Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Part II of II
Continued from last week
ne of the keys to the success of the WHO plan is this: What goes for "profit" in the private sector (the difference between income and expense), in the WHO scheme is retained and re-invested in the WHO insurance fund. The resulting growth of that fund helps explain how the premium contributions by participants and WHO can remain as low as they are while the plan remains in balance — in every country in the world! Thus a workable model already exists, a solidarity plan for health for all, and it is affordable and financially solvent. WHO has simply designed a better mouse trap.
So here’s my proposal for America: Let’s build on the WHO plan, taking into account the experience of those whom President Ike Eisenhower called "our socialist friends" in Europe and other countries.
Why the xenophobia? Let’s put to work what actually works. Let’s adopt a basic, standardized American National Health Plan, with room for a central gatekeeper as well as outside players — provided they play by our rules. In other words, if private HMOs or insurance companies want to participate on our exact standard terms (they can always offer supplementals), they may do so. Otherwise, stay out of the game.
u u u
The standardization of claim forms and procedures in the WHO plan, applied to a national health for all plan, will offer to providers, insurers and participants alike an enormous saving in administrative costs, analogous to the savings under a single-payer system. A standard plan in business and industry will help America be more competitive internationally. It’s amazing how many of our captains of industry have not yet woken up to this seemingly obvious economic fact of life.
More importantly still, the adoption of a WHO-style national health plan will bring up the level of health indicators in America to those of our "socialist" friends. There’s nothing un-American about it. As Malcolm X used to say, "If somebody is doing better than you are, he’s probably doing something you ain’t."
Of course, one reason the WHO plan works so well is that all its participants are, or have been, employed, and have, or will have, pensions for life. What do we do in a national health plan about people who are too poor to pay adequate premiums?
For starters, we could stop outsourcing jobs, and we could rebuild the real economy of America. But more specifically, we have a range of practical solutions, including more equitable reform of the existing IRS tax code. Also, if we fully fund a tax-supported, dedicated National Health Fund, analogous to what the WHO already does, and if we invest wisely and responsibly, as WHO does, then the growth of that fund will help offset expenses, ensure sustainability, and help cover poor persons who could otherwise only be covered by additional taxes and/or emergency (ER) services in their local hospital (as President Bush proposes for children).
One point of distinction between handling and investing money in WHO and doing so in the supposedly efficient U.S. private sector is that in WHO we have virtually never had a case of fraud or mismanagement in the management of the WHO investment account. It’s interesting to speculate why the difference.
u u u
The single, most obvious quick fix needed to set up the American national plan for health for all, is to end the current mistaken, senseless and costly war and occupation of Iraq — a country that never attacked or even threatened us. (Let’s stay out of Iran while we’re at it.)
As a former tank and artillery soldier I can tell you this: We marched in; we can march out. How about the Iraqis? As Albert Camus would have foretold, they will grow weary of the killing. Like the plague, it will burn itself out.
The damage was done when we went in. Now we must remove ourselves as the target and incentive for violence. Think of the savings: We can invest those some 200 billions of U.S. dollars a year in setting up the American national health fund, and in supporting child education and other rights and benefits of the American people. Now there’s a national plan we can truly afford!
Is all of this unlikely, pie-in-the-sky, dreamland stuff in America? Not necessarily. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a proposed model plan in many respects reflecting the WHO plan, which actually exists and works, as described above. Others propose an expanded Medicare-style single-payer system, again with many features already working in the WHO plan. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
The main point is that a national health for all plan is not un-American, unfeasible or unaffordable. Why not give it a try? All it takes is brains, effort, humility, a sense of social responsibility and compassion, and above all, political will. This last attribute, political will, is a criterion to think about when voting in the next presidential and legislative elections in November 2008.
Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director of the cabinet and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.
Part II of II
Continued from last week
One of the keys to the success of the WHO plan is this: What goes for "profit" in the private sector (the difference between income and expense), in the WHO scheme is retained and re-invested in the WHO insurance fund. The resulting growth of that fund helps explain how the premium contributions by participants and WHO can remain as low as they are while the plan remains in balance — in every country in the world! Thus a workable model already exists, a solidarity plan for health for all, and it is affordable and financially solvent. WHO has simply designed a better mouse trap.
So here’s my proposal for America: Let’s build on the WHO plan, taking into account the experience of those whom President Ike Eisenhower called "our socialist friends" in Europe and other countries.
Why the xenophobia? Let’s put to work what actually works. Let’s adopt a basic, standardized American National Health Plan, with room for a central gatekeeper as well as outside players — provided they play by our rules. In other words, if private HMOs or insurance companies want to participate on our exact standard terms (they can always offer supplementals), they may do so. Otherwise, stay out of the game.
u u u
The standardization of claim forms and procedures in the WHO plan, applied to a national health for all plan, will offer to providers, insurers and participants alike an enormous saving in administrative costs, analogous to the savings under a single-payer system. A standard plan in business and industry will help America be more competitive internationally. It’s amazing how many of our captains of industry have not yet woken up to this seemingly obvious economic fact of life.
More importantly still, the adoption of a WHO-style national health plan will bring up the level of health indicators in America to those of our "socialist" friends. There’s nothing un-American about it. As Malcolm X used to say, "If somebody is doing better than you are, he’s probably doing something you ain’t."
Of course, one reason the WHO plan works so well is that all its participants are, or have been, employed, and have, or will have, pensions for life. What do we do in a national health plan about people who are too poor to pay adequate premiums?
For starters, we could stop outsourcing jobs, and we could rebuild the real economy of America. But more specifically, we have a range of practical solutions, including more equitable reform of the existing IRS tax code. Also, if we fully fund a tax-supported, dedicated National Health Fund, analogous to what the WHO already does, and if we invest wisely and responsibly, as WHO does, then the growth of that fund will help offset expenses, ensure sustainability, and help cover poor persons who could otherwise only be covered by additional taxes and/or emergency (ER) services in their local hospital (as President Bush proposes for children).
One point of distinction between handling and investing money in WHO and doing so in the supposedly efficient U.S. private sector is that in WHO we have virtually never had a case of fraud or mismanagement in the management of the WHO investment account. It’s interesting to speculate why the difference.
u u u
The single, most obvious quick fix needed to set up the American national plan for health for all, is to end the current mistaken, senseless and costly war and occupation of Iraq — a country that never attacked or even threatened us. (Let’s stay out of Iran while we’re at it.)
As a former tank and artillery soldier I can tell you this: We marched in; we can march out. How about the Iraqis? As Albert Camus would have foretold, they will grow weary of the killing. Like the plague, it will burn itself out.
The damage was done when we went in. Now we must remove ourselves as the target and incentive for violence. Think of the savings: We can invest those some 200 billions of U.S. dollars a year in setting up the American national health fund, and in supporting child education and other rights and benefits of the American people. Now there’s a national plan we can truly afford!
Is all of this unlikely, pie-in-the-sky, dreamland stuff in America? Not necessarily. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a proposed model plan in many respects reflecting the WHO plan, which actually exists and works, as described above. Others propose an expanded Medicare-style single-payer system, again with many features already working in the WHO plan. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
The main point is that a national health for all plan is not un-American, unfeasible or unaffordable. Why not give it a try? All it takes is brains, effort, humility, a sense of social responsibility and compassion, and above all, political will. This last attribute, political will, is a criterion to think about when voting in the next presidential and legislative elections in November 2008.
Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director of the cabinet and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.