WHY WE ARE HERE [and] THE ONLY ONE

WHY WE ARE HERE

In part of our previous post, the "Getting Boulderised" section, we may have mislead you to think we didn't like living in Fairbanks, or that it is an inherently regressive, dark place.

This is definitely not the case, so here are a few reasons why the staff of the Alaska Progressive Review has chosen to remain here, continuing the furthest north stand for peace and justice!

First and foremost, is the presence of the University of Alaska, main campus, situated on the western edge of Fairbanks. Billed as "America's Arctic University", it has over 13,000 students, and most of the common degree programs one associates with a major public university.

The large student body and associated researchers, professors, and support staff, along with former students, does exert a significant, and beneficial impact on the Fairbanks North Star Borough (boroughs are what counties are called in Alaska, and the FNSB is home to about 100,000 people, while the city of Fairbanks has about 45,000).




UAF is one of the leaders in Arctic environmental, biological, and cultural research globally. For example, many of the authors of the definitive scientific assessment of global warming, the U.N. sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), http://www.ipcc.ch/,
are researchers at UAF. Atmospheric scientists, climatologists, statisticians, glaciologists, biologists, and many others.




Your lead author is privileged to be studying there, and finishing my M.S. in natural resources management/forestry, conducting research into global warming's effects on future Alaska wildfire seasons.

Like many public universities, UAF often sponsors thought-provoking and conscience-raising events:

Presentation and Book-signing:
The New GI Resistance
Dahr Jamail
Sunday November 15
Schaible Auditorium (Bunnell Bldg, UAF) 7PM - book signing to follow

Independent journalist and author of "The Will to Resist," DahrJamail, will share stories from the growing number of active dutymilitary personnel who are refusing to participate in what they see ascriminal wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. These GI's arefinding comfort in the discomfort of truth despite the reprimand theyface for their dissent, and many come away from their armed servicededicated to working toward a rapid and responsible end to the occupations.

Jamail's Alaska tour is being sponsored by the UA Foundation Gene Sharp Lectureship on Nonviolent Action and he will be visiting all three UA campuses. Jamail's visit to Fairbanks is being hosted by the UAFairbanks Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Alaska Peace Center, North Star Veterans for Peace, and the Unitarian UniversalistFellowship of Fairbanks. For more information about Dahr and to seehis work, please visit http://dahrjamailiraq.com.


And, we even do have a local peace group, as mentioned above, the Fairbanks Coalition For Peace and Justice, https://lists.uaf.edu:8025/mailman/listinfo/fairbankspeace-l

I have helped staff their booth at our annual Tanana Valley Fair each August, and participated with them in candle-light vigils on the first and second anniversaries of the illegal, and immoral invasion and occupation of the sovereign country of Iraq, a country not threatening this one. Which has cost the lives of at least a million innocent civilians, there, and over 5000 U.S. soldiers, and destroyed their country.

That UAF would sponsor, much less allow, Dahr Jamail, to give his presentation on-campus speaks highly for it, and is the major reason why the A.P.R. remains in Fairbanks!

And although our progressive community is more widely dispersed, and smaller, than places like Missoula, MT, or Boulder, CO, it is present, under the radar, so to speak, of the dominant oil industry/military power centres here. One significant sign that the Fairbanks progressive community is slowly growing and increasing in prominence, is that a new cooperative natural food market, is well on it's way to fruition. http://fairbankscoop.wordpress.com/

This will be a welcome addition to Fairbanks, as natural food stores, wherever they are, serve as a nucleus for progressive culture, in addition to providing healthy, sustainable foods and other products.




Winters are cold here, there is no doubt about that. Our average high and low at the Fairbanks airport in January is -19C/-28C (-2F/-18F). And the sun only nudges 2 degrees above the horizon for 3 1/2 hours in the few weeks around the winter solstice. Producing beautiful lighting effects, on our snow-draped boreal forest landscape.

The long winters, sometimes cold (but not always, there are warm spells where temperatures warm up to near freezing between our periods of deep cold), produce a snowpack that gives us some of the best conditions in the World for nordic skiing. A pursuit we at A.P.R. avidly enjoy, and pursue every chance we get.

Nordic skiing trails were developed around the UAF campus as early as the 1930s. There are about 25 km of trails there now, groomed and set for both skating and classic skiing. Across town, just to the east of downtown Fairbanks, lies Birch Hill, the larger nordic skiing centre. It has a world-class set of about 35 Km of trails, and races at different times of the season attract athletes from all over the World. This is probably the second main reason why we like living here!

