Healthcare. Is it worth going to prison for it?

Mansfield Frazier writes a piece about it for the Daily Beast.

“Imagine a place where you don’t have to pay anything or no more than $5 for a visit to the medical clinic,” Roberto Hugh Potter, an expert in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida wrote in an article about the future of universal health care, “Where your physician-prescribed medications cost you nothing, where there is no penalty for missing work or school to go to the clinic, and where every individual has an absolute right to access and receive “adequate, reactive” health care. Welcome to prison!”

That's right. Prisoners have the right to receive healthcare, and they do receive it regularly, with all their prescriptions paid for. There is a viral story about a man named James Verone who robbed a bank for one dollar, specifically so he could receive healthcare after he was put in prison. After being laid off as a truck driver, he could no longer work his part-time job nor afford healthcare after his back started to hurt him and he had a protruding growth on his chest. It looks like he is not the only person who takes advantage of the system.

Damien Calvert, who was recently released from an Ohio prison for a drug-related murder he committed when he was 18 (he’s now a straight-A student at Cleveland State University, studying nonprofit management), said that part of the reason recidivism rates are so high is due to the lack of access to health care on the streets for parolees. “Guys get out with a week’s supply of their medications,” said Calvert, “and when they’re unable to navigate the health-care delivery system out here in the world, they commit another crime so they can go back to their comfort zone, back to where they know they’ll be kept alive. But there’s something fundamentally wrong in this country when people have to resort to committing crimes to receive adequate health care.”

An experienced, old-school convict would not have robbed a bank for $1 as Verone did; they, instead, would have heaved a brick through the front window of their local Post Office, a crime that’s guaranteed to result in a federal judge giving out a buffalo. For those unfamiliar with the argot, a “buffalo” is a “nickel” uh, five years? Plenty of time to get healthy… and pick up a nice hobby to boot.

Instead of having to get arrested to receive healthcare, wouldn'y a universal system of healthcare be better than this? One in which we all pay into the system and get to reap the benefits of seeing healthcare providers early and often for preventative measures, decreasing the cost overall. Read the whole piece. It's worth it.

How Far Does Religious Liberty Go?

An argument that people cite against marriage equality where they actually have a point would be religious liberty. People who are unfamiliar with law, politics, or the organized marriage equality movement, are so afraid that their precious churches and pastors will be forced against their will to marry those vile and repugnant gays (this isn't true, as it is already law that churches and clergy are not required to perform any marriages they do not wish to perform). Everyone should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs (within reason of course; we don't human sacrifices), but they should not be used to trod on the rights of others, including their right to not have religion forced upon them.

Author Rob Tisinai of wakingupnow.com, gives a scenario then poses a question.

Suppose an on-duty police officer sees a known homosexual getting stomped to death in an alley by two men shouting, “Die, faggot, die!”  He does nothing to stop it, and he lets the thugs escape, because he believes in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

His religious beliefs make it impossible for him to intefere with what he views as God’s will, or even to hold the assailants responsible.
Should this officer be penalized?  Or would that violate his religious freedom?

This is such a good line of questioning, because it really gets down to the meat of the issue. There are many people who use 'religious belief' to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Usually, that is legally ok, if you are a private citizen. You cannot be forced to let a gay person into your home, or be invited to a private event. But what if you are not just a private citizen, but a public employee, or you perform a public service? Should you be allowed to let your religious beliefs trump your civic duties?

He then introduces us to the first 'victim' of the marriage equality bill in New York, identified by NOM. I'm going to repost the rest of his post, because honestly, he does a much better job explaining than I do.

Barbara MacEwen, the town clerk in upstate Volney who is responsible for signing marriage licenses in the town, said she’s morally opposed to same-sex weddings and does not intend to affix her signature to any marriage documents for gay or lesbian couples.
“If there’s any possible way to not do it, legally, then yes, I would not want to put my name on any of those certificates or papers,” MacEwen told POLITICO. “That’s their life, they can do it, but I don’t feel I should be forced into something that’s against my morals and my God.”

This taxpayer-supported public servant wants the right to choose which taxpayers she’ll serve. NOM, apparently, sympathizes with her.

That’s why I have to wonder about the limits to NOM’s notion of religious liberty. Personally, I’m no big fan of government coercion. You know that New Mexico photographer our opponents keep talking about? I think he should have been free not to photograph a same-sex wedding. Just as I think a gay photographer should be free not to shoot a wedding in a church that works to strip him of his marriage rights.
But Barbara MacEwen is a public employee. She’s an elected government official demanding the privilege of not following the law.
Who’s asking for special rights now?
What other “rights” does NOM think Barbara MacEwen should have? The right to withhold licenses from interracial couples? From a divorced person who wants to remarry? From a Catholic and a Baptist planning to marry in a Baptist church?
All those unions have been considered immoral by someone’s religion. Where does NOM stand on these items? Because as far as I can tell, NOM conception of religious liberty include the right of public servants to ignore laws they don’t like.
At this point, I was going to bring back the police question I asked at the beginning, but I thought of another I like better:  A number of states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, so…
…if NOM wants to let town clerks pick and choose the laws they’ll recognize according to their religion, then shouldn’t clerks from gay-friendly faiths be able to issue same-sex marriage licenses regardless of state law?
So tell us, NOM. Tell us exactly which religious liberty protections special rights you’d like to have.

Unfortunately, it looks like these 'special rights' have found their way into the Rhode Island Civil Unions bill that was passed by the State Senate this week.

As goes Maine...

Maine repealed marriage equality on November 3, 2009, with Question one. It was absolutely devastating. Keeping marriage in Maine was supposed to be the LGBTQ answer to Prop8 passing in California the year before. We failed, miserably.

Well, marriage equality is going back in front of the people of Maine, possibly as early as November 2012. From Americablog.com

The announcement comes after 18 months of ongoing public education and two new polls showing 53% of Mainers supporting marriage equality. This afternoon Methodist Pastor Michael Gray will submit the following language to the Sec. of State for review:

"Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?"

By submitting language to the Secretary of State to put marriage on the ballot, EqualityMaine and GLAD begin the process of a citizen's initiative. Once the Sec. of State certifies the language, Equality Maine will then collect 57,277 signatures to get the question on the ballot in November.

Joining Pastor Gray at a press conference this morning is Betsey Smith, Equality Maine's executive director, as well as Lewiston Mayor Laurent F. Gilbert, and Michelle Mondor, a resident of Fort Fairfield, all of whom have evolved to support marriage equality. Smith explains:
"We changed hearts and minds during No on 1, and since then, many more Mainers have changed their hearts and continue to change their minds. We have been going door to door talking to them and hearing their journey towards support. In two separate polls conducted over the last five months, 53 percent of Mainers surveyed said they support letting gay and lesbian couples marry here."

This same Pastor, Michael Gray, speaks about his evolution on marriage equality in the video below.



With a GIANT win in New York and judiciously thorough religious protections placed in the language, Maine should pull through this time. Let's carry this momentum!

ooh baby, do you know what that's worth?

Oh, heaven is a place on Earth.
In heaven, love comes first.
We'll make heaven a place on Earth.

I LOVE THIS SONG! Especially this version by Katie Thompson. (The original, by Belinda Carlisle, is good, even if the video is kind of silly).

Lyrics are always important to me when I consider a song (for the most part, anyways), and it's been a personal philosophy of mine to 'make heaven a place on Earth' for a while. I know that it is a love song but the chorus is really resonating with me right now.

Let's say it's been a rough couple days, and this was a pleasant surprise to lose myself in. Healthy escapes are always good for the soul.

Crazy Interview Questions

I read this on a tip from Andrew Sullivan. It always amuses me to read clever answers to questions that should really never be asked in interviews. This list, written by Giles Turnbull from the Online Magazine, The Morning News: Black and White and Read all over, takes the cake!

My favorite example:

Kiewit Corp: What did you play with as a child?

We had no toys. Grandpa sometimes brought us interesting-looking stones that he’d found by the creek, so we gave them names and invested them with complex personalities and back-stories. They lived in a stony alter-universe where everybody was a stone. The stones had little stone parties sometimes. We offered them bugs to eat, but the stones weren’t hungry. I have my favorite stone in my pocket. He’s called Gufflin. Would you like to meet him?

Love it. I now want to meet Gufflin.

Car Free City Centers of Europe to the US?

Wow. Even though I really shouldn't be surprised, I always am when I read about transportation and/or environmental news out of Europe. It is so different than the United States. An article in the New York Times by the Elisabeth Rosenthal describes how the cities of Europe are discouraging city driving on purpose, while American cities are making it easier.

Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter.

There are obviously environmental applications to these decisions. Less cars on the road means less carbon emissions from the exhaust, less oil required for gasoline. There are great health benefits as well as daily requirements for exercise are surpassed on the commute into work.

As noted in the article, most European cities were developed hundreds if not thousands of years before motorized transport appeared as a means of getting around, and therefore have narrow roads and are naturally pedestrian/cycling friendly. Living in Boston, I can see how much easier life would be if there were much more cycling and much less driving, considering our roads were developed along the same lines as cow paths.


(everyday traffic in Amsterdam, cycling capitol of Europe)

I have been impressed by the avid cyclists here in Boston who ride even in the winter, and one of the main reasons I wanted to move here in the first place was because it is such a walkable city. One of my biggest concerns for moving to South Florida is that it is not very pedestrian friendly. I know, kind of silly, but being connected to the heart of a city without needing a car is important to me. I've heard than some cities in the US have started encouraging more pedestrian traffic, like Portland, Oregon and San Francisco. I hope this is an idea that catches on.

Welcome to the Fold!

Late on Friday night, New York State finally passed the Marriage Equality Bill with the help of four Republican State Senators. One of them, Sen. Mark Grisanti, gave an extremely relevant speech. I believe everyone should hear it.

He is a lawyer, but also a very religious, very devout Catholic, yet he still found reason to support marriage equality. These are basic CIVIL marriage rights. Decisions on religous marriage should be left to those churches who want to make them. (cough... Catholic church... cough cough...). This truth is BLATANTLY obvious for those who understand how the US system of government actually works.

In related news, the American Medical Association has just officially endorsed marriage Equality.

209. MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Introduced by Medical Student Section

Reference committee hearing: See report of Reference Committee B

HOUSE ACTION: FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION 209 REFERRED IN LIEU OF RESOLUTIONS 209 AND 210

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples, and contributes to health care disparities affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage in order to reduce health care disparities affecting those gay and lesbian individuals and couples, their families and their children; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support the repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” as it discriminates against married same-sex couples and their families and directly contributes to health care disparities among the GLBT community.

210. MARRIAGE EQUALITY TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Introduced by Young Physicians Section

RESOLUTION 210 WAS CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH RESOLUTION 209.

SEE RESOLUTION 209.

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples, and contributes to health care disparities affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage in order to reduce health care disparities affecting those gay and lesbian individuals and couples, their families and their children; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support the repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” as it discriminates against married same-sex couples and their families and directly contributes to health care disparities among the GLBT community.

(AMA)

But anyways. CONGRATS NEW YORK!!