Month: October 2018

Rules in a Knife Fight

“Rules in a Knife Fight – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”

Today, the United States Senate will begin the final process of voting on Brett Kavanaugh.  The truncated and carefully circumscribed FBI investigation is done, and it is now up to the Senators to decide.  Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of committing sexual assault as a seventeen year old.  It’s thirty-six years later, and he has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The victim, Christine Blasey-Ford, has convincingly testified, but there is little other evidence to back up her testimony.

Kavanaugh has not been truthful to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In testimony he has claimed that his high school youth and his college career was spent in training for basketball and studying, and that he liked beer.  What has been revealed is that Brett was a serious partier, drinking to excess, and like most young men, fascinated with sex.  While there is nothing that is so “wrong” with the partying  (as opposed to sexual assault), there is definitely an issue with a Supreme Court nominee lying in sworn testimony.

The Senate nomination process is not a legal process, even though the majority Republicans brought in a “female prosecutor assistant” to question the victim.  So the legal standard for criminal proof, beyond a “reasonable doubt” is an unreasonable standard to apply here.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is 90% sure; it seems clear we will never reach that level in the question of sexual assault in the Kavanaugh case.

But Brett Kavanaugh isn’t going to jail if he doesn’t get confirmed by the Senate.  In fact, he will be returning to his Appellate Court seat, where he has a lifetime appointment.  The Senate confirmation process is not a criminal process, it is effectively a job interview.  So what burden of proof should be used?

The standard for civil cases (lawsuits) is “a preponderance of the evidence.”  When all of the evidence is considered, which side has “more than 50%.”  Is this the appropriate standard for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee?

Kavanaugh, with multiple women claiming he assaulted them in his youth, might still “pass” this standard. Against each victim’s testimony, there seems to be only a “50/50, he said/she said” level of proof.  But on the question of lying to the Senate Committee about his youth, it seems like we are way beyond even the criminal standard.  We are certain, 100%.

So, in a job interview, a potential employee lies.  He lies about his youth, about the meaning of the “dirty words” listed in his yearbook, about his activities, and about his drinking.  He lies about things he doesn’t have to lie about, events and actions that would be forgiven as youthful indiscretions; superseded by a career of service to the Republican Party and the government.

The question then is why is he lying, under oath, to the US Senate? Even in this “#MeToo” era, the sexual assault evidence may not be convincing enough for many Senators to vote no.  But whatever the reason Kavanaugh uses to justify his lying, or worse, whatever causes him to not remember that these are lies, should lead Senators to question his fitness for office.

An appointment to the Supreme Court is for a lifetime.  A reasonable doubt, say, ten percent, about the fitness of a candidate should be enough to “give pause” to even the most partisan Senator.  But it probably will not, and Mr. Kavanaugh, despite all of his flaws, lies, and possible assaults; will be placed on the Court.

Republicans are making a mistake in doing so, and not just because Kavanaugh has committed perjury. By placing this flawed man on the Court, they are setting Democrats up with an opportunity to “undo” history.  A Democratic strategy may be to wait until one of “theirs” is back in the White House, then re-open the investigation into Kavanaugh.  When an unfettered investigation takes place, with more and more facts laid out about his behavior, then it won’t be a nomination, but an impeachment and removal process that begins.

The Republican cry will be “unfair” and “un-American,” but of course all rules have already been tossed aside in this “knife fight,” and the majority opinion on the Court for generations is at stake.  To protect “their seat” on the Court, Republicans should step back to see the long-term effect of confirming this wounded and vulnerable candidate.  He will still be wounded and vulnerable when the Republican majority protection is gone.

 

 

 

 

Hold Your Breath

The debate over Judge Kavanaugh continues:  is he the next Supreme Court Justice; is he a perjurer of testimony to the United States Senate; is he a sex offender; or is he all of the above?  Americans are waiting for an answer; and for some Senator to demonstrate a “Profile in Courage” moment.  I hope your not holding your breath.

On the other hand, holding your breath might be a better idea.  The Environmental Protection Agency intends to roll back emission standards on coal, allowing for more pollutants and greenhouse gases. The EPA itself, in it’s own analysis, estimates up to 1400 premature deaths because of that change ( CNN.)

Or if the coal pollution doesn’t get you, don’t worry, there’s more.  The EPA also proposes to roll back fuel economy standards, meaning that cars will burn more gas and create more pollution (NPR.)   Even California, a state that has traditionally dealt with greater pollution problems from vehicles by having more restrictive standards, is not exempt. They are required to follow the national standards as well.

But breathing may not be the biggest problem.  Today the EPA announced it is now moving to loosen radiation standards.  This means that the amount of “allowable” radiation people can be exposed to will be increased, and the producers of that radiation will not be required to be as protective.

The biggest concern here: the EPA is following the “outlier” advice of a toxicologist, Edward Calabrese.  He believes, flying in the face of the vast majority of scientific thought, that exposure to somewhat higher doses of radiation is actually beneficial, by “toughening up” the exposed cells.  Kind of like that big sunburn at the beginning of the summer toughens up your skin – or raises your risk of skin cancer.

