‘The Health of People Between Two Extremes’

‘The Health of People Between Two Extremes’

A Brief History of the Failed Attempts to Establish Universal Health Care in the United States of America

by José E. Pérez Carrillo

 Throughout much of their collective history, the American people have prided themselves on landmark precedents that have led and/or inspired others to emulate and imitate.   From jazz music to blue jeans, basketball to mass production, Coca Cola and men on the moon, Americans like to see themselves as trendsetters.  These and more are examples of American ingenuity and industry, the Yankee work ethic that revels in the ideal that anything is possible.  As evidenced by the examples listed above, one cannot fault the average American for thinking that anything is, indeed, possible. 

There is, however, one glaring omission from the North American trophy case of global achievement: national health insurance (NHI) for its people.  This paper endeavors to begin the lengthy and oft times troublesome exploration and – perhaps – explanation of the history of instances and individuals that tried – in vain – to provide the American people with universal health care.   This document will take a look at the historical processes behind one of the United States’ more compelling social policy issues in a somewhat chronological manner, looking at the earliest attempts to establish NHI as well as inspirations from aboard, the highlights and the lowlights of this process, the reasons and factors behind success and failure in a concise fashion. 

The writer wishes to acknowledge the support and encouragement of various entities who responded to direct requests for communication and feedback in an effort to provide additional context for this project.  Because of time and space constraints, not all of the information provided or suggested to the writer was able to be incorporated into this initial attempt to look at the social policy issue of national health insurance but the gratitude for them exists nonetheless as well as the intention to incorporate them and more into future extensions of this work. 

The beginnings of the efforts to establish national health insurance in the United States can be traced back to the earliest days of the republic when the country’s second president, John Adams, signed into law a measure that provided health care coverage for both merchant marines and United States naval sailors (Lepore, 2009).  Robertson & Judd as well as Trattner even make mention of failed efforts on the part of Hull House to be at the vanguard of the establishment of NHI (as cited in Linhorst, 2002), but, alas, the historical record appears to fail to yield any more mention of it. 

Ample scholarship, however, does exist that establishes a direct line between Victorian Era European models for universal health care (in particular, the German model established by Otto von Bismarck) and inspiration (based as much on economic motivations as social justice considerations) for subsequent attempts in the United States (B. Hoffman, 2003; Lepore, 2009; Palmer, 2009; Schremmer & Knapp, 2011; Walker, 1969).

The social and economic conditions of the United States at the turn of the 20th century seemed to demand some legitimate initiative in the direction of establishing NHI.  For example, at the time, there was a void in meeting social needs (no government action, no policies, no legislation) and, as the United States’ population became more diverse and numerous, the number of people insisting on access to the promise of America increased (B. Hoffman, 2003; N. Unger, 2011).   The U.S. was transforming itself from a country dominated by an agrarian society to an industrial behemoth and the American people were becoming less rural and more urban and this transformation was fast and big.  Thus, as Americans moved into increasingly crowded metropolitan areas, they needed “experts in what is safe” and this “need” extended to health care (N. Unger, personal communication, 28 NOV 2011).  Additionally, as the industrial establishment of the U.S. expanded, so too did the need for more and more workers.  Safeguards for employees were lacking and lost income due to infirmities made being sick a very big reason for poverty – more so even that the actual cost of care itself (B. Hoffman, 2003).   The view that society has a responsibility to care for those least able to care for themselves emerged in earnest during this period (Segal & Brzuzy, 1998; N. Unger, personal communication, 28 NOV 2011). 

Among the proponents of this nascent push for NHI in the U.S. were reformers within the Progressive Party (Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000; Unger, 2011).  Even further to the left ideologically among those advocating for NHI in the early 1900’s was the American Socialist Party which included universal health care as part of its party platform at its founding in 1901 and as part of its presidential campaign platforms in 1904, 1908, and 1912 (Birn, Brown, Fee, & Lear, 2003; B. Hoffman, 2003).  

Not all proponents for NHI in the United States, however, were necessarily leftists or even centrists.  Perhaps the biggest name in the early days of the debate for NHI in the USA was Theodore Roosevelt who, as a candidate for the Bull Moose Party during the 1912 presidential race, championed the establishment of universal health care (Farrell, 2006; C. Hoffman, 2009; Meyer, 2009; Palmer, 2009).   In the official published version of the Bull Moose Party’s platform for 1912, specific mention is made, in fact, of “social insurance” (Hofstadter, 1963).   *To dispel any revisionist attempts to pigeonhole Roosevelt (he of the jingoistic foreign policy during his tenure in the White House) as a socialist, T.R. took care to specifically disparage socialism as being inferior to individuality in a letter he wrote during that era to writer Upton Sinclair (Crunden, 1982). 

In 1915, the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL) emerged.  Based on both German and British models for health care (B. Hoffman, 2003), the AALL was designed to provide coverage for working class people to cover doctor’s bills, nurses’ services, hospitals, sick pay, maternity expenses, and death benefits (Palmer, 2009).  The costs were shared by workers, employers, state (Palmer, 2009) and actually enjoyed the initial support of the American Medical Association (AMA) but not for long (Palmer, 2009; Schremmer & Knapp, 2011). 

As the reader will see, the AMA has gone to great lengths to not only have a voice in the ongoing debate about NHI in the US but it has also done much to ensure the debate is ongoing vis-à-vis ever vigilant attempts to block any semblance of universal health care in the United States.  Their success is almost ironic, however, when one takes into consideration that the AMA has never represented all or even most doctors in the U.S. with enrollment in the power lobbying body rarely including more than 2 out of 5 doctors nationally (Palmer, 2009).  That said, it is important to point out that at the time of its inception in 1901, total enrollment in the AMA was less than 10,000 doctors and by 1910, that figure had ballooned up to 70,000 (Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000).  Indeed, the AMA’s support of AALL or any NHI proposal for that matter was short-lived.

Ultimately, the demise of any drive for NHI during the Progressive Era is traced back to the inclusion of death benefits (assailed mercilessly by an already powerful life insurance industry), organized labor (which disagreed with AALL on ideological points), hostility from doctors, and US entry into World War I (Palmer, 2009; Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000). 

 Further obstacles to NHI prior to 1920 include lack of unity on the part of American workers and the beginnings of so-called red-baiting, via which enemies of NHI used accusations of Communism/Bolshevism to scare people away from idea of NHI (Palmer, 2009). 

During the 1920s, the cost of health care in the United States began to rise (Palmer, 2009; Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000) as middle class Americans used hospital services more (Palmer, 2009) no doubt a result of the continuing urbanization of the US (N. Unger, personal communication, 2011).  Also of significance, this migration towards cities in the US meant resources for rural healthcare began to dwindle (Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000). 

 Subsequently, medical bills began becoming bigger parts of personal budgets (Palmer, 2009).  To compound the socioeconomic issues of the day, this period saw increasing disparity in wealth resulting in a decreasing middle class (C. Hoffman, 2009).   In spite of this, the relative collective trauma of World War I plus “reform fatigue” (N. Unger, personal communication, 2011) resulted in a period of political apathy on the part of most Americans (Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000). 

The lack of political activism on the part of regular Americans did not manifest itself among the ranks of all of their countrymen – at least not among some within the higher socioeconomic strata.  In 1926, a group of affluent people calling itself the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care (CCMC) began meeting.  They included approximately 50 doctors, economists, public health specialists, and representatives from lobbying bodies.  The CCMC funded its own activities and studies and, eventually, advocated for more resources to be allocated for health care on a voluntary basis (Palmer, 2009).  The CCMC favored group medicine (C. Hoffman, 2009) and, its subsequent attacks against the CCMC, the AMA gave birth to the provocative label “socialized medicine” (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

With the close of the 1920s, the American people also saw the beginning of one of the most turbulent periods in US history.  Beginning with the infamous stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, many latent social issues had the potential to be brought again to the fore of national consciousness.     

One of the central figures of this period of American history is President Franklin D. Roosevelt whose first year or so in office was marked by a quarter of the American population being unemployed, rising medical costs, many medical services going unpaid, and illness because the number one reason for poverty in the country (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

 In this atmosphere, polls showed that more American people liked the idea of NHI but not if they had to pay more for the service (C. Hoffman, 2009).    At this time, the company known as Blue Cross was born in Minnesota as a private response to a public need (Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000; Cohn, 2007). 

 The Roosevelt administration ambitiously sought to remedy many of the social problems of the nation with New Deal programs.   The Social Security Act was one of the monumental pieces of social legislation enacted during this era yet the White House was reluctant to include any provisions for NHI therein out of fears that any such inclusion would provoke the AMA et al to attack with ill intent the entire Social Security program.  Similarly, the Wagner Health Act of 1939 (which issued to federal grants to states) omitted any tangible piece of universal health care in its provisions (Palmer, 2009; Silverman, Epstein, Waters, 2000). 

The AMA for its part feared that any type of national health insurance plan would result in a loss of independence for its members and a change in status as salaried civil servants for them as well (C. Hoffman, 2009; Farrell, 2006).  Adding to the difficulty, private insurance companies – following the Blue Cross lead – began to multiply (C. Hoffman, 2009).   Even within the avenues of governance, NHI was hamstrung by members of the President’s own political party.  Southern democrats or Dixiecrats allied themselves with Republicans on Capitol Hill to limit powers of federal government largely because of fears that emerging and proposed federal measures would eventually threaten/target Jim Crow segregation (C. Hoffman, 2009; Schremmer & Knapp, 2011). 

As Roosevelt and the country were settling into the former’s third term as president, the United States entered World War II.   At the height of the war, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill was introduced in Congress.  The Wagner-Murray-Dingell (WMD) measure proposed compulsory health insurance which would be funded via a payroll tax (Palmer, 2009; C. Hoffman, 2009).  Among the proposed legislation’s supporters was the Committee for the Nation’s Health which was comprised of organized labor, activist farmers, and progressive doctors.  WMD, however, was instantly demonized by detractors as being a communist initiative (Palmer, 2009) and died in committee, lost in a fog of propaganda and war (Schremmer & Knappy, 2011).  *Wagner-Murray-Dingell was introduced as a bill in Congress for the next fourteen congressional sessions and it never passed (Hoffman, 2009). 

 1945 marked the end of both the second world war as well as, with his death in springtime, the Roosevelt presidency.  Suddenly thrust into the Oval Office was Roosevelt’s relatively unknown vice president, Harry Truman of Missouri.   Once sworn in as president and with the victory in the Pacific theater ending World War II, Truman wasted little time in making his own push for NHI.  Touting his proposals as important components of the Economic Bill of Rights originally espoused by his predecessor in the White House (Frank, 2009; C. Hoffman, 2009; Schremmer & Knapp, 2011; Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000; Truman, 1945), Truman presented his proposal to the nation during an address to Congress in November of that year in which he called for universal health care (Palmer, 2009; Truman, 1945).   Truman was prudent enough to eliminate any so-called funeral benefit from his package largely because of the damage that provision did to the Progressives’ NHI plan a generation earlier (Palmer, 2009). 

All told, Truman’s NHI proposal allowed for doctors and hospitals to determine their own method(s) of payment and also called for expansion of hospital construction (which did pass via Hill-Burton 1946) as well as the training of more doctors as part of his vision of a healthier United States (C. Hoffman, 2009; Truman, 1948).   Truman enjoyed – at times – mixed support from Congress (Palmer, 2009) but several other powerful forces rallied against him and what those foes – predictably – called “socialized medicine.” At the vanguard of this latest anti-NHI movement was the AMA joined this time by the American Bar Association, the American Hospital Association, and many journalists as well as Congressional committees chaired by conservative/reactionary elements (C. Hoffman, 2009; Palmer, 2009). The president, however, was determined to get the measure passed and, hence, did not back away from challenges as evidenced by the following excerpt from a letter he sent in 1949 responding to an American doctor who was highly critical of the plan: 

“I am not worried about [the poor] nor am I worried about those who make $25,000 a year and over.  The health of the people between those two extremes is what is most important to the country….  Before I get out of this office I am going to find out what is wrong and I am going to try to remedy it.  I’d suggest you Doctors had better be hunting for a remedy yourselves unless you want a drastic one.”   (Truman, 1980) 

Inevitably, a powerful surge of contrary forces doomed Truman’s plans for NHI in the United States.  In addition to the aforementioned, the Republicans resumed control of Congress during mid-term elections in 1946 (Palmer, 2009), and, with post-war economic boom times, larger employers were more inclined to give unions their own internal company health plans such as when the United Mine Workers successfully staged a strike that earned them an employer contribution of 10¢ a ton of coal mined to be allocated towards health and welfare plans (Quadagno, 2005).  The role of special interest groups and divided public policy (especially in the wake of aggressive redbaiting against the President’s plan by the AMA) spelled doom for Truman’s NHI plan (Palmer, 2009; Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000) not to mention in-fighting amongst Democrats (Frank, 2009) – especially Dixiecrats having nightmares about desegregated hospitals (C. Hoffman, 2009).   

As the latest push for universal healthcare lay smoldering in its charred ruins, ideas started to emerge about being more focused in efforts to bring about national health insurance.  In 1958, Representative Aime Forand of Rhode Island introduced a plan to cover hospital costs for the aged.  The AMA attacked it but something different happened:   the sharpening in focus gave rise to the first (and heretofore, only) grass-roots movement related to NHI (Palmer, 2009).  Civil rights organizations and organized labor joined the cause for health care for the aged (C. Hoffman, 2009; Quadagno, 2005). The AMA counteroffensive was not enough to derail the passage of the federal legislation that was signed in 1965 by then President Lyndon Johnson (with Harry Truman standing beside him) but it was strong enough to create different “plans” with what became Medicare (Palmer, 2009; C. Hoffman, 2009; Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000).  The AMA was not the only entity offering an alternative to the federal plan.  Aetna wanted federal vouchers for to pay for private coverage/services (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

For the rest of the population, the 1950s were marked by sharp contrasts.  Productivity swelled which helped spur the resurgence of the middle class (C. Hoffman, 2009) yet the price of hospital care doubled (Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000). The number of private insurance companies was growing rapidly (reaching over 700 that were selling health coverage by the 1960s; Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000) yet those same private plans were almost impossible to obtain for retired and/or seriously infirm Americans (C. Hoffman, 2009).  Ironically, within a decade of the destruction of Truman’s Fair Deal NHI proposal, worries were increasing about a shortage of medical doctors in the United States (Silverman, Epstein, & Waters, 2000). 

As the country continued to change its image and perspective in the 1970s, some things appeared to remain unaffected by any historical and /or social forces.   The American Medical Association, specifically, continued to place itself in the most adversarial position in relation to any processes in favor of NHI (Quadagno, 2005).    The 1970s also saw – in keeping with cyclical theories of historical processes – a return to difficult economic times for the American people.  Rising inflation and health care costs (healthcare costs constituted 4% of the 1965 federal budget but had spiked to 11% of the budget just eight years later) compelled then President Richard Nixon to institute freezes on both prices and wages (C. Hoffman, 2009). Perhaps sensing a historical opportunity, Senator Ted Kennedy (Massachusetts) unveiled his own NHI plan via a publication he authored entitled, “Health Care Crisis in America” (C. Hoffman, 2009).  Nixon countered with his own plan that was to be funded by a payroll taxing reaching up to 65% and other entities followed suit thus diluting strong support for any of the proposed plans (C. Hoffman, 2009).   Adding to the situation, conservatives were unsure of which way to push especially when the AMA ironically attempted to brand Nixon’s plan as communist while organized labor withheld support of Kennedy’s plan because it felt a better plan would be available if they waited for what they felt was an imminent return to democratic control of Congress.  As a result, nothing was accomplished or even put on the floor of either chamber of 
Congress for a vote (C. Hoffman, 2009).  

After a brief sabbatical, the 1980s saw a return to prominence for conservative elements to Washington, D.C.   The administration of Ronald Reagan was noted for big tax cuts, bigger spending on military expenditures, huge health care costs (12% of GDP) and record debt. 

