without needed care. Another factor contributing to the widening gap in the risk of death between those who have insurance and those who do not is the improved quality of care for those who can get it.  The study found a 40 percent increased risk of death among the uninsured.

Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

Jim Jordan lives in a world of delusion.  The United States now ranks 31^st in life expectancy according to the latest World Health Organization figures.  This puts us up with Kuwait and Chile.  The United States is 37^th in infant mortality and 34^th in maternal mortality.  A child in the United States is 2 1/2 times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden.  An American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.  This is a moral wrong and travesty in human terms.

I suggest that we can use common sense to provide universal health care through a nonprofit national health plan.  We can participate in a system that rewards good health practices, that cares for health.  A system where each of us can allow the physician or medical provider of their choice to see a comprehensive – on line - medical record.  This alone would dramatically reduce unnecessary tests, missed prescriptions, conflicting diagnosis and decrease medical malpractice claims without demanding the forfeiture of patient’s rights. We may not be told that our doctor is “out of network” or that the procedure is considered “optional” without a separate medical opinion that must be covered by the patient.  How much can we save – I suggest that the savings alone will pay for the system.  The final fact is that for those Americans below the age of 65, health care may be questionable, for those over 65, health care improves dramatically – why – think about it.  Yes, the answer is a government run health care system – that appears to care for health.  Why should we have to wait until we are 65 years old before entitlement to that care?  We need politics beyond scare tactics and patriotically worded answers beyond tea bags.

American health care is a moral issue that when placed in the lives of people, we “the people” do know better.  Jim Jordan – You Lie. 

Respectfully, John F. Kostyo

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?

There is good reason why the words “We the People” begin the Constitution of the United States.  These words evidence the legitimacy of our government in a consent of and from the people governed.  It is in this eloquence that we witness the democratic vision of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson formalized in our constitutional democratic republic. 

In the words “We the People” there is a critical and constant reminder that the responsibility of government begins with us.  As a result, robust debate is not dependent on the media, present administration in Washington or Congress.   The debate of critical issues that confront our community, our state and country begin with and depend on - us.

With the responsibility of citizenship, there is a duty placed on each and every citizen to seek; more, to engage and pursue in earnest the critical information necessary for robust debate.  If we are to seek and find solutions to our present economic challenges; find renewable alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources; reform our health care system to care for health and achieve the highest level of education possible for each person, then we must force ourselves to step beyond the dog-whistle political punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other bombasts who offer unsubstantiated conclusions rather than solutions

. 

Reference to dog-whistle political punditry is not a compliment.  It is a frequently used ploy that seeks unthinking acceptance of assumed facts.  The term also may describe a litany of unreferenced appeals to assumptions that fail to survive critical questioning.  At the same time, all too many never question. 

If probative thought is sought rather a Pavlovian response, then reference should be absolutely demanded for reports from the Congressional Research Service, Council of Economic Advisers; or primary source material.  The singular challenging fact is the sources do not exist for the conclusions made.  Even most dogs know better.

For “We the People,” Thomas Jefferson envisioned a university plan so broad, liberal and modern to merit public support and tempt even those from great distances. Jefferson’s proposed university was a place of study at the highest level with the greatest of world renowned scholars.  In this “We the People” finds renewed vitality.

Even for “dog-whistle” followers we must hope that the level of inquiry and comprehension may exceed marginal high school acumen and failed college profundity.  At the very least, it must rise above success through bombastic self-promotion, situational disregard for truth, gender and sex based bias, homophobia and bigotry.   Perhaps we may instill in our children a level of intellectual curiosity or basic ability to think so they may survive one or two college semesters before undertaking leadership of the Republican Party.  

 John F. Kostyo

The results are in and its time that they are released to the public. Over the past 58 years, “The politics of Democratic presidents have produced more employment and output growth, benefiting poor and middle-class families” while “Republican presidents have tended to focus more on containing inflation, which has negligible effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but substantial effects at the top.”  In addition, the average unemployment rate has averaged almost 2 percentage points less and GNP growth has increased over 1 percentage point more over the same 58 years under Democratic presidents compared to Republican ones. These findings are according to Princeton Economist Larry Bartels (a self proclaimed politically neutral observer who last voted for Regan) from his most recent analysis on the political economy which can be found in his new book Unequal Democracy.

More research by Bartels’s colleague Paul Krugman (a self proclaimed “progressive” whose ideals align with the current Democratic party but more so with the socioeconomic policies of FDR)  indicates that since 1973 the top .01% of American’s have seen their incomes increase five times while the median inflation adjusted income of “working class” American’s has not statistically changed by any observable amount despite the fact that the average worker’s productivity has increased by 50%. This means that there has been absolutely no money trickling down from the rich to the poor over the past 40 plus years which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that supply side economics is a myth that was sold to wealthy businessmen who read slanted op-eds in the Wall Street Journal that appealed to their own biases and funded campaigns who in turn implemented policies benefiting their backers.  

These facts are important today because it is likely - if not inevitable - that the economy will continue to slide for at least the entirety of President Obama’s first year in office, however it must be kept in mind that these failings are not due to his policies but the failed Republican economic policies during the Bush Administration. So it is crucial that the majority of the American people continue to push for current democratic efforts to reinstate a stable welfare state and eliminate the tax breaks for the top 1% of Americans.