What about the “rest” of science?  They believe that any exposure to radiation increases the risk, and that raising the general amount of radiation folks are exposed to is going to cause more people to have cancer:  period  (AP.)

Why would the EPA choose to follow the outlier, over conventional science?  Why would they stop better fuel economy and less pollution, and allow for greater greenhouse gas pollution?  Of course there’s an easy answer — money.

Take radiation. Nuclear plant operators spend billions protecting their workers and their neighbors, from radiation, even small amounts of it.  If the EPA allows them to expose greater amounts, it will save them a lot of money. And, if they are meeting EPA standards, it will be far more difficult for workers or neighbors to file suit against the operators when they are diagnosed with cancers.

And if less protection is necessary; hospital and dental technicians and others who are routinely exposed to low-dose radiation will be at greater risk.  Currently the annual “limit” of exposure is 100 millisieverts (about 25 chest X-Rays), and even that raises the risk of cancer according to “mainstream science.”  The EPA changes would allow for much greater exposure, and less expenditures for protection.

What’s the goal of the Trump Administration?  The Environmental Protection Agency; doesn’t.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, won’t.  The Interior Department is allowing hunting in violation of the Endangered Species Act, by unilaterally and arbitrarily declaring endangered species not endangered (NYT.)  The Department of Justice promotes injustice on the border, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to hold over one hundred and thirty insecure children separated from their parents, and wants the Court to give them a pat-on-the-back (NBC.)

George Orwell in his apocryphal novel 1984, had four government ministries: the Ministry of Love (law and order), the Ministry of Peace (war), the Ministry of Plenty (rationing), and the Ministry of Truth (propaganda). Donald Trump and his REAL administration has taken his cue from Orwell, and flipped the roles of government departments.

All of this while he tries to convince us that our greatest danger is that young (white) men could be falsely accused of a sexual assault.

Hold your breath.

 

 

 

Bake Sales for Life

There was a television show on in the mid-1960’s called Run for Your Life.  It featured a lawyer, Ben Gazarra, who quit working and went on adventures, doing everything on his “bucket list.”  At least once each show, someone brought up the fact that he was living beyond his means; his money would soon run dry.  Then the facts of his doom were explained:  Gazarra had leukemia with little time left to live. He was trying to do everything before his time ran out.  He was “running for his life.”

Today medicine has made great strides in cancer treatments.  The leukemia of Run for Your Life, a death sentence in the mid-1960’s, is now a controllable disease with a good chance of long-term survival.  But, here in the United States, there is another controlling factor in the treatment of this and other cancers:  the cost.

The average cost of cancer treatment is $100000 to $150000 (AARP.)  For those who have “good” health insurance, including Medicare, 80% of the cost will be covered, but that still leaves $20,000 to $30,000.  For those who don’t have insurance, they not only have to bear the entire costs (though when income gets low enough, they will become eligible for government assistance through Medicaid) but their actual costs are higher. Insurance companies negotiate with care providers and drug manufacturers for reduced costs. Uninsured patients pay “full cost” for their care, often double what insured patients pay.

And, of course, during cancer treatment it is difficult to continue working.  So the bills from treatment are added to the bills of life; rent, food, and the rest.  Cancer patients are twice as likely to declare bankruptcy as non-patients (Chicago Tribune.) Even in Canada, with a nationalized health care system, patients in some Provinces (though not all) bear the costs of drug therapy, (in Nova Scotia there is a $29000 deductible.)

These are all numbers, but behind the figures are the living survivors who face an enormous health threat.  Added to their (and their families) burden is the enormous financial expense.  Their lives are threatened by cancer; their lifestyles and families are threatened by bankruptcy.  It’s not a choice.

So they find ways to try to keep up with the bills.  They max out their credit cards, wipe out their retirements, sell their houses, borrow from friends.  They put jars on the counters of gas stations and McDonalds; they have bake sales: bake sales for life.

In Germany, the cost of cancer treatment to the patient is €10 per day in the hospital, with a cap at twenty-eight days.  That’s roughly $325.   In the United Kingdom costs are similar.  Drug and other treatment costs are covered by their national health systems. These modern countries recognize health care as a right, not a function of employment.

In the debates over the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Congressman Mo Brooks revealed that repealing the Act:

“…will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy,” (New Yorker.)

And while other Republican leaders weren’t quite as blunt, they too have shared the view that sick people are at fault, and therefore need to bear the cost.  Healthy people shouldn’t have to share so much of the burden.

It’s “all-good” when you’re not sick.

The Trump tax cut will cost the US Government $2.3 trillion of the next ten years.  Over those same ten years, the estimated cost of cancer care in the US is $1.25 trillion ( HHS.)  At the same time, the US Defense budget is $696 billion for next year alone.  We are setting priorities:  not building infrastructure, not funding education, and not trying to ease the burden of healthcare.  We have cut taxes so even a new Congress or President will have difficulty financing different priorities.

It leaves cancer patients to have bake sales:  for life.