The Militia Act of 1792:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Thanks to Ezra Klein, Joe Conason and others for pointing this out!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Militia Act of 1792
Posted by Christopher M. Hughes, MD at 10:43 AM 0 comments
Labels: Individual Mandate
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Healthcare Compensation Still Strong
Healthcare Compensation Still Strong
New survey results from Executive Compensation 2010/2011 show that hospital CEOs earn an average $353,900 per year, (CEOs at not-for-profits average $225,400; at home care facilities, $282,300 a year; at physician clinics, $254,000; at behavioral health facilities, $241,300; and at long-term care facilities, $235,700.
These executives, physicians, and skilled clinicians undoubtedly would make a strong argument that they deserve the salaries they're getting. Besides, it's what the market is paying, and it's hard to blame anyone for earning as much money as he or she can.
However, let's put this in perspective. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 4.1% of U.S. households had an income between $150,000 and $200,000 in 2009, and 3.9% had an income of $200,000 or higher, while 11% of U.S. households earn between $15,000 to $25,000 annually. The median household income in the U.S. that year was $50,221.
I threw this in the 'contrarian economics' category because it has the 2009 income data. Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Christopher M. Hughes, MD at 9:55 AM 0 comments
Labels: Administrative Costs, Contrarian Economics
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Why We Fight
Forgive the World War II reference, but as I write this, I am reminded of the estimate of 45,000 deaths attributable to lack of access to health care, not even counting the countless maimings, wounding, and psychological hurt inflicted on the uninsured and under-insured in America, it seems appropriate. It is not an existential threat to our democracy, but this is, make no mistake, a battle for the soul of our country. As Michael Moore put it in “Sicko,” is America about “we”or “me?”
As physicians, we are obliged to be about “we.” In the Charter on Medical Professionalism, we are enjoined to seek social justice in the delivery of medical care, to be good stewards of our health care resources. Specifically, physicians “should work actively to eliminate discrimination in health care, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, or any other social category.”
We are also our patients fiercest advocates, and that includes those who can afford to see us and those who cannot. We all have our favorite collection of horror stories of the American healthcare system leaving individuals to fend for themselves with no hope of accessing the system until it is too late. Part of my anecdote collection is here, and I always trot it out when I am told a third hand anecdote about how bad health care is in “other countries.” For most Americans, health care is pretty good, but for the uninsured or under-insured, America is a third world country: access to care is completely dependent upon ability to pay.
Remember that, only in America of all advanced nations, have we answered “No!” (or perhaps “Hell, no!” from some) to the question of whether, as Uwe Reinhardt has put it, “As a matter of national policy, and to the extent that a nation's health system can make it possible, should the child of a poor American family have the same chance of avoiding preventable illness or of being cured from a given illness as does the child of a rich American family?” Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan argues that lack of access to health care is a fundamental road block to equality of opportunity in America, that placing the additional hurdle of untreated illness on a large segment of society is inherently unjust.
It has been pointed out that Americans are singular in the world in our Christian religiosity, but this religiosity is characterized by public policy consistent with ruthless Social Darwinism in many respects, while Europeans are pointedly irreligious, yet have structured their societies to function along a very progressive commitment to social safety nets, social justice and equality of opportunity, as well as a very Teddy-Rooseveltian distrust of great accumulated wealth.
I, as do many, take pride in my religion's unwavering commitment to Social Justice, Glenn Beck's disapproval notwithstanding. It is what keeps me a Catholic, and I am sure it is what keeps many in other traditional churches. It is, in fact, fundamental to every religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and more, and most non-religious philosophical paradigms as well. I am well aware, however, that the most influential book outside of the Bible in America, “Atlas Shrugged,” and its author, vehemently reject all such sentiment as counter-productive nonsense. And this book is widely commended by conservatives who consider themselves deeply religious Christians.
So, this basic ethical commitment to fairness, tending to the sick, the poor, the treating of others as we would wish treated, is pervasive among every population in the world, except for those who follow the Ayn Rand school. I cannot fathom this, as I think the cognitive dissonance of holding both Christianity and Rand dear would be incapacitating, but there it is, and it is rampant in our political and clerical classes.
The argument is frequently made to me that their Christianity only allows for individual charity, not state sponsored programs. That is nice in theory, but as even Mike Huckabee acknowledged:
And, frankly, the milk of human kindness has not flowed freely enough anywhere in the world to provide health care to a population, and I don't expect it to do so now. I don't think giving it another century to work itself out is a reasonable strategy.“If there are a certain number of kids from single-parent homes who aren’t going to school and don’t have health care, you can say that’s not government’s job,” Huckabee told me. “Well, sweet and fine! But you know what? If the kid’s sitting outside the door of the hospital choking with asthma, do I sit there and say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I don’t think, philosophically, government should get involved’? I’d much rather the kid get help than I sit around and say I’m so pure in my ideology.”
We fight because of the fundamental unfairness of the system to so many. One in six Americans is uninsured, another one in six under-insured; the deaths, injuries, bankruptcies, anguish and degradation of basic human dignity are why we fight. The America I grew up in was working on being better than this. The Great Society programs of LBJ took us a long way forward, and we have been painfully stuck in place until the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act in 2010.
PPACA represents our rejection of treating so many of our brothers and sisters and our patients as lesser human beings, less deserving, less worthy of our help. Let's keep fighting for “We the People,” and fight those only concerned about “me.” Ayn Rand and Glen Beck notwithstanding.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Christopher M. Hughes, MD at 6:50 AM 3 comments
Labels: Ayn Rand, Moral Arguments, Social Justice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)