looks at Japan and Afghanistan. Strongly recommended.
Ed
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1111227.html
Will the Japanese Obama put pressure on Israel?
By Ben-Ami Shillony
Ben-Ami Shillony is an emeritus professor of East Asian studies at the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem
Haaretz: August 31, 2009
The immediate consequence of the opposition's sweeping victory in Japan's
elections yesterday will be psychological - it will create an atmosphere of
optimism that could strengthen the economy. Such optimism will be fleeting
if it is not followed by concrete results.
The victorious Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, has never before
governed in Japan. It is seeking to be perceived as a center-left party.
Hatoyama has declared that his government will raise child allowances,
expand welfare services and abolish highway tolls. He plans to fund these
programs by shutting down "wasteful" projects, such as unnecessary highways
and bridges.
These "wasteful" projects were designed to stimulate the Japanese economy,
and eliminating them will harm various sectors and slow the country's
recovery from recession.
The Democratic Party's plan to eliminate the employment of temporary
industry workers, which would benefit employees but hurt industry, is
expected to cause similar problems.
The new government will attempt to forge a more independent foreign policy,
involving closer ties with China and other Asian countries and more
independence from the United States.
Hatoyama has said he will end Japan's participation in anti-terrorism
efforts in Afghanistan; Japan was involved in refueling American ships in
the Indian Ocean.
Ending Japanese support for Western military operations in Afghanistan could
cause tension with the United States and reduce American support for Japan
in its confrontation with North Korea. It could also hurt U.S.-bound
exports, which are essential for the Japanese economy's recovery. Toyota
recently reported a 20 percent drop in worