Money, politics, and the future of American democracy.
he American political system is in the midst of a transformation. This change was not sudden, nor was it unpredictable. The role of money in our electoral process, political discourse, and our everyday lives has grown as our nation as aged. We are about the experience the most expensive Presidential race in the history of our country. This fact has consequences for everyone, but the poorest and most vulnerable of us will pay the largest price.
The democratic ideal of “one person, one vote” is now a thing of the past. Our electoral system demands that politicians raise enormous amounts of money in short periods of time. Failure to do so will result in an inability to compete, thus dooming the candidate to defeat. The money that candidates use for campaigning is collected from various sources such as political action committees (corporations and unions), fundraiser’s, and individual contributions.
The growing importance of money in political campaigns logically implies that the more capital a candidate has, the more votes he/she is capable of receiving. This means that the contributions that we as individuals give to the politicians we support are also of growing importance in the current electoral process.
This is a system that strengthens the influence of the rich in our society, and diminishes the role of the poor. It is well known (and has been proven) that money equals votes; therefore we can conclude that if I am a wealthy individual that chooses to donate a significant amount of money to a candidate I am not only letting him/her know that they have my vote, I am also guaranteeing them more votes. If I am a poor American however, my resources are limited and therefore my contributions to my candidate of choice will be limited, thus my influence is reduced.
In order to protect American democracy, we must promote the public financing of campaigns. While there is a system in place, the current laws governing our elections make it politically impossible for a candidate to accept these funds without starting the campaign at a disadvantage.
I understand that many view individual contributions as a free speech issue (including our Supreme Court) and therefore reject the idea of publicly financed campaigns. While I do understand this argument, I find it ethically troublesome that the rich have a more of a right to free speech than the poor. Especially at a time when income distribution is so lop-sided and our government continues to push for pro-corporate policies, and insists on cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society.
It is also important to note that the poorest in our society make up the majority of our military. Should those brave individuals fighting and dying overseas have less of a voice than the wealthy at home in America enjoying their governmentally subsidized tax breaks?
The facts behind Michael Moore’s film SiCKO.
I had a chance over the fourth of July holiday to watch Michael Moore’s new film Sicko. To make a long story short, the film was wonderful. It was entertaining enough to grab your attention, and yet informative enough to leave you in a better position to judge our health care system. To be honest, I left the theater with a somber burning in my stomach, hoping that somehow we as Americans would learn to understand that having access to basic health care is a human right, and not a commodity for those who can afford it.
This post is not about this aspect of the film however, but rather it is focused on the data used in the film. Those on the right side of the political spectrum who disapprove of this film (and despise Michael Moore) are claming that Moore is spreading propaganda and lies, attempting to deceive the American public to bring on some socialist takeover. This is a stance taken by the willfully ignorant, given their inability to actually check the facts themselves.
I have organized much of the data used in the film below. The data is from the World Health Organization, and is the most recent data available. I have also included some data that Moore did not use, to avoid the “cherry picking” charge.
Canada
* Life expectancy at birth (years) males ?
78.0 (2005)
* Life expectancy at birth (years) females ?
83.0 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) males ?
90 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) females ?
56 (2005)
* Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births) ?
5.0 (2005)
* Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ?
2.14 (2003)
* Dentists (density per 1 000 population) ?
0.59 (2003)
* Pharmacists (density per 1 000 population) ?
0.67 (2003)
* Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
3037.6 (2004)
* Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
2120.9 (2004)
* Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)
36.0 (2003)
Cuba
* Life expectancy at birth (years) males ?
75.0 (2005)
* Life expectancy at birth (years) females ?
79.0 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) males ?
128 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) females ?
83 (2005)
* Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births) ?
5.0 (2005)
* Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ?
5.91 (2002)
* Dentists (density per 1 000 population) ?
0.87 (2002)
* Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
229.8 (2004)
* Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
201.8 (2004)
* Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)
49.0 (2005)
France
* Life expectancy at birth (years) males ?
77.0 (2005)
* Life expectancy at birth (years) females ?
84.0 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) males ?
128 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) females ?
58 (2005)
* Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births) ?
4.0 (2005)
* Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ?
3.37 (2004)
* Dentists (density per 1 000 population) ?
0.68 (2004)
* Pharmacists (density per 1 000 population) ?
1.06 (2003)
* Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
3464.0 (2004)
* Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
2714.6 (2004)
* Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)
75.0 (2004)
United States of America
* Life expectancy at birth (years) males ?
75.0 (2005)
* Life expectancy at birth (years) females ?
80.0 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) males ?
