We'll Pay to Educate Your Daughter, But We Won't Pay to Save Her Life
This presidential campaign has brought the subject of health care to the forefront once again - and it's a subject that comes up a lot with my friends no matter who they're voting for. People who are against a national plan for health care cite the cost as the biggest deterrent. But even more often than I hear this argument, I hear that people are afraid of creating a "socialist" health care system and they jump from this idea to the idea that a public system of health care would lead to the US becoming a socialist government.
OK. I don't understand this leap for a few reasons. One, we have a public health care system, Medicare, for people over 65 that everyone views as a safety net in their old age. We've had Medicare for 43 years and we're not a socialist government yet. In my opinion, this is one of the great gifts of our government - that we have basic health care when we need it most. What else is government for if not for making the lives of its citizens more safe and secure?
My second problem with this is that we already have a huge public program of education that is a requirement for all American citizens. Everyone contributes tax dollars that are used to educate every US child. My parents sent me to private school and I never heard them say, "I can't believe that I'm having to pay taxes for someone else's child to go to school for free." I send my son to private school and I would never consider that my tax dollars not go towards educating other people's children.
We do this because we realize that an educated population will be more competitive which will increase our safety and security. Isn't a healthy population that is more financially sound because they don't have to endure the catastrophy of bankruptcy simply because they or a family member became sick also safer and more secure? I have some friends who lost a child to cancer. Her twin has been fighting cancer for her entire life - 10 years. They have insurance, they both work, they're frugal and responsible and now on top of dealing every day with the real terror of their daughter's illness, they have to file bankruptcy and deal with the financial strain as well.
Why is it that we unquestioningly educate every, single member of our population but we will not pay to give that same child the medical care that will save his or her life? Does this make sense? We'll pay to educate you, but we won't pay to save your life. If it was your choice, wouldn't you rather know that if the medical solution existed to save your life that it would always be available to you without requiring you to lose everything you had in order to save your life?
The other argument I hear is the quality of care would decrease. Again, this is a lot like our education system. Private schools are in general better than public ones but not everyone can afford to pay for private school. People don't argue against public education because it isn't as good as private education. They realize that we have millions of families that can't afford to pay for education and we have a responsibility to make education available to everyone even if it isn't the same quality.
Isn't this the stance we should also take with health care? Just because we develop a public health care system that would be available to all citizens doesn't mean that private health care and insurance will disappear. Just like private schools, people who could afford insurance and private health care could choose it. And just like public schools, people who couldn't pay for private health care could still have access to the basics. Even with this huge public program of education, we're still not a socialist country.
It seems so simple to me and I keep coming back to the thought that a country that will pay to educate your daughter but it won't pay to save her life has confused priorities.
Coal is Poised to be More Polluting
In just a few weeks, the November issue of Positively Green will be on newsstands. In it, the "Hardcore Green" article I write is on the possibility of "Clean Coal." Not suprisingly, I assert that there is no such thing as clean coal. Which makes me even more sad to read today in the Washington Post that the Bush Administration is set to weaken the already-meager restrictions that apply to how mine waste is disposed of.
Presently, there is a rule that keeps miners from dumping rubble that results from mountaintop-removal within 100 feet of a permanent or intermittent stream. Even with this law in place, over 1,600 miles of streams have been destroyed since the 1980's. The new rule would allow waste to be deposited within this 100 foot boundry as long as they can show that it could not be avoided. In these instances, they are directed to minimize or avoid harming streams "to the extent practicable."
According to Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the environmental impact statement is "totally inadequate." She says, "It didn't even include the alternative of actually enforcing the rule on the books," she said. "The implications of this ruling are devastating, they're widespread and they're irreversible."
In addition to diverting or destroying the natural flow of streams and destroying the habitat downstream of the dump site, the rubble also contains heavy metals that leach out into the water supply resulting in contaminated water for both animals and humans.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson must certify that the new rule complies with the Clean Water and Clean Air acts and that the environmental impact statement in the rule is adequate to achieve ongoing environmental protection. Ridiculous, really when you consider that the environmental impact of dumping valley fill is ALREADY an environmental tragedy. Environmental groups are hoping that Johnson will block the rule, but if he doesn't, we can expect environmental groups to take this rule to court.
Carbon Offset Questions
Once you’ve been on the green train for a while, you’ve got the basics; recycling, sustainable energy, canvas bags, fuel efficient vehicles, and all the little energy and water saving ideas that you can apply daily. Unfortunately, even with all of these eco-friendly practices, you still leave a carbon “footprint”. Admittedly, it is significantly smaller than if you didn’t make green choices, but you’re still creating carbon dioxide, which is intensifying the climate problem. How can you “erase” the remainder of your carbon footprint? Purchasing carbon offsets is one possible solution.
When you purchase carbon offsets, you’re essentially donating money to a group that will fund projects that actively decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. These projects mainly focus on sustainable energy programs, energy efficiency programs and reforestation programs.
Most of the carbon offset companies have a feature on their websites where you can input information about your energy and water use at home and your fuel consumption on the road. You can even include air travel if you fly consistently. It then calculates how many tons of greenhouse gasses you add to the atmosphere annually. It also suggests an amount that you can donate on line that will fund enough carbon reductions to negate your footprint and leave you carbon neutral.
Theoretically, carbon offsets are a great idea, but the actual results achieved by carbon offset companies varies, so it is important if you really want to make a difference, to donate to carbon offset companies that are effectively achieving their goals.
Look for companies that are non-profits like carbonfund.org.
In countries that have already signed the Kyoto Treaty, many carbon reduction and sequestration programs are already in the works and have government funding. Look for carbon offset companies that are donating to programs in countries that haven’t signed the Kyoto Treaty since they have less support for these greener measures.
FAST FACTS
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
The Arctic is more effected than other areas of the planet. According to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004, average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average.
The USA contributes 24.8% of the world’s emissions from fossil fuels. China is second at 10.9% and Russia is third at 6.5%.
It is estimated that 1,150 billion tons of carbon is stored in the Earth’s forests.