(And I also posted here.)
1) Is anybody else out there as shocked over this story as I am, including the following...
Amnesty International may be best known to American audiences for bringing to light horror stories abroad such as the disappearance of political activists in Argentina or the abysmal conditions inside South African prisons under apartheid. But in a new report on pregnancy and childbirth care in the U.S., Amnesty details the maternal-health care crisis in this country as part of a systemic violation of women's rights.
The report, titled "Deadly Delivery," notes that the likelihood of a woman's dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times as great as in Greece, four times as great as in Germany and three times as great as in Spain. Every day in the U.S., more than two women die of pregnancy-related causes, with the maternal mortality ratio doubling from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006. (And as shocking as these figures are, Amnesty notes that the actual number of maternal deaths in the U.S. may be a lot higher, since there are no federal requirements to report these outcomes and since data collection at the state and local levels needs to be improved.) "In the U.S., we spend more than any country on health care, yet American women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries," says Nan Strauss, the report's co-author, who spent two years investigating the issue of maternal mortality worldwide. "We thought that was scandalous."
I very definitely agree. And without getting into particulars, which I am not at liberty to do, I will only say that it is critical for pregnant women to be mindful of their blood pressure. I know very well how important an issue that can be in the event that there are complications (all I'll say about that is that we ended up OK, but it was a real scare).
And while I don't have any kind of "smoking gun, cause and effect" numbers on this, it would stand to reason that emphasizing pre-natal care makes particular sense to try and reverse this over-20-year downward trend of an increased maternal mortality rate.
However, the forces of stupidity have marshaled themselves on this issue, as they have with so many others. Witness Jon Kyl of Arizona here…
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, cited statistics showing that nearly 60 percent of insurance plans sold on the individual market do not offer maternity care. "For the women in these plans, or who are attempting to get insurance, no amount of money can buy maternity care that they need."
For Ms. Stabenow, her speech on maternity care was a return to an issue that led to one of the more pointed exchanges during the Senate Finance Committee's recent debate over the health care legislation.
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said during the debate that he disagreed with the idea of requiring insurers to provide maternity care because it would raise costs for people who don't need or want the coverage. "I don't need maternity care," Mr. Kyl said. "And so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive."
Ms. Stabenow interjected: "I think your mom probably did." Mr. Kyl shot back, "Yeah, over 60 years ago my mom did."
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in her floor speech…said: "Only 14 states in America require insurance companies to cover maternity care. Imagine, in a country that puts family values first, only 14 states. That will change…"
So, as far as I'm concerned, file all of this under "you get what you pay for" (or, more precisely – and as Kyl, among others, would have it – what you don't pay for).
2) Somebody named Jay Richards over at the AEI blog inflicted the following (here)…
There's something to be said for economies of scale, infrastructure, and military might when it comes to humanitarian aid. But there's also something to be said for local knowledge, religious conviction, and on-the-ground experience.
But not all humanitarian aid programs work so well. In fact, the world's largest one doesn't work so well. The New York Times reports that according to the United Nations' own study, its World Food Program is having a terrible time in Somalia:
As much as half the food aid sent to Somalia is diverted from needy people to a web of corrupt contractors, radical Islamist militants and local United Nations staff members, according to a new Security Council report.
Well, I have a feeling that Richards, the Times and the Security Council should take a look at this…
The World Food Program is challenging a U.N. report that alleges as much as half of the WFP food destined for the needy in Somalia is being diverted to corrupt contractors and Islamist militants. WFP officials say there are a number of inaccuracies contained in the report.
In a statement e-mailed to VOA, a WFP official said the U.N. food agency would welcome an independent investigation into allegations that local WFP contractors and staff members are diverting food and selling them for profit, sometimes to al-Shabab, a radical Islamist movement that is believed to be proxy for al-Qaida in Somalia.
The food diversion allegations against the World Food Program first surfaced last year, prompting the United States to reduce its funding to the agency last year amid concerns that the aid might fall into the hands of extremists.