 To make things more difficult for the average American, income disparities widened (C. Hoffman, 2009).  Additionally, procedural reforms in how laws were proposed and enacted decentralized Congress and placed greater priority on coalition-building (C. Hoffman, 2009). 
  During this period, a hospital-cost containment measure in Congress failed to pass three years in a row (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

With the escalating trend of health care costs continuing, many Americans worried about losing health care benefits as well as not being able to pay their bills.  More ideas surfaced to attempt to address these concerns but none took hold (C. Hoffman, 2009).  With the election of Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992, a renewed attempt from the executive branch of the federal government to bring about NHI came about.   The Health Security Act endeavored to provide universal health care, competition between insurers, regulatory powers for the federal government…and a health security card (C. Hoffman, 2009).  To help realize this goal, Clinton created a task force to look at the issue, naming the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as chairperson of the task force.  The task force was comprised of over 30 closed groups, and a total of over 600 experts in the field.  The task force eventually published a report that was in excess of 1,300 pages.   None of this did anything to galvanize unified support among the American people (Meyer, 2009; C. Hoffman, 2009).  To add to the melee, a special interest group in opposition to NHI offered its own plan and Senator Paul Wellstone (Minnesota) advocated for his single payer plan.  

In an apparent return to the conservative era of the 1980s, the beginning of the 21st century for the United States revisited increased defense spending and proposed cuts to social programs as well as a strong financial downturn – and virtually no proposals for universal health care.   With the overwhelming election of democratic majorities to both houses of Congress during the mid-term elections of 2006 and the strong electoral victory for Barack Obama as President, a renewed push for NHI began in 2009.  

In spite of the fact that the United States remains, as Irving Fisher pointed out in 1916, the only industrialized nation without NHI (as cited by Lepore, 2009), the same forces that have kept the US behind its industrialized contemporaries once again mobilized to attack Obama’s proposal. This process is ongoing as of the time of this writing and those forces have included rumor-mongering (“socialized medicine”), small yet aggressive and vocal groups of critics effectively high-jacking town hall meetings established to discuss proposal, and sound bites (Frank, 2009) to maintain the archaic paradigm of no universal health care in the U.S.  The United States Chamber of Commerce alone spent huge sums of money to sponsor bellicose ads against the plan (Meyer, 2009). 

The tragic part of the seemingly perpetual persecution of efforts to establish NHI in the U.S. is that figures do not support continuing the status quo.  For example, shortly before dying in 2009, Kennedy wrote in Newsweek magazine that, while most other industrialized countries spend about 10% of their gross domestic product on health care, the US spends 17% of its GDP and, he added, it is a phenomenon not confined solely to the public sector.   He wrote that General Motors spends more of automobile revenue on healthcare than it does to purchase the steel needed to the automobiles in the first place (Kennedy, 2009).  

Perhaps the reader may be thinking that the money to care for people in what is often described as the richest country in the world (Kennedy, 2009) is needed and thus well-spent.  Data, however, suggests otherwise.   There is evidence that there are disparities between access and outcomes in the US and, in spite of spending more on health care, the United States does not produce the indicators to match the expenditures (Vladeck, 2003).   
To illustrate the point, the United Nations Development Report of 2005 (as cited by Ojeda, 2006) indicates that US spent $5,274 per person on health care in 2002 (most in the world) while Cuba spent only $236 person for the same year.   That same UN report ranked countries according the percentage of 12 month children having received their measles vaccinations for the following year.   Cuba, which only spent 4% of the amount per capita by the US for the same period of time, was tied for having second-best outcomes against measles in babies (99%) while the US was ranked seventieth (Ojeda, 2006).  Vladeck attributes this dynamic of policy dyslexia to the compulsion to skew facts about outcomes to appear competitive even when, as pointed out by human rights activist Danny Glover two years after Vladeck’s essay was published when speaking about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many segments of the US population are living closer to a developing country reality than one expected in an industrialized country (Vladeck, 2003; Glover & Belafonte, 2005). Hillary Clinton (as cited by Palmer), while heading the task force for health care reform in the 1990s observed, “I did not appreciate how sophisticated the opposition would be in conveying messages that were effectively political even though substantively wrong,” (Palmer, 2009).   Further, Catherine Hoffman offers some reasons historically for the failures of the US to enact NHI: 

• Complex issues at work within the process and in conflict with each other 
• Differences ideologically 
• Rabid responses from special interest groups 
• Weakened Executive Branch of federal government 
• Legislative powers decentralized  (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

In an essay he wrote on the need for NHI while a candidate for President, Barack Obama almost prophetically observed how campaign promises about universal health care (if made at all) are often dashed upon the unforgiving rocks of Beltway politics (Obama, 2008).  What has been the case, especially over the past two generations, argue some, is that comprehensive national health insurance is mired in incrementalism, or the begrudging concession by conservatives of only some gains in the direction of NHI (C. Hoffman, 2009; Kennedy, 2009; Vladeck, 2003).  Examples of incrementalism are Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (C. Hoffman, 2009). 

Vladeck also offers perspective on reasons to explain why the US still does not have NHI: 

• The collective pessimistic/cynical and individualistic nature of Americans especially in regards to how government is perceived 
• A large number of Americans view themselves as “middle class” even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. 
• The deeply ingrained nature of racism and xenophobia in the American psyche that impairs coalition-building 
• No real grass-roots approach was ever mobilized to demand NHI 
• Equitable distribution of wealth/resources is a virtual impossibility constitutionally 
• Politics are localized and diverse if not contradictory and, as a result… 
• Weak political parties exist (little difference ideologically between the two major parties) which, in turn, gives … 
• Well-monied lobbies and special interests undue power and influence over law- and policy-making processes. (Vladeck, 2003)

Much of what Vladeck postulates is found in a sentiment attributed to Vincente Navarro by Palmer  her commentary in which the former opines that the US middle class and its historical and collective aversion to NHI is the fruit of exploitation and oppression by the elitist capitalist-corporate strata of American society (Palmer, 2009). 

As stated above, this paper is but an introduction to a dynamic and pressing issue affecting hundreds of millions of people daily in the United States of America.  This paper does not aim to solve the problem described above; it only seeks to bring greater awareness in the hope that such an increase in awareness may in fact be the catalyst by which some future generation of Americans (if not this one) can indeed bring to fruition in its public health what it – in theory if not practice – enjoys in its educational and electoral systems:  access for all who want it and benefit for all who need it (Pérez, 2006).  