Today in fact, was the first day I had off, when our snowpack was deep enough for good conditions at Birch Hill.

So, I had to get out and skate about 25 Km, and then switch to my classic skis (the snow was a little stiff today, so the glide for skating was not as good as it could be, at the mild temperature of only -8C), for another 18 Km or so.

The trails at Birch hill wind their way predominantly through stands of birch trees, intermixed with white spruce, and black spruce on the permafrosty north-facing aspects. Some days I'll skate or classic ski 50-70 Km here, when the conditions are supportive.

We have nice, locally-dominated races as well. In late March every year, a 50 Km race called the Sonot Kkhazoot, starts downtown on the Chena River. We all go 10 Km up the Chena to a large hill, ascend that, then ski most of the trails in the Birch Hill nordic ski area, then descend back to the Chena, and slide back in to the start.




There are usually several hundred racers each year for this, and I've done it three times, getting a little faster each time (I'm still taking lessons, and probably will be for the rest of my life!). And since we have much longer days in March, and usually, warmer temperatures, it is a great time to be out enjoying a fast ski with hundreds of others!

And, in summer, all of the trails by UAF and at Birch Hill, serve as running and hiking trails, which we liberally take advantage of. We also have a very strong and large running community in Fairbanks, www.runningclubnorth.org, which we interact with quite a bit, running in many of the races, and in our annual Equinox marathon.

So, we do have some progressive culture in Fairbanks, with more on the way, along with an environment that is conducive for outdoor recreation of almost every conceivable sort. To say nothing of being within a few hours of all the other wilderness activities Alaska has to offer.

THE ONLY ONE

As you may already know, the U.S. is the only one of the 25 industrialised nations without some kind of national health coverage. A.P.R.'s take on the Obama administrations attempt at "health care reform" can best be summed up by this article, from the Counterpunch web-site. http://counterpunch.org/demoro11102009.html

Another Big Bail Out
The Truth About the House Health Care Bill
By ROSE ANN DeMORO

Of all the torrent of words that followed House passage of its version of healthcare reform legislation in early November, perhaps the most misleading were those comparing it to enactment of Social Security and Medicare.

Sadly no. Social Security and Medicare were both federal programs guaranteeing respectively pensions and health care for our nation's seniors, paid for and administered by the federal government with public oversight and public accountability.

While the House bill, and its Senate counterpart, do have several important reform components, along with many weaknesses, neither one comes close to the guarantees and the expansion of health and income security provided by Social Security or Medicare.

By contrast, if the central premise of Social Security and Medicare was a federal guarantee of health and retirement security, the main provision of the bills in Congress is a mandate requiring most Americans without health coverage to buy private insurance.

In other words, the principle beneficiary is not Americans' health, but the bottom line of the insurance industry which stands to harvest tens of billions of dollars in additional profits ordered by the federal government. Or as Rep. Eric Massa of New York put it on the eve of the House vote, "at the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period."

Further, while Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important reforms in American history, were both significant expansions of public protection, the House bill actually reduces public protection for a substantial segment of the population, women, with its unconscionable rollback of reproductive rights in the anti-abortion amendment.

Why then so much cheerleading by many progressive and liberal legislators, columnists, and activists?

* Passage of the bill was a clear defeat for the Republican opposition and those on the right who have so mischaracterized what boils down to modest reform that looks more like a "robust" version of the Medicare prescription drug benefit or the state children's health initiative.
* Proponents of the bill, starting in the White House and running through the Democratic leadership in Congress, with the assistance and support of many in labor and liberal and progressive constituency groups, have so lowered expectations on healthcare reform that with eyes wide shut they can call this a sweeping victory.

To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill that bear note. Among the most important are:

Expansion of Medicaid to millions of low income adults.
Reduction of the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug coverage law making drug costs more affordable for many seniors.

Increased federal funding for community health programs, such as home visits for nurses and social workers to low income families.

Additional regulation of the insurance industry, mostly targeted to people who are presently without coverage rather than those with existing health plans. Those include limits on insurers ability to drop sick enrollees or refuse to sell policies to people with prior health problems, extending the age that dependent children can be on their parents' plan, and repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurers.

Extending the same health benefit tax benefits available to married couples to domestic partners.

A progressive tax to help pay the bill through a surcharge on wealthy earners and required contributions from large employers, in sharp contrast with the Senate proposal to tax health benefits on misnamed "Cadillac" plans, comprehensive coverage available to many union members, for example.