The WFP official says many of the issues raised in the U.N. Somalia Monitoring Group's report have already been addressed, while parts of the report contain inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims.
According to the World Food Program, the report, for example, alleges corruption inside the food agency by stating that last year it steered $200 million, or 80 percent of its transportation contracts, to only three Somali businessmen. The World Food Program says the three men received only $41.4 million, or 22 percent of the transportation contracts.
The story also tells us that, concerning 1,000 metric tons of food stolen at a supposedly staged incident in Mogadishu, "the looting incident was not staged and the local contractor subsequently replaced all of the missing food."
Besides, as far as I'm concerned, some pundit purporting to speak on behalf of this country has no right to lecture anyone else in the world about properly dispensing foreign aid, considering this item (from 2004)…
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (IPS) - Three U.S. senators have called on Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to account for 8.8 billion dollars entrusted to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq earlier this year but now gone missing.
In a letter Thursday, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Byron L Dorgan of North Dakota and Tom Harkin of Iowa, all opposition Democrats, demanded a "full, written account" of the money that was channeled to Iraqi ministries and authorities by the CPA, which was the governing body in the occupied country until Jun. 30.
The loss was uncovered in an audit by the CPA's inspector general. It has not yet been released publicly and was initially reported on the website of journalist and retired U.S. Army Col David Hackworth.
The CPA was terminated at the end of July to make way for an interim Iraqi government, which is in turn scheduled to be replaced by an elected body early in 2005.
"We are requesting a full, written account of the 8.8 billion dollars transferred earlier this year from the CPA to the Iraqi ministries, including the amount each ministry received and the way in which the ministry spent the money," said the letter.
(More of this utterly depressing history is detailed here.)
Here's a thought – Rummy could begin to pay back the dough from the book sales of his autobiography, and the remaining balance should be attached to any further income generated by his estate in perpetuity (as a taxpayer who was ripped off, that's an "economy of scale" that works for me).
3) And finally, here is some wailing and gnashing of teeth from The Moonie Times as another pillar of Bushco malfeasance falls to the ground, as it were…
The Obama administration promised increased transparency in government but has rolled back rules proposed by the Bush administration that expanded the financial disclosure statements required of labor unions and their leaders.
Since President Obama took office, the Labor Department has rescinded or delayed three sets of rules proposed by the George W. Bush administration that would have required unions and their leaders to more specifically detail their finances, according to a review of records by The Washington Times.
The rules were rolled back while the Obama administration was seeking more stringent regulation of corporate America, including banks, insurance companies, health care providers and publicly traded companies.
The proposed Bush rules would have required labor unions to identify from whom they were buying and selling assets, forced union leaders and employees to file more detailed conflict-of-interest forms, and required unions to reveal the finances of hundreds of so-called labor trusts - largely unregulated entities set up to provide benefits for members.
Former Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, one of the architects of the expanded Bush rules, said the Obama administration is "making a mockery of the regulations" and is giving "preferential treatment" to the unions.
The only "mockery" here is the eight-year battle waged by Mrs. Mitch McConnell (call her that and then watch her pitch a fit) as Labor Secretary against working men and women in this country, seeing as how those are the people she should have represented instead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their pals; as noted here (with much more on Puffy Chao here)…
While the new regulations could help union members deal with corruption, they appear to be intended to undermine a union's ability to act politically. This is particularly troubling in light of the spate of political attacks on workers and unions in recent years.
Forcing unions to report what percentage of staff time and total expenditures are made for political action and lobbying will make it easier to allege that unions which engage in vigorous efforts to elect pro-union candidates or support pro-worker initiatives have violated campaign finance restrictions.
Additionally, the breakdown of expenditures may result in more agency fee payers, those who choose to pay only that portion of dues used for collective bargaining purposes, demanding a larger share of their money back.
Memo to The Dragon Lady – elections have consequences.