-33-

WORKS CITED 

• Birn, A-E: Brown, T. M.; Fee, F.; & Lear, W. J. (2003). “Struggles for National Health  Reform in the United States.”  American Journal of Public Health, volume 93, number 1.   
• Retrieved from http://ajph/aphapublications/org/cgi/content/extract/93/1/86 
• Cohn, J. (2007).  Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis – and the People Who Pay the Price.   New York: HarperCollins. 
• Crunden, R. M. (1982).  Ministers of Reform:  The Progressives’ Achievement in American Civilization, 1889-1920.   New York:  Basic Books. 
• Farrell, C. (2006, January 23). “It’s Time to Cure Health Care.” Bloomberg Business Week. 
• Retrieved from 
• http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060123_1965_db013.htm 
• Frank, T. (2009, August 25). “Health Care and the Democratic Soul.” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from 
• online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574373000964995482.html 
• Glover, D. & Belafone, H. (2005). “Belafonte & Glover Speak Out on Katrina” (online transcription of speeches). Retrieved from: http://www.alternet.org/katrina/25862/ 
• Hoffman, B. (2003). “Health Care Reform and Social Movements in the United States.”  American Journal of Public Health, volume 93, number 1.   
• Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447696/ 
• Hoffman, C. (2009).  “National Health Insurance – A Brief History of Reform Efforts in the U.S.” (Focus on Health Reform – The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation). 
• Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7871.pdf 
• Hofstadter, R. (Ed.). (1963). The Progressive Movement 1900-1915. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
• Kennedy, T. (2009, July 17). “‘The Cause of My Life.’” Newsweek. Retrieved from 
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/17/the-cause-of-my-life.html 
• Lepore, J. (2009, December 7). “Preexisting Condition.” New Yorker. Retrieved from 
• http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/12/07/091207taco_talk_lepore 
• Linhorst, D. (2002). “Federalism and Social Justice:  Implications for Social Work.” Social Work, volume 47, number 3. (204).   *Robertson & Judd. 
• Meyer, B. (2009, August 12). “National Health Care Debate Goes Back to Theodore Roosevelt Plan in 1912: Analysis.” Cleveland Plain Dealer. 
• Retrieved from http://www.cleveland/com/nation/index.ssf/2009/08/national_care_debate_ha.html 
• Obama, B. (2008). “The United States Needs Universal Health Care.” In D. Haugen (Ed.), Health Care (54-61). Farmington Hill, MI : Greenhaven Press. 
• Ojeda, S. (2006, April 10). “Eso es Cuba y Más Nada: Things a ‘Cuban’ from Miami Discovered during his First Trip to Cuba or What One Can Buy with $9 if He Spends Wisely.”  La Prensa de Minnesota. Retrieved from http://unbohio.blogspot.com/2006/05/eso-es-cuba-y-ms-nada.html 
• Palmer, K. (2009). “A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US” (online transcription of lecture). Retrieved from: 
• http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php
• ?page=all  
• Pérez, J. (2006, May 15).  “La Clinica on Lake to Close: Tough Healthcare Situation Grows for Latinos, Rest of Metro.”  La Prensa de Minnesota. Retrieved from 
• http://unbohio.blogspot.com/2006/05/tough-healthcare-situation-grows.html 
• Quadagno, J. (2005).  One Nation, Uninsured: Why the U.S. has No National Health Insurance.  New York: Oxford University Press. 
• Schremmer, R. D., & Knapp, J. F. (2011). “Harry Truman and Health Care Reform:  The Debate Started Here.”  Pediatrics, volume 127, number 3, pp. 399-401. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2151 
• Segal, Elizabeth, & Brzuzy, S. (1998). Social Welfare Policy, Programs, and Practice. Itasca, IL: Peacock. 
• Silverman, F., Epstein, M. D., & Waters, S. (2000). “Healthcare Crisis: Who’s at Risk?” 
• Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm 
• Truman, H. (1945). “Special Message to Congress Recommending a Comprehensive Health Program.”. Retrieved from http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=483&st=&st1= 
• Truman, H. (1948).  “Remarks at the National Health Assembly Dinner.”  Retrieved 
• from http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=1612 
• Truman, H. (1980). Off the Record:  The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman. R. H. Ferrell, (Ed.). New York:Harper & Row. 
• Vladeck, B. (2003). “Universal Health Insurance in the United States: Reflections on the Past, Present, & the Future.”  American Journal of Public Health, volume 93, number 1.   
• Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447684 
• Unger, N. C., (Associate Professor of History, Santa Clara University), telephone interview, 28 November, 2011. 
• Walker, F. A. (1969). “Compulsory Health Insurance: The Next Great Step in Social Legislation.” The Journal of American History, volume 56, number 2. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1908125

"3-Way Power Play" for Little Haiti Cultural Center

3-Way Power Play

Big Clouds Hang Over Little Haiti Cultural Center

Story and Photographs by José  Pérez

September 2, 2010 | SunPost Weekly (Miami)

A summer afternoon just off of Little Haiti’s main drag finds children engaged in an artists’ round table discussion and other kids putting together remote control robots. As small hands and growing minds brainstorm how to make their 21st Century Tinker Toys motor across the carpeted floor of the modern classroom, the children are oblivious of the storm clouds of uncertainty gathering over the Little Haiti Cultural Center, where all of these activities and more are taking place.

The Little Haiti Cultural Center is a brand-new jewel of a public facility originally proposed by late Miami City Commissioner Arthur Teele located just off the intersection of NE 2d Avenue and 59th Street.  With one year officially behind them, the LHCC has started making a mark on Miami’s cultural scene, providing a community venue and voice for both professional and aspiring artists. While that might be true from a public standpoint, the center and its staff are having to deal with concerns in Little Haiti that the LHCC is not directly serving the needs of its residents. And then there is the not so discreet behind-the-scenes plans to turn over control of the Center to outside entities.

In a small office that overlooks both the Little Haiti Cultural Center’s colorful courtyard and the lobby outside of its cozy yet popular amphitheatre (LHCC staff are proud to point out that Vice-President Joe Biden has already graced the amphitheatre with his presence) sits the desk of Anita Darbonne, the City of Miami’s Dance Coordinator. The desk and office of Darbonne are always easier to find than Darbonne herself. An energetic and graceful woman who has thrown herself into making sure the programs at the center are a success. Darbonne arrived at the LHCC shortly after it opened with experience not only as a professional dancer but also as the head of a successful private dance company in California.

When  Darbonne  started at the center, she was surprised to learn that the city had no dance program.  “Miami offers so much culture, it has so much to offer,” she says, “I was blown away.”  Darbonne, a Miami native who grew up within walking distance of the LHCC in the Sabal Palm neighborhood, sees the potential and envisions a day soon – within the next three years – when an internationally-recognized dance company will be based at the LHCC.  With that vision she sees the feasibility, the necessity of a place where people from throughout Miami can come together to learn about each other through the nurtured interchange of cultural expression.  “My thing is bringing the people together so they can learn to respect each other a whole lot more,” says Darbonne.

That vision is shared by the City of Miami’s Parks and Recreation Department which is the department that oversees the LHCC.  “Everything we do,” says Lara DeSouza, spokesperson for Parks and Rec, “our mission, is leisure and recreational opportunities that are available for everyone.”

And that brings us back to the center where the going has been difficult. While the center has been used for events that have been well-attended, most if not all of those events have been “rentals” which are used by specific – usually wealthier – people in the community and most if not all of those rentals are either private affairs and are too expensive for many local residents to attend.

While rentals have a place at the Little Haiti Cultural Center, the mission of the LHCC or any other community-based, tax-funded cultural center is to provide established programs for residents of the immediate and surrounding communities.  “Programming” provides more community access than rentals which, in essence, take up community space and resources.   This year alone, the LHCC has offered programs in dance, photography, television production, French language instruction, and so on.  The programs for youth have been for children aged 6 to 16 and they have been free of charge with families paying only a one-time $20 registration fee to help defray administrative costs (which is always important for a municipal entity in a city that is so deeply in debt that it has been on a hiring freeze for all of the current fiscal year and has also enacted a purchasing freeze since last winter).

So how was the community participation for these events so far? According to Darbonne, attendance was a big concern up until the last moment. With no money in the budget for marketing, there was no effective way of letting the community know about any of the programs (LHCC staff have had to rely heavily on “guerrilla marketing” tactics like email blasts and face-to-face outreach at local businesses and schools).  Ultimately, the classes were filled up but all were “last second maxes.” The LHCC was also hamstrung by not having a transportation budget which limited participation in the programs to either children who live close enough to the center to walk safely or by children whose parents have the means and time to drop off and pick up day camping children.

This brings us back to concerns within Little Haiti that that the Little Haiti Cultural Center is a community jewel usurped by outsiders. This concern dates back to even before the LHCC opened its doors. Lucie Tondreau, a local activist and attorney, says that many in the area were upset that Cuban contractors were employed to build the center structure instead of Haitian workers.

 Center staff point out that the LHCC’s mission focuses on expressions of Afro-Caribbean art and culture, not exclusively Haitian yet they also state they have gone out into Little Haiti speaking with business owners and students in area schools.  The obstacles of perceptions and reality are ones that Darbonne and Rasha Cameau, Director of the Center, are confident will be reconciled soon.   For example, the perception is that Haitian youth want to learn Haitian folkloric dance.  The reality, says Darbonne, is that many of the children are saying that they want to learn ballet or jazz.  Of course, for children who are not Haitian, the interest in and desire to learn about contre-danze, rara, and other dance styles is something that can be met at the LHCC.  DeSouza adds that the LHCC is a “multi-tiered center [which] is a great destination no matter who you are.”

But, back to the ongoing debate between programming and rentals.  “Programming to me is more important than rentals,” says Darbonne who points out that, via a regular dance program at the LHCC, children who are being home-schooled can earn physical education credits as just one example of how a truly viable cultural center in the community benefits the community.

