February, 14, 2011
To the Editor:
Given that the number of people exonerated from death row is now 140 (fourteen of which, alone, have been proven innocent due to DNA testing), Carlo Leone's and Bob Kolenberg's conditional support for the death penalty ("27th District: Special election candidates debate in Darien", February 10, 2011), is becoming more untenable all the time.
As of last March, New Mexico (following New York and New Jersey) became the third state in two years to abolish the death penalty, bringing the total remaining that still apply capital punishment down to thirty-five. Aside from the realities that capital punishment is expensive, cruel and does little to deter the crimes that currently invoke it, New Jersey's own backing of abolishment is especially instructive for Connecticut, as the Garden State's system of capital punishment is virtually identical to our own--with the exception that no one in New Jersey ever volunteered to be executed (New Jersey has executed no one in the modern era).
New Jersey's decision resulted from wide recognition, both on the part of the petitioning public and Assemblymen Wilfredo Caraballo (D) and Christopher Bateman (R) that the death penalty fails to provide closure to families and is prone to arbitrary decisions, leading to racial and geographical disparities.
Kirk Bloodsworth stated it more plainly before a Fairfield audience last month, while recounting his traumatic experiences in prison as the first death row inmate to be freed by DNA evidence: “I work with people to try and abolish the death penalty because of one fact: We could execute an innocent person. We have a death row population of 3,500 and a prison population of 2.5 million. The risk is too great for error."
Rolf Maurer
Candidate for Connecticut State Senate (District 27)
Connecticut Green Party
Monday, February 21, 2011
Response To Himes' Defense of Health Care Reform
submitted to The Advocate, February 3, 2011
The true "theater" Congressman Himes should have cited regarding Republican opposition to health care reform (Himes: Vote on health care law repeal is 'political theater', 1/16/11) is the myth perpetuated by both parties that health care in the United States is inconceivable without serving the needs of for-profit insurance, first--an industry whose own health depends on actively denying it to customers.
Why isn't Washington talking about addressing the issue on terms dictatd by something more civilized, like shared human need? It can't be because the public wouldn't back that priority. Consistently, CBS, Yahoo! And New York Times polls have shown 60 percent public support for a single-payer system. Nor can it be because the idea is too absurd to take seriously, otherwise why did Senator Baucus (D-MT) have members of Single Payer Action and Physicians for a National Health Program arrested for demanding that such an option be considered by his reform committee?
Replacing the privatized model would reduce expenses that currently comprise about 17 percent of the GDP, while also serving everyone (regardless of income or conditions) with more money spent directly on care, as the costly bureaucracy and redundancy defining privately-mediated health care would be vastly reduced.
The concern that people should be able to keep insurance they are "happy with" under a new program represents a false choice. Would one like the option of breathing consistently clean over occasionally polluted air? Like fire protection, everyone needs health care.
That's not to say we don't need insurance. Coverage, however, for property damage does not validate coverage for one's health, because, unlike a house or car, no one has a choice of what body she resides in, nor the ability to switch from one to another in the event of poor health.
Another common partisan complaint is resentment over having to pay for others' medical needs--particularly if they don't take care of themselves. Yet, even private insurance cannot issue payouts to anyone without drawing from the collective contribu-tions of all plan participants. Like publicly-funded single-payer schemes popular in Europe and elsewhere, insurance pools risk and costs across all of its members, making it, at heart, a dysfunctional version of much-dreaded socialized medicine.
The sensible recommendation about taking responsibility for one's health is better served with universal care, because its lower cost would encourage more people to visit doctors on a preventative basis, rather than waiting until a problem becomes acute--often in costly emergency room situations.
Co-signed by over 80 members of Congress, John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich's "United States National Health Care Act" (H.R. 676) works by expanding Medicare coverage for all. But why wait for Washington? Like the Vermont legislature, there's no reason Hartford cannot investigate implementing a state-level version of its own.
Rolf Maurer
Candidate for State Senate
CT Green Party
The true "theater" Congressman Himes should have cited regarding Republican opposition to health care reform (Himes: Vote on health care law repeal is 'political theater', 1/16/11) is the myth perpetuated by both parties that health care in the United States is inconceivable without serving the needs of for-profit insurance, first--an industry whose own health depends on actively denying it to customers.
Why isn't Washington talking about addressing the issue on terms dictatd by something more civilized, like shared human need? It can't be because the public wouldn't back that priority. Consistently, CBS, Yahoo! And New York Times polls have shown 60 percent public support for a single-payer system. Nor can it be because the idea is too absurd to take seriously, otherwise why did Senator Baucus (D-MT) have members of Single Payer Action and Physicians for a National Health Program arrested for demanding that such an option be considered by his reform committee?
Replacing the privatized model would reduce expenses that currently comprise about 17 percent of the GDP, while also serving everyone (regardless of income or conditions) with more money spent directly on care, as the costly bureaucracy and redundancy defining privately-mediated health care would be vastly reduced.
The concern that people should be able to keep insurance they are "happy with" under a new program represents a false choice. Would one like the option of breathing consistently clean over occasionally polluted air? Like fire protection, everyone needs health care.
That's not to say we don't need insurance. Coverage, however, for property damage does not validate coverage for one's health, because, unlike a house or car, no one has a choice of what body she resides in, nor the ability to switch from one to another in the event of poor health.
Another common partisan complaint is resentment over having to pay for others' medical needs--particularly if they don't take care of themselves. Yet, even private insurance cannot issue payouts to anyone without drawing from the collective contribu-tions of all plan participants. Like publicly-funded single-payer schemes popular in Europe and elsewhere, insurance pools risk and costs across all of its members, making it, at heart, a dysfunctional version of much-dreaded socialized medicine.
The sensible recommendation about taking responsibility for one's health is better served with universal care, because its lower cost would encourage more people to visit doctors on a preventative basis, rather than waiting until a problem becomes acute--often in costly emergency room situations.
Co-signed by over 80 members of Congress, John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich's "United States National Health Care Act" (H.R. 676) works by expanding Medicare coverage for all. But why wait for Washington? Like the Vermont legislature, there's no reason Hartford cannot investigate implementing a state-level version of its own.
Rolf Maurer
Candidate for State Senate
CT Green Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