137 (2005)
* Probability of dying (per 1 000 population) between 15 and 60 years (adult mortality rate) females ?
81 (2005)
* Infant mortality rate (per 1 000 live births) ?
7.0 (2005)
* Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ?
2.56 (2000)
* Dentists (density per 1 000 population) ?
1.63 (2000)
* Pharmacists (density per 1 000 population) ?
0.88 (2000)
* Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
6096.2 (2004)
* Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?
2724.7 (2004)
* Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)
33.0 (2003)
Those who have seen the film will notice that all of the data that Moore use in his film is accurate. Americans do live shorter lives than their Canadian and French counterparts, and only slighter longer lives than the Cuban people. Infant mortality rates are in fact higher in the United States than in Cuba, France, and Canada; as stated in Moore’s film. This data also points out a fact that Moore does not: In the United States, you are more likely do die between the ages of 15-60 than the Cuban, French, or Canadians.
Last but not least, we spend twenty-six times the money per capita that they spend in Cuba for health care, and twice the amount they pay in France and Canada. The part of this data that affects most Americans is the out of pocket expense. According to the data, every individual in the United States spends on average over $3,000.00 out of pocket for their health care. Those in Cuba, Canada, and France pay nothing, because small user fees only paid by those who can afford it ($10.00 for a prescription for example) make up the small amount needed between the governmentally provided resources and the spending needed per capita.
Another interesting aspect of this data is the amount that the American government actually spends per capita on healthcare. Our federal government actually spends more per capita on health care than the Canadians and French. This means that we actually spend more of our tax dollars on health care, and yet due to corporate interests we are still forced to come up with another $3,300.00 out of pocket each year, while our French and Canadian counterparts pay nothing except for a few small user fees.
What may I ask are we paying for? The answer it seems is that we are paying to increase corporate profits so that the elite in our society can live privileged lives, and continue to buy our government out from under us.
We are paying thousands of dollars each year for health care, and yet we live shorter lives, lose more children upon birth, and are more likely to die before the age of 65. This should outrage every American whether you are a Democrat, an Independent, or a Republican. Our health care is already subsidized to the same levels as the Canadians and French, the only difference is that the subsidies our government provides end up in the pockets of executives in the American system rather than providing quality health care for everyone in our society.
I understand that Republicans hate Michael Moore, something that I completely understand given his views. I would hate him too if I resided on the right side of the political spectrum. But the argument he makes is based on factual evidence, and the topic he chooses is of concern to all of us. I believe that every American will be able to watch Sicko and take something very important away from it despite the large variety of views in this country. To my Democratic friends: go watch and enjoy this film. To my Republican friends: just tell yourself Michael Moore is not responsible for this film and go with an open mind (and close your eyes when he appears on screen).
Who will the media choose to be President?
It has been a while since I have found the time to write. I have been working on a few other projects outside of this blog, and therefore have been unable to write for months. I have decided however, that writing on this blog is an important outlet for me. This proved especially true today, when I found myself watching the Republican and Democratic debates on YouTube. I needed to blow off a little steam… and this blog popped into my head.
The media has decided that the so-called front runners should receive the majority of the questions, and should also be given greater opportunity to respond to comments made by others. The presidential election of 2008 is over a year away, and yet the media has taken it upon themselves to tell me that there are only three legitimate candidates per party that I should pay attention to. The Joe Bidens and Ron Pauls of the world are nothing but a distraction to the American public it seems. This is not only implied in the debates, but it is also articulated by every political analyst on every television network, as well as in newspapers.
The problem with this is simple - it’s anti-democratic. We are being given a lineup of candidates that have been screened by the media and than paraded out in front of us for selection, while those remaining become simple background noise; a distraction to the ‘true’ race. Given that media outlets are in the hands of a handful of corporate entities, we must assume that they are not acting in our interest. The American electoral process has been replaced by a corporate system; the voter is now the dollar, and success is measured by the bottom line.
I know what many think regarding this argument I am making. Most assume that the polling data, or perhaps the fundraising numbers define these candidates as frontrunner’s, and therefore the media is not at fault. The fact is however, that polling data nearly 10 months before the primaries is not relevant to the race, and that much of the polling data is unreliable given the amount of people who do not yet know about each candidate. Labeling certain candidates as frontrunner’s escalates that candidates voice, and therefore increases the appeal of that candidate to the American public.
Lets just hope that the electorate are able to see through this corporately manufactured smoke screen (made in China I am sure) and focus on each candidate as an individual, and as a policy maker. It will be difficult given the influence the media has over the American people.