Tourism Good - House arrest Not Good

Of course, this is just another bizarre twist to the life saga of Aung San Suu Kyi. It was something like three days before she was supposed to be released from her first house arrest, an American swam into her compound and she gave him refuge. In doing so it compromised her detainee status and she was tried for assisting the American. As a result she cannot take place in the upcoming elections and will be under house arrest for another 18 months. One can only wonder what will derail her next attempt at freedom?

At any rate, it brings to mind a recent film festival I attended. I wanted to review the films, but, with so much turmoil over issues originating in DC, how can one simply look the other way? I attended a film called "Burma VJ." It was a look at the inside of the struggle of the Burmese people. The film was made covertly by people they call journalists with small video devices. These digital images are then submitted to a somewhat central processing person and assembled to tell a story. I will review this film and its dire consecquences along with the many, many others I was priviledged to view sometime in the next week.

Link to film (click here)

I don't mean to diminish the importance of the debate (then again maybe I do) regarding national health reform, but, 'for real' already. Americans have so much and to squabble over much needed reform seems a bit trivial to me. It's like ???? What's so hard to get your mind around? The USA health care delivery lacks access and equity. What is the big deal already?

Let's get it done.

I think when Americans show their 'idiot' side as they are with the issues 'created' that are obvious lies and defamation the people in countries like Burma lose that glimmer of hope for their own causes. Their need for recognition are far from trivial and health care insurance reform is so obvious how are they supposed to think about their circumstances and the potential for hope? It's all a little silly to me. Corrupt politics is shameful and no one can call it anything else in either country.


Supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi outside the Burmese embassy in Manila: she is said to believe that visitors might help draw attention to oppression Photo: AFP/GETTY

...When last quoted on the subject, in a BBC interview in 2002, she said: "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists." She has since been silent on the issue.
The news of her change of stance has been welcomed by the travel trade but left campaigners against the military regime unmoved....

I know this is going to sound ludicrous, but, it could be worse.

The long and short of most Arab nations is the 'rights of women' are always on the chopping block. In Saudi Arabia, women driving is a hot topic and in Afghanistan allowing a woman to withhold herself from her husband is now part of the electorate venue. The entire 'status of women' in countries outside First World countries falls into doubt and disapproval by those women that enjoy freedom and autonomy, even within a marriage.

During the days of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan knew its first Bank for Women. Only women could belong to the bank. They could invest, make loans, etc. That was a big deal and a lot of men hated her for it. So while this 'sort' of law seems a bit outrageous it is not nearly as bad as it could be.

I can also imagine Afghan women forming 'women's shelters' where they receive all the sustanence they need while seeking divorce and/or counceling with their spouse. Allowing the law is a method of idenfying the dysfunction and it is a start, not an end to a woman's rights campaign.

Afghanistan (click title to entry - thank you) has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review....

...In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN....

...Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.
"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."
The latest opinion poll by US democracy group the International Republican Institute showed that although Karzai was up 13 points to 44% since the last survey in May, his closest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, had soared from 7% to 26%....

"Stupid is as stupid does." I am waiting for some remorseful greeting by those so outraged, but, it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

The entire idea that lies and defamation can actually exist in American discourse regarding health care is completely astounding to me. Perhaps I don't recall the debate of 1994 very well. It is hard for me to believe a health insurance plan that is paid for is causing Americans to leave their senses and join the ranks of 'the angry.' It's quite a show.

I also resent the statements that 'It is the "W"rong time for this bill." Or. "It is because of the economy." Those are both hideous statements. The bill is necessary and is needed now. The idea that a health insurance reform bill that takes care of its own costs will be reflected in a poor economic outcome is ridiculous. This bill will create more jobs while paying for itself. The entire oppostion to this bill is mute, they need to apologize to a nation waiting for relief from a broken health care system.

...Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor)....

I heard Ms. McCaughey speak last week. I was NOT impressed. She takes words out of context, changes their meaning and sells it as a government that is going to harm its people. I find her a mild distraction, but, I guess to people unable to discern their own minds and are willing to be lied to and allow slander of their President for the sake of bloodsport, then maybe she is somebody. But, she is NOT all that learned about what the true context of the bill is. Not at all. I just might review the whole mess right here.

To be more specific, she was stating that people were not going to be able to keep their current health care. What "I believe" is happening within the bill is to help 'standardize' what is considered a deductible, what is considered 'rejectionable' and what any health insurance company can do or not do to 'trim their costs.' Due to that reality there is going to be some change in any health insurance company.

The majors (click here) will have to come in line with what is 'defined' as acceptable health care. Those definitions are required in any bill and especially in a health care bill and it is those definitions that will help standardize not only 'the language' of health care, but, the way it is viewed from a legal stand point as well. In other words, 'basic wellness' will be defined for every member of the American family, from birth to death. That does not exist now.

So, when a 65 year old woman walks into a physicians office there will be a list of 'standards' that have to be met to standardize that woman's care. In doing so, there is automatically a 'wellness model' invoked which will no doubt include a mammogram screening, etc. If the woman is diabetic then there will be a 'diabetic model' to add to that. If she has other (dare I use the word) co-morbidities and there will be 'models of care' for those issues, too.

So, Ms. McCaughey is right, but, also very, very wrong and she is deliberately (that word was deliberately) adding to the apprehension of the electorate to 'stir the pot' as she did before. And she is getting plenty money for what she does.

But, to clarify. She is right in that no health care insurance will be exactly the same as they are today, they will be better. The care within the health insurance reform bill standardizes the care Americans get and there is a very good reason for that. The more 'routine' care is administered the more of a knowledge base is developed about the populous of the USA. There won't be any more guess work at the CDC, but, more than that; the care Americans will get will not allow (do I dare use this word) 'deviants' to be tolerated as they go undetected.

We all know that early detection and a health lifestyle adds years, if not decades, to an American's life. Why risk that happening no matter whom walks into a physicians office? Wife's won't have to nag their husbands to get their 'annuals' done anymore, routine tests will be recommended and followed up by MDs and nurses.

Today, there is little advocacy for wellness 'routines' in an American's life. The 'recommendations' are to taken seriously when an MD states, it is time for a mammogram. Those issues will be encouraged to the point of enforceable with phone calls when they go neglected. Why? Because as Americans we sincerely care about each other. Because early detection and treatment for disease has not only the best outcomes, but, the cost is far less.

So, in the long run, when Americans are exposed to good quality preventative insurance facilitated care accompanied by a good quality of life, including a healthy food supply, there is every reason to believe the 'impact' on our health care dollar will be less and less.

The point President Obama makes is that if neglected yet again this time, the quality of American's lives will suffer as health care becomes too expensive and more and more fall outside the 'ability' to pay for health care. More people will be sicker and more will die.

So, while some people such as Ms. McCaughey can 'buffalo' the American people with estranging statements about changes to their policies, she is "W"rong in general. She is exampling her understanding according to Merriam-Webster and NOT the context in which the words were written. Shame on her.