Reducing Gun Violence Means Addressing Poverty, Desperation

By Nathan Rothwell

Firearm-related homicides in U.S. cities rival those of the deadliest nations

I would like to preface this piece by acknowledging that my perspective on gun control is colored by personal circumstances. For example, I have no children – nor do I intend to. Perhaps I would feel stronger about limiting the availability of firearms if this were not the case, or perhaps not. In any case, I freely admit that this bias exists.

I have also never been a victim of gun violence, nor do I directly know anyone who has. This likely sets my opinions apart from those who tragically cannot say the same. But this is important to note, because the great gun discussion which has gripped the nation for decades includes a wide variety of perspectives, with every one of them colored by individual motives and experience. Honestly, I would not have this debate any other way.

With that said, there is only one place for this debate to begin. Special attention must be brought to the conversation’s loudest voice, belonging to none other than Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association.

Over the last 15 years, the NRA has been acknowledged as one of America’s most influential lobbying groups. They have proved to be quite successful in lobbying toward a single goal: promoting gun ownership. While there is nothing inherently wrong with their objective, they seem unmoved by the resulting consequences. When LaPierre argues in favor of putting more guns near schools in the name of protecting children, is he concerned with promoting safety, or gun ownership? When the NRA releases its own video game almost immediately after blaming video games for our national violence problem, how can it be argued that they do not value promoting gun ownership above all else?

This should go without saying since it’s so painfully obvious, but it unfortunately must be repeated again, as the NRA would rather not admit to it – firearms are offensive weapons and instruments of violence. They hold the potential to end a life within the blink of an eye, and this potential is realized every day when lives end at the barrel of a gun. LaPierre and his organization seems completely unwilling to own up to these simple facts, which makes them difficult to take seriously when discussing gun control.

There is just no overlooking the fact that gun violence cannot be committed without guns. The NRA deserves to be taken to task for constantly and disingenuously skirting around this obvious truth. However, and as much as it pains me to do this, I have to agree with their staunch opposition to recent gun control legislation.

NTQ! Pods: Thousands protest government plans to close Lewisham Hospital's A&E in London

NTQ! Pods: Danny Boyle sure made the National Health Service look good in his homage to the institution during the Olympics opening ceremony. Yet, under the conservative coalition government NHS funding has also been a victim of austerity.

In south east London, thousands of protesters turned out to show their support for their local hospital in the Borough of Lewisham, which will have its Accident and Emergency Department along with its Maternity ward closed.

The protest was organized by 'Save Lewisham Hospital's A&E', a grassroots group that has been holding public meetings to discuss the closures. Lewisham Hospital's A&E sees some 120,000 patients a year. The closure is also representative of the thousands of cuts that the NHS has faced, which is ultimately leading towards a significantly more privatized healthcare system.

While we Americans are just started to get more equitable healthcare, our British cousins are fighting to keep their healthcare system out of the hands of for-profit companies.

NTQ!'s Heather Turner reports from London.

Healthcare exchanges put GOP at crossroads: placate Tea Party, or abandon core principles

By Nathan Rothwell

What the new web-based health insurance exchange might look like.
Image courtesy of www.Medhealth.com

After President Obama won his re-election bid weeks ago, the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) became more certain. This legislation, which is widely considered to be the Obama Administration’s most significant accomplishment to date, faced possible repeal if Obama did not win a second term. Now that he has, it seems all but certain that the remaining components of the PPACA will be phased in over the next several years.

One noteworthy component is a mandate for the creation of state-wide health insurance exchanges. By January 1, 2014, all 50 states are required to establish such an exchange, which is essentially a web-based marketplace where consumers can compare and purchase private health insurance plans. Certain eligible individuals can purchase these plans with federal subsidies, or enroll in Medicaid.

Early versions of the PPACA called for health insurance exchanges to also include a public option, where consumers could purchase health care provided by the federal government. Significant Republican opposition led to the removal of the public option, but political debate over these exchanges remains. Much of this debate is over who will run them, and how they will be operated.