But with the aforementioned city-wide budget crunch, how can the LHCC keep the programs it has now afloat, much less build itself into a vibrant and celebrated cultural center?  Cameau, who first started at the City of Miami as an employee of City Hall, says that funding from grants helps as does partnering with local nonprofits.   She would also like to see the development of a sort of booster club as they are called in athletic circles, a ‘Friends of the Little Haiti Cultural Center’.  Such an idea has merit because it can help take some of the budgetary burden off of the City while still allowing the LHCC to retain the artistic control so vital to any respectable cultural center.

That control is in peril as entities outside of the City of Miami municipal government – in both the public and private sector – have their eyes set on being given the keys to the Little Haiti Cultural Center while the city still foots the bill.

On March 1st of this year, Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado posted an entry on his Twitter page that read “Onmyway to meet with Pres.Rosenberg(FIU) and we will discuss whatwecando for the Little Haiti Culture center [sic].”

When asked about Florida International University’s and President Mark Rosenberg’s interest in the Little Haiti Cultural Center, a university spokesperson stated that Regalado “came to us because we put together a Haiti Task Force after the earthquake [in January of this year].”    Rosenberg even visited the LHCC, she said, in late July “just to visit.”  When asked about the recently-installed president of a large state university struggling through a third year of budget cuts affecting programs, faculty, and students going 17 miles east to visit a cultural center during the work week “just to visit,” the spokesperson remarked, ‘it’s his leadership style.”

Interest in the Little Haiti Cultural Center on the part of FIU is particularly interesting given that dance programs at the school were among the first victims of the budget cuts that, according to the Miami New Times, “slashed 38 faculty jobs, shut six labs, and axed 23 degrees because of a $32 million shortfall.”  The Delou African Dance Ensemble (DADE) and FIU Professor Agosto Soledad’s Brass dance company were part of those cuts and were evicted from FIU after having been in residence at the university for some time.

Ironically, both Delou and Brass have found homes at the Little Haiti Cultural Center.

For Soledad, the irony is especially deep. Soledad came to FIU to be a part of a growing dance program in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the United States only to see the entire dance program terminated and faculty members “dispersed.”  While the budget cuts that exiled Soledad and the rest of the dance program from FIU were enacted under Rosenberg’s predecessor Modesto Maidique, Soledad is skeptical that a new president at FIU will result in a renewed commitment to dance.  “Dance is not really a part of [Rosenberg’s] vision,” Soledad says.

While the mayor is coyly cup-caking with FIU about the Little Haiti Cultural Center, sources indicate that newly-minted City Commissioner Richard Dunn is allegedly in the midst of a courtship with Jean and Emmanuel “Manny” Cherubin (WSRF-AM 1580, WAVS-AM 1170, and TeleAmerica TV) to assume the same privatized takeover of the LHCC that FIU appears to covet.   The deal is allegedly proposed to work like this:  FIU (Regalado) or the Cherubin group (Dunn) would assume management responsibilities over the LHCC but the City of Miami would still be responsible for “big ticket” repairs (broken air-conditioning, faulty elevator etc.).  Thus, the City of Miami would still be paying for the upkeep of a city-owned facility that would in fact be used privately – or so it would seem.

Emmanuel Cherubin was quoted in an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal almost four years ago that focused on lack of consumer safeguards on local radio stations that “lease” airtime to any one or any business who pays for the airtime.   “Time brokerage” is like a radio version of a television infomercial where listeners think they are listening to a legitimate show with hosts and guests purported to be trustworthy.  Not realizing they are basically listening to a commercial, listeners who fall victim to these tactics have been bilked out of untold sums of hard-earned money.  The article mentions Cherubin in connection with fraudulent programming on leased airtime on a family-owned radio station.  In the article, Cherubin says he “disregarded” the deceptive claims made by lessees to listeners.

Calls to Mayor Regalado’s office, Commissioner Dunn’s office, as well as to the offices of the Cherubins at WSRF radio were not returned.

Not long ago, the mother of a child who had signed up for one of the summer programs offered to children came into the Little Haiti Cultural Center to see Cameau.  When asked if anyone else could help her, she timidly replied, no, she needs to speak with Cameau.  When Cameau returned a few minutes later, the woman explained that her family was having hard time financially and wanted to know if Cameau could refund her the $20 she paid for her child’s registration fees.  Cameau obliged the lady who was very relieved and grateful to have back what may as well have been a million dollars for her.

##  http://www.sunpostweekly.com/2010/09/02/3way/

"Tough Healthcare Situation Grows for Latinos, Rest of Metro"

La Clinica on Lake to Close

Tough Healthcare Situation Grows for Latinos, Rest of Metro

by José Pérez , La Prensa de Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul)

The North American continent is unique among similar land masses in the world for the distinction of having the smallest number of sovereign nations relative to Africa, Asia, Europe, et cetera. With all due respect to the proud nations of Central America and the West Indies, North America is essentially comprised of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Because of the size of each of the three North American giants or perhaps in spite of their vast territories, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all quite different from one another in terms of social, political, economic, and cultural aspects.

Perhaps the biggest difference concerns access to healthcare. At polar opposite ends of this spectrum are Canada, with universal health care as guaranteed as hockey in winter, and the U.S., with private healthcare rivaling one of Jennifer Lopez' engagement rings in cost to workers in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

No where is this "so-near-and-yet-so-far" disparity in affordable and therefore accessible healthcare more evident than here in Minnesota where we are closer in distance to Canada than we are to Chicago.

With the number of uninsured and underinsured people in the United States rising constantly (approximately 50 million in the U.S. with no health insurance at all), access to medical care that will not turn a poor working stiff away because he or she does not have a valid insurance card and/or a credit card is rare and valuable – in more ways than one would think.

In the raging sea of rising healthcare costs where a serious illness can capsize even an affluent family into bankruptcy, places like Minneapolis' La Clinica on Lake Street are vital to community health. Because it refuses to turn away for financial reasons any patient in need of medical services, however, La Clinica on Lake will cease to exist at the end of this summer.

Mavis Brehm, executive director of West Side Community Health Services, parent organization of La Clinica, informed La Prensa de Minnesota that La Clinica's Board of Directors finally decided last week to euthanasize the popular and respected South Minneapolis provider "because of mounting financial pressure."

In 2005, La Clinica saw over five thousand patients (which is a significant figure for a facility that is only open from 8 a.m. to 5p.m. on weekdays) and approximately 80% of those patients had absolutely no form of insurance.

While not an emergency or urgent care clinic, La Clinica does a great deal more than putting a band-aid on a scraped knee or wrapping a twisted ankle. Among the services offered to its patients, La Clinica offers primary care and preventative services, women's healthcare including breast and cervical cancer screenings, teen pregnancy prevention, diabetes prevention and treatment, mental health services, lab services, and more. La Clinica, along with its partners at community organizations like C.L.U.E.S (Chicanos Latinos Unidos En Servicio, an adult outpatient program which also works with victims of sexual abuse), offers programs such as the Aquí Para Ti (Here for You)Youth Development Program which offers preventive services targeting various healthcare issues including but not limited to tobacco, alcohol, & drug use, immunizations, exercise and nutrition as well as free health fairs.

The total amount budgetary shortfall for last fiscal year totaled $900,000.

According to Brehm, the transition period of the next few months for La Clinica will focus on trying to get as many of the existing staff and services from Lake Street absorbed into WSCHS' flagship clinic in West Saint Paul. While acknowledging that there are still some important funding possibilities that could have kept La Clinica open beyond August 2006 (when its current lease expires), Brehm stated that "the long term solution" compelled the Board to consolidate WSCHS' services which were utilized by over 36,000 Minnesotans last year alone.

This latest unfortunate development is not the end of the story. It actually marks the continuation of an ongoing struggle. Closing La Clinica on Lake Street "doesn't take away the pressure in the future …the needs aren't going away," said Brehm of the reality of limited reimbursements and increasing demands on an already overwhelmed" safety net." In a stoic effort to maintain resolve, the soft-spoken head of WSCHS expressed a hope that the closing of La Clinica on Lake will raise "awareness of how vulnerable providers are."