But the acclaim now flowing from some quarters would have been better deserved had these provisions been enacted on their own -- not accompanied by the many shortcomings of the legislation. To cite a few:

Healthcare will remain unaffordable for many Americans. The bill does not do nearly enough to control skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital costs. Indeed, by various estimates, with no effective limits on the insurance industry's price gouging, out-of-pocket costs for premiums, deductibles and other fees by some estimates with eat up from 15 to 19 percent of family incomes by several accounts.

No meaningful reform of the rampant insurance denials of medical treatment the insurers don't want to pay for.

Little assistance for individuals and families who presently have employer-sponsored health plans and face frequent erosion of their coverage and health security. No help for the healthcare cost-shifting from employers to employees.

Minimal expansion of consumer choice. The much debated public plan option will be available only to about 2 percent of people under age 65, mostly those now not covered who buy insurance on their own (it may or may not be expanded in 2015). Further, no additional plan options for those in the many markets dominated by one or two private plans, and no additional choice of doctor or hospital within existing plans.

The new limits on abortion extended to poor women.

Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry.

Don't be misled by the howling from insurance industry which has been spending some $1.4 million a day to steer the direction of legislation. They would have preferred the status quo, but will be more than happy to count the increased revenues coming their way.

As Rep. Dennis Kucinich said on the House floor, "we cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."

While some people will have improved access, the final accounting will be an even firmer private insurance grip on our healthcare system, with the U.S. remaining the only industrialized nation which barters our health for private profit.

Months ago, the Obama administration pre-determined this outcome by ruling out the most comprehensive, most cost effective, most humane reform, single payer, or an expanded and improved Medicare for all. Single payer proponents were shut out of White House forums, blocked from most hearings in the Senate, and single payer amendments stripped from the final House bill. Yet, through grassroots pressure, single-payer advocates forced consideration by the House of an improved Medicare for all until the very end.

But nurses and other single payer proponents who have heroically fought for this reform for years will continue the campaign, next in the Senate, where single payer amendments are expected to be introduced. The scene will also shift to state capitols, where vibrant single payer movements remain active and will escalate.

Proponents of comprehensive reform will never be silent, and never stop working for the real change we most desperately need.

Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the California Nurses Association.

I think everyone knows someone with health care horror stories. My brother Greg in San Diego had a bad surfing accident in 2006, when his surfboard shot up out of the water from a large wave. As it came down, and he came up from the water, the skeg sliced open the side of his head, severing his temporal artery. He would have bled to death, but fortunately, lifeguards were nearby, and were able to keep direct pressure on the wound until paramedics arrived.

His whole ordeal, the ambulance ride, vascular surgery, etc.. cost over $16,000. The charges on his bill were incredible for things like the pain-killers, etc. He doesn't have health insurance. It seems they charge more to people without insurance! Now he has to pay an inflated amount monthly for this unfortunate accident, for many years.

Back when I was 25, in February, 1990, and still learning to alpine ski, I had my first of five near-death experiences, on beautiful Mt. Hood here, near Portland OR.

Whilst skiing at the Mt. Hood Meadows ski area on a day where the snow was very icy, I got out of control and flew off a ledge, hitting a tree in mid-air, and descending through the trees 10-15 metres. Unconscious for a few hours, my first memory returning was laying ensconced in blankets on a sled, while the ski patrol peered down at me. Had some other skiers not heard my weak moaning emanating from a grove of mountain hemlocks beneath a ledge, and investigated, I surely would have froze overnight. This was followed by a 150 Km ambulance ride, x-rays and consultations with a plastic surgeon to plan the fix of my caved-in eye socket around the left eye, and then an arduous five-hour operation, whereby tantalum metal plates were used to re-shape the orbital socket (which also saved the vision in that eye, it had been made blurry by the accident).

Remember, this was in 1990. The total for all this, the ambulance ride, emergency room exam, plastic surgeon consultations, and the operation/hospital stay was $13,000. Of which, I only had to pay my Blue Cross calendar-year deductible of $250.00. Because they covered emergencies fully, at that time. Now, in 1990, federal salaries, and probably most private-sector salaries, were about 1/2 to 2/3 what they are now.

What do you think would be the total for this event, if it happened today? I guarantee you it would be at least 6 to 8 times what it cost in 1990. Even though wages generally have not even doubled since then. So you can imagine the plight of people without any health insurance coverage, or those who have serious diseases like cancer or need organ transplants, that insurance won't fully (or at all) cover. Medical bills like these are the major reason for personal bankruptcy in the U.S.

Is it really ethical, and healthy for us as a nation, to require health care to be a for-profit concern? What do you think? If not, join with progressive movements to press for single-payer health coverage for all, like in all the other industrialised nations.