Each state was permitted the option of running the newly-mandated exchange on its own, with no involvement from the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently established a Dec. 14 deadline for states to inform HHS if they wanted to run their own exchanges. Thus far, only 13 states (and the District of Columbia) have indicated that they will.

A number of other states, however, have indicated that they will not set up their own exchanges. Not surprisingly, most of these states (such as Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina) went for Mitt Romney on Election Day, due in no small part to their hope that Romney would deliver on his promise to repeal the PPACA and effectively kill the health insurance exchange mandate. Even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the PPACA and President Obama’s re-election, these states remain entrenched in their decision not to run their own exchanges.

There is a certain irony here that appears to be lost in these states, which are almost overwhelmingly run by Republican governors (only Missouri comes to mind as a state that has a Democratic governor and remarkable opposition to ObamaCare, although not from Gov. Nixon’s office). Many of them oppose the idea of health care exchanges solely because it violates their preference for small government; however, by not electing to run the exchange itself or at least in partnership with HHS, these “small-government warriors” are allowing the much larger federal government to move in and run everything on their own.

Health is not a moral issue

I am proud to call Missouri my home. I’ve lived here practically my entire life. Yet it seems that at nearly every turn, our state’s leaders are all too happy to paint a black eye on the state and embarrass us in front of the rest of the nation.

No one is worse than Senator Roy Blunt. Recently, Blunt made headlines by attempting to push an amendment to the Affordable Care Act through Congress that would allow any employer to refuse coverage to employees for any health service if the employer morally objects to it.

This came in response to a federal regulation that requires employers and insurers to provide contraception to employees as part of their health care plans. Even though contraception is a legitimate and useful part of preventative health care (such as preventing the formation of ovarian cysts, for example), leaders in the Catholic community insisted that making such treatment available amounted to “the rape of the soul.”

The Obama administration devised a practical compromise. If a religious employer morally objected to providing contraception as part of a health care plan for its employees, it would be exempted from the requirement. Employees could still obtain free contraception, however, directly from the insurer who administered the employer’s health care plan. Everyone wins – employees retain access to the best health-care options available, and religious zealots don’t have to have their souls raped (whatever that means).

Diversity is Key to Policymaking

FUN FACT: “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”

These words ring just as true today as they did when first uttered by Plato, commenting on the democracy of his time. Just as they in Plato’s time, politics today are off-putting. From pointless arguments and scathing rhetoric to underhanded tactics and outright corruption, most of us struggle to see the point in even voting, let alone ever holding public office. This leaves us at the mercy of those who fill the void, and a federal government that barely reflects the population it governs.

We’re all familiar with the lack of racial, gender, religious, and ethnic diversity within the halls of Congress compared to society at large. However, another largely unreported aspect is perhaps the biggest roadblock to Congress’ ability to function – the lack of occupational diversity.

On the August 5 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson presented the panel with some startling figures,“57% of the Senate, and 38% of the House [of Representatives], cite law as their profession,” Tyson reported. “In the courtroom, it doesn’t go to who’s right, it goes to who argues best. The act of arguing, and not agreeing, seems to be fundamental to that profession. And Congress is half that profession.”

Technically Congress is only 41% that profession, but Tyson’s point remains the same. Just as troubling is another figure: 39% of lawmakers list business as a profession. The next closest occupations are education at 15%, and health care professionals at 4%. Every other occupational background held by Capitol Hill lawmakers combines to form the remaining 1%.

The lack of occupational diversity is especially troubling for a governing body that is supposed to reflect and serve the interests of the American people. What’s more troubling, however, is that these numbers are indicative of a larger trend that has persisted for decades. According to the Congressional Research Service that provided the above occupational statistics, “in the overwhelming majority of previous Congresses, business has followed law as the dominant occupation of members.”