In fact, according to Brehm, if the 80% ratio of uninsured patients transfers to the West Saint Paul site without appropriate and realistic adjustments, the future of WSCHS itself will become bleak. If the future of WSCHS itself is threatened, the entire Metro Area will feel and have to bear a heretofore unacknowledged burden of Katrinaesque proportions.

The cost to the Twin Cities if La Clinica shuts its doors will not be so easy to measure – largely because the figures will be much, much higher than what it would have cost to keep it open. This has a lot to do with the fact that La Clinica is not your average everyday clinic. In addition to demonstrating that adhering to the sacred tenets of the Hippocratic Oath is non-negotiable by not turning away poor patients, La Clinica, which opened its doors on September 10, 2001, is also the only place that Minnesotans of Latino descent can go for culturally competent medical care in Minneapolis. 

La Clinica's entire staff is bilingual and bicultural offering a critical form of bedside manner to Latino residents of Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka, Scott, Carver and fifteen other counties in the area (when La Clinica first opened, no one expected patients to travel from as far as Maple Grove or Brooklyn Park but "if you build it ….").Of the over five thousand patients seen at La Clinica last year, over 90% were Spanish speakers and a significant number were recent immigrants.

Cultural compatibility is conducive and critical to clinical success.

The potential costs to local resources already under pressure from tightened budgetary strings at the local, state, and federal levels could very well be alarming. The likelihood that a Minnesotan in crisis will go a facility that is culturally intimidating is very slim. The social and financial ramifications here, such as the possible spread of untreated infectious diseases such as avian flu or the mumps or a traumatized teenager shut off from his therapist reacting inappropriately to a police officer, are hard to measure before they happen and impossible to prevent after they have happened.

Potential costs can also skyrocket from residents no longer having access to preventive wellness visits waiting until an otherwise preventable condition deteriorates into an emergency room visit at an always-overwhelmed Hennepin County Medical Center E.R.

Of course, the aforementioned represents what could be the tip of an immense iceberg. Indeed, for example, unreported critical health statistics also pose grave dangers to everyone.

Current funding for La Clinica comes from a variety of sources including the West Side Community Health Services of which La Clinica is just one location and several much-needed grants. Only a third of WSCHS's revenue comes from Medicaid, a fifth comes from federal grants, a small percentage from patients' private health care providers – revenue from cash payments from uninsured patients are actually higher than those of patients with insurance.

Grants such as those from Eliminating Health Disparities Initiative funds from the Minnesota Department of Health, Office of Minority and Multicultural Health and the Maternal & Child Health grant (which made it possible for La Clinica to serve almost four hundred pregnant women in that grant's first year) certainly help but they do not often cover medical expenses, drugs, operational expenses, labs, et cetera.

This is more than troubling for the staff at La Clinica; it is terrifying for its patients who receive treatment for rape, dehydration, stress, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, urinary tract infections and other serious conditions that cannot go untreated.

In rent alone, La Clinica pays $200,000 annually for the 9,000 square foot facility located at a mass transit crossroads where bus lines and the Hiawatha light rail line all converge.

Like many of its patients, it certainly appears that La Clinica is also underinsured and, unfortunately, altruism does not pay the bills in Minnesota.

When one looks at the potential catastrophic larger picture, finding a way to keep La Clinica open would have been much more cost effective than allowing it to close.

After all, that $900,000 shortfall last fiscal year works out to about$173 per patient seen.

Considering how much La Clinica is doing for the greater Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area and beyond, that figure comes out to a bargain relative to some of the inevitable costs directly and indirectly associated with allowing it to close.

Or in simpler terms, it is cheaper to buy a new battery for your smoke detector than to pay the deductible for your fire insurance after your house burnt down.

This, of course, dovetails into the growing call for a more democratic healthcare system that guarantees that, as Brehm stated on a stormy afternoon last week, "all people have access to the most basic of services." While it a rather sad statement about a society that politicizes basic human welfare, it is an undeniable reality that healthcare is a hot button political issue during this mid-term election year. With recent news that employees of UnitedHealth Group(which is headquartered in Minnetonka) are disgusted with UnitedHealth's consumer-driven worker health plans among other harbingers of growing consumer frustration with the increasingly apparent ineffectiveness of the American healthcare status quo, more and more people in the U.S. are calling for a paradigm shift towards the Canadian and even the Cuban models.

While reactionary attempts to scare Americans away from even thinking about "socialized medicine" are intensifying, so are the realizations that universal public healthcare is no more ridiculous of a proposition than universal public education. The misguided rationale that says that Americans should have to pay for the basic human right to receive quality health care makes as much sense as reinstituting archaic and elitist poll taxes to make people pay for the right to vote.

If the right to an education and to vote do not require copayments and premiums, why should the right to feel better require them?

Before finishing her interview with La Prensa, Brehm stated that "we need a system that works differently." Thinking back to New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina and thus looking at how easily a disaster can reveal a Third World reality here in this G8 country, it would behoove Minnesota's leaders (elected and non-elected) to pay heed to Ms. Brehm's statement without delay.

Rethinking Rabbani’s Reality

"Rethinking Rabbani’s Reality"

I have never liked the taste of boiled iced tea. The lack of sweetness is not the problem. Many drinks that I enjoy (water is at the top of the list) are not sweet. No, it is the shocking and lingering bitterness of how many Americans make their iced tea that always stops me in mid-sip.


Oft times, I tried to do the Yankee tea like some of those nasty liquid “medicines” of my childhood: drink it all down so fast that my taste buds have minimal time to object. 
*Neglecting to remember, of course, that the sensory job of my “buds” is an important “warning system.” However, this tactic has had very, very limited success with boiled tea.

Yech!

As I have grown older and spent more time in Texas, I have had more encounters with this unpleasant elixir of the North. These encounters have caused me to realize something about human nature: the more a person has to deal with something that is initially repulsive to him/her, the more he/she becomes accustomed to and tolerant of that repulsive something.

Felix Ungars who have to without bathing for too long become accustomed to, tolerant of (albeit begrudgingly) of the smell.

Men and women who do not love their spouses become, after several years of matrimony, accustomed to, tolerant of sharing with the previously unwanted a bed.

All of this (and much more) is the result of one of the most important aspects of human nature that has been virtually instrumental to our species’ survival after many millennia: resiliency via adaptation.

Indeed, it is the ability to “improvise, adapt, and overcome” that has kept us on this planet thriving to the point where we are about to destroy the planet that, thus far, has not been able to destroy us.

When I was little, my father – who was a police officer in Miami for 13 years before his death – took my brothers and I to peek inside of an empty holding cell at the city’s old police headquarters (the site of which is now a shiny new Winn Dixie). The peek lasted only a few seconds but I remember that it was cold, dark, and frightening. I remember the drop in my chest when the awesome, steely thud of the hatch shutting closed was heard – and I was on the outside. It scared the absolute isht out of me and it still does thirty years later.

The “Scared Straight” documentary of the mid-seventies offered the same thesis: the initial shock of incarceration is enough of a deterrent to prevent the normal human being from committing (or recommitting) any jailable offense in the future.

But what happens when you leave a human being - a resilient and adaptable creature, the most resilient and adaptable creature – behind bars for too long? Won’t they “get used to it”? Won’t prison then become something that no longer serves as a deterrent? If so, then are we trying to punish crime or prevent crime?

Whereas I grew up with the logic that appropriately-executed punishment is meant to prevent crime, the above rationale presents them, not as steps in the same process, but as completely different, almost adversarial processes.

Mumia Abu-Jamal asks “why do we call it ‘corrections’?”

I think of the accounts of men and women who spent so much time – too much time – in a “correctional setting” that they became so accustomed – too accustomed – to prison “life” that they were unable to exist in a normal setting outside of jail. Sadly for them, the prison stopped being shocking and, instead, became a normal setting.

I spent years training and licensing foster parents in Miami using, as our primary training tool, the state-required Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting curriculum (designed and copyrighted by the Child Welfare Institute in Atlanta). Of the ten “meetings” we conducted for the training of prospective foster, adoptive, and shelter parents, the most popular was meeting number five. This particular meeting’s focus was discipline.

Among the many vital points we covered during this mandatory meeting were (A) the true definition of the “discipline,” (B) proper execution of different behavior modifications, and (C) why certain “punishments” (behavioral “interventions”) that were “fine” and “okay” for “normal, well-adjusted “ people were not appropriate for people with histories of abuse, abandonment, and neglect.

According to the MAPP curriculum, “discipline” is defined as the method to teach a human being how to conduct him/herself in a manner that is socially-appropriate, in a way that will not cause the individual to alienate him/herself from his/her peers. 

There is no mention of “punishment” in the definition of discipline. This is because punishment is not a part of discipline like a heart or a brain is a part of a person. The purpose, the definition of discipline is to educate and motivate a person to do “the right thing.” How one educates and motivates varies. However, it is important to note that rewarding of appropriate behavior and role-modeling of appropriate behavior are, according to MAPP, the two most effective ways of teaching some one to act in a socially-appropriate manner. In short, rewards and role models are the best disciplinary tools.

When rewards and role models do not prevent someone from running afoul of what is socially-appropriate, punishments come into play. Because the MAPP course was designed for foster parents, many of the punishments discussed during the fifth meeting are geared towards juveniles. One punishment discussed is “time-out.” Like the penalty box in hockey, time-out is designed to remove a child from a setting in which the child has made a wrong choice. Recognizing that leaving a person in the same physical and time setting in which a bad decision was made could escalate into more bad decisions, time-out is meant to allow the child in question to take a “time-out” and reflect on the error for the purpose of correcting said error and redeeming him/herself within a reasonable and realistic amount of time.

Because “time-out” is meant to foster better decision-making (and coping mechanisms), it is very important that (A) the child be afforded an appropriate environment free of stressors in which he/she can clearly reflect on errors and develop corrections and (B) then be allowed to redeem him/herself as soon as possible.

The basic standard for determining how long a child should remain in time-out is one minute per each year of the child’s age minus one. The reasoning for this standard is simple: if a child spends too much time in time-out, the child forgets the feelings associated with the error (if not the error itself) and thus the motivation to “do better” is diminished (if not lost altogether). In turn, the disciplinarian will have lost his/her own initiative and nothing positive is learned, nothing positive is gained by either party.

The highly-effective MAPP training (which is used by numerous states nationally and several countries internationally) also emphasizes the need to be always cognizant of the fact that disciplining a child in care is not the same as disciplining a child who has not suffered the clinically-documented trauma of coming into state custody. Many MAPP trainees (and trainers) experienced many punishments (including, but not limited to, corporal punishment) and – for the most part – they are all very well-adjusted as evidenced by their collective socially-appropriate behaviors. But, because differences in variables can – and often do – impact the sum/products of equations, it must be remembered that disciplining an individuals who have not enjoyed certain benefits taken for granted by some strata of our society will not necessarily yield the same socially-appropriate results.

For example, spanking a child or sending that child to bed with no dessert is not typically traumatic in a stable and nurturing environment. The child trusts the caregiver(s) enough to know that he/she/they is/are not trying to kill him/her. A child from an unstable and hostile setting could very easily interpret (and sometimes justifiably) those acts as being sinister and, therefore, unsettling.

In other words, discipline is ineffective if the one being disciplined is fearful and distrustful of the disciplinarian.

Returning the current sentencing practices of the criminal justice system in this country, are we really correcting the socially-inappropriate actions of people convicted of crimes with long sentences or are we creating a population that, via the inherent human instinct to adapt, no longer shocked? Further, if the latter is the case, are we contributing to a cycle of societal dysfunction via the creation of an increasingly institutionalized frame of bestial reference?

Would not a quick, intense intervention (such as the six-week “boot camps” for teens or jail terms measured in months and not years) be just as effective in scaring an offender straight as a splash of cold water in the morning is effective in waking a still drowsy person?

If one were to jump into a cold swimming pool, the shock would likely elicit yells and brief trauma to the central nervous system. If one, however, stayed in the pool, the body would eventually adjust to the change in temperature. The water’s temperature would not change; the person’s body would adjust to the temperature.

When it comes to sentencing, the writer believes that society as a whole is being done an egregious injustice when other human beings are left in the pool too long.

This is not “correction” – it is saturation.

Haiti: A Primer in Injustice

 

Wednesday, 10 March 2004 17:49 By José Pérez Many of the readers of this column may not remember Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba was the democratically elected head of state for an independent African nation who earned mass support among the majority of his impoverished constituents with his genuine anti-colonial platform. Naturally, the same ideology that won him the adoration of his people also marked him as a target for “The Man.” Lumumba eventually was faced with a radical separatist movement led by a power hungry thug. Naturally, that ambitious rogue enjoyed the financial support of “The Man.”  According to a Central Intelligence Agency station chief, Lumumba was eventually “delivered” to that same thug by, you guessed it, “The Man.” Eventually, with his people’s elected government stolen, Lumumba was tortured and killed by a firing squad. Many historians are not very religious but most do believe and swear by the ancient credo “History repeats itself.” It is because of times like these that this writer has to agree. A little over forty years after the rise of and robbery of Lumumba’s nationalist dream, the same thing is happening all over again – with almost little deviation from the original script – to Haiti’s President: Jean-Betrand Aristide. Aristide won much of the same support of Haiti’s poor Black masses that Lumumba did in the Congo. He also received much of the same hate from “The Man” that Lumumba did. Like Lumumba, Aristide has been abducted and is being held under guard while his fate is being bargained on.  Like Lumumba, Aristide has been the target of corporate media lies that are meant to both cover up and justify punitive actions by “The Man.” Let us begin with the first lie: Aristide won the 2000 Presidential election in Haiti by fraud.  When detractors go out of their way to talk about the “flawed election” of 2000, they are actually talking about the parliamentary elections held that year. During those legislative elections, only eight seats were questioned. Those seats were questioned because the winners in each of those instances won by a plurality of votes, not a majority. In other words, the winners did not garner more than half of the votes cast but they did garner more than their opponents. The real problem for the opposition arose because each of those seats were won by Lavalas party members. Lavalas is the party of which Aristide was the head of.  Crying foul almost before the dust finished settling on election day, the opposition began a campaign of political tantrums made almost legendary by its stamina. They continued to scream “fraud” so often that, eventually, some of them actually started to believe it.  Contrary to the fabricated image of a brutal Latin American dictator conjured up by mainstream mass media and hostile administrations, Aristide offered – on my occasions – to hold new parliamentary elections. Like a spoiled child, the opposition refused to participate in any new elections. Instead, they preferred to call for the immediate removal of Aristide from the President’s office.  Of course, the opposition did not satisfy itself with merely calling for his ouster – they also worked for it too. With the aid of right-wing Haitians living aboard and the complicity of some foreign governments, the opposition’s monetary, military, and – most dangerously – media strength grew as its electoral strength weakened. To whit, members of the opposition have acknowledged the popular support of Aristide. In a story published by The Miami Times in 2002, opposition member and former Jean-Claude Duvalier cabinet member Daniel Supplice admitted that the Aristide administration was “the most popular government Haiti’s ever had.” With that financial help, the opposition was able to assemble a cast of cutthroats and killers, thieves and thugs with one thing in common: a sadistic disregard for the value of human life.  Among the more infamous leaders of the “opposition” are the following death stars as profiled by the London-based Haiti Support Group: • Louis Jodel Chamblain – former co-leader of the Revolutionary Front for Haitian Advancement and Progress (FRAPH). Formed by the military junta that overthrew President Aristide during his first term in office in 1991, FRAPH (which also means “to hit”) wreaked egregious havoc on the people of Haiti between 1991 and 1994 when President Aristide was restored to power. Chamblain was convicted (in absentia) and sentenced to a life term of hard labor for his involvement in the assassination of a pro-democracy activist. Like his infamous FRAPH co-leader Emmanuel “Toto” Constant (who is enjoying the pleasures of freedom living in the United States), Chamblain escaped from Haiti to avoid the rule of law. Chamblain reappeared in Haiti recently to help overthrow the constitutionally-sanctioned Aristide government.  • Guy Phillippe – the rebellion’s most camera-hungry personality was an officer in the same Haitian army that overthrew Aristide during the 1991 coup d’etat. While Haiti was being ruled by the aforementioned junta in the early nineties, Phillippe was one of several officers that was trained by the United State’s Special Forces in South America. After the newly-restored President Aristide disbanded (but did not disarm) the army upon his return, Phillippe managed to secure a post with the newly formed state police. He fled Haiti in 2000 when it was discovered that he (along with other police officials) was plotting another attempt to overthrow the government.  • Jean-Baptiste Joseph – another former soldier, Joseph was the leader of the Assembly of Soldiers Retired Without Cause (a sort of militant VFW) in 1995. The Assembly was intimately tied to the Mobilization for National Development (MDN), a “neo-Duvalierist party” that is described as “leading member” of the Convergence Democratique, the primary alliance of opposition groups that pushed so hard for the outright violent removal of President Jean-Betrand Aristide. Like Phillippe, Joseph was accused of conspiring against the government. He was arrested but broken out of jail in a violent attack on the central police station in Port au Prince a few days later and never brought to trial. • Jean Tatoune – was a former “local leader of FRAPH.” Ten years ago, on April 22, Tatoune (whose real name is Jean Pierre Baptiste) led a attack on a Gonaïves slum named Raboteau, which was a pro-Aristide enclave. When the carnage was done, “between fifteen and twenty-five people were killed in what became known as the Raboteau massacre.” Convicted and imprisoned for the attack, Tatoune escaped from jail in Gonaïves in 2002 and cast his lot with Amiot Metayer’s Cannibal Army. Amiot was gunned down several months ago and his brother Butter has assumed control of the group. Another prominent member of the opposition is U. S. citizen Andre Apaid of the Group of 184. Born in the New York City suburb of Queens, Apaid is an affluent businessman that is – like many affluent Haitians – very anti-Aristide.  According to Mary Turck, editor of Connection to the Americas, the Convergence Democratique (along with other non-affiliated opposition groups) has been funded by the U. S. National Endowment for Democracy. In fact, the Resources to the Americas website reports that the NED “set up the Haitian Conference of Political Parties (CHPP), a coalition of 26 ‘opposition’ groups.” The Resources website described the majority of the represented groups as “right-wing” with many under the leadership of former cronies of both Duvalier regimes as well as that of ex-dictator General Henri Namphy.  In addition to pressure from the aforementioned, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide also was subjected to undue pressure from the neo-liberal economic entities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The economic model of neo-liberalism is one that insists upon the removal of trade barriers that normally protect immature industry, big cutbacks on social spending such as education, healthcare, and welfare, the stripping of workers’ rights, and the privatization of national resources and assets.  The typical modes operandi of both the World Bank and the IMF is to lend money to poorer countries in exchange for the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies. Taking into account that Aristide’s power base has always been among the poor Black masses of Haiti, he was put in between the largest of rocks and the hardest of places. In order to get the money that his constituency needed, he would have to “sell out.” If he held firm to his nationalist principles and populist ideologies, the neo-liberal organs would not approve the much-needed loans. Of course, it was all moot. After finally being approved for a badly needed loan of approximately $300 million dollars, the United States moved to block the disbursement of the loan on grounds that Haiti held “flawed” elections in May of 2000. The irony of the United States penalizing another country for “flawed” elections in 2000 is rooted deeply in profound hypocrisy. Also hypocritical is the United States going to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for democracy while working to overthrow a democratically elected government in the Caribbean.  In a telephone interview earlier this week, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas stated that she was “outraged” by the actions of the Bush administration in Haiti.  Initially choosing to stay out of the fight being won by forces it supported, the White House ignored pleas by Representatives Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Caribbean Community, and even President Aristide himself to help quell the rebellion and restore order. Described by Congresswoman Waters as a “wrong-headed policy”, the Bush team stood by and effectively let the legitimate government of Haiti be usurped by a band of bandits and mercernaries. Further troubling are the rising allegations that not only did the U.S. military compel Aristide to resign and leave (under the threat of being turned over to Phillippe) but also that the Haitian President is being guarded by American and French soldiers in the tiny Central African Republic (a pseudo-nation state described as a French stooge). What is probably most disheartening about all of this is that the information contained herein represents a mere fraction of what freedom-loving Americans should know about but do not. That, all by itself, it is as sad as it gets.

Waters, Jackson Lee Speak Out About Haiti

Waters, Jackson Lee Speak Out About Haiti
by José Pérez
Exclusive to Black Voice News (CA)

Piti, piti, wazo fe nich li is a Haitian proverb that says that "little by little, the bird builds its nest".

Like the proverbial bird, Maxine Waters has built a reputation as a no-nonsense fighter, an inexhaustible advocate, a passionate champion of those vulnerable entities in a world that sometimes praises the underdog and always rewards the mighty. Her battles have taken her from the high to the low, the backsliding to the on the go.

Right now, there are few people more vulnerable than the poor Black masses of Haiti. Their ancestors made history when they became the first humans to wage a successful slave revolt when they defeated the armies of Spain, Great Britain, and France.

Two months ago, Haiti celebrated its bicentennial with a grand program in Port au Prince. In attendance was an exuberant crowd numbering well into the tens of thousands if not more. With them was United States Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Yet the accomplishment of being the world‚s first Black republic did not earn Haiti praises and accolades. Instead, Haiti’s proud patriots were punished with two hundred years of economic embargos, egregious exploitation, and media manipulation.

Just a few days ago, the democratically-elected government of President Jean-Betrand Aristide was overthrown by a sad cast of well-equipped murderers and rapists. Reports have emerged that Aristide was kidnapped. Although the White House denies the charge, Waters believes "that there was foul play."

"I am very worried about President Aristide," said Waters in an interview with The Black Voice News.

Waters’ Congressional colleague Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas found the news of the ouster to be "devastating" and added that the entire episode was "a travesty."

The legislators‚ concerns are well-founded as Waters was able to speak to Aristide after he was forced into exile via mobile telephone.

Prior to Aristide’s hasty forced departure, Waters and human rights activist Randall Robinson each had spoken to him every day for two weeks.

By now, millions of people know that President Aristide's government was overthrown but very few know who is responsible nor why. Congresswoman Waters stated that it was the "same business class [that] does not want Aristide to share [leadership] of Haiti."

"It is the same business class that sells all of the essential resources and does not want to pay taxes," said Waters. "They will not support any government that holds them accountable."

In addition to the economic motivation, the Representative feels that the President's opponents have a related political agenda as well.

"They want[ed] Aristide out so they can control the elections they know they can't win fairly."

Aristide's foes have benefited from the aid of both the Bush administration and affiliated right-wing organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy. Congresswoman Waters has gone on record on numerous occasions recently blasting the White House and the State Department for what she describes as their complicity with the anti-democratic rebel forces.

Last week, the Congressional Black Caucus held an emergency meeting with President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condi Rice imploring the current administration to take decisive action to help protect a fledging democracy in America’s backyard. Instead being promised a crack team of Marines to ride in like the cavalry to help the constitutionally legitimate government of Haiti fight off would-be tyrants, the CBC was told that ships were being sent to Haiti to prevent an exodus of refugees.

"That's all the President cares about," said Waters about Bush.

Through all of the sad turn of events in Haiti that have marked the days and weeks that followed the euphoria of the bicentennial festivities, the CBC has been adamant about where it places responsibility. "We're holding the President accountable," said Waters. Jackson Lee stated that the CBC would "not let this go."

Describing the United States as a "moral compass," Representative Jackson Lee said that "we owe the world" a better example of ethical leadership. This would have been an obvious and appropriate opportunity" to support democracy in the Americas said Jackson Lee.

The Representative from California also feels that Aristide "has been a victim of the major press." Saying that "the lies [are] absolutely unbelievable," Waters boils at the constant war of misinformation she feels is being waged against Aristide's Lavalas party.


One example of the sort of information that Waters feels that the American corporate media is not sharing with the people of the United States concerns the successful efforts of the Aristide government and a local grassroots group to turn the former mansion of an infamous Duvalier stooge into a primary school for the children of a small town. This was originally reported by the online BlackCommentator after "a prominent U. S. journalist" was not able to convince his editors to print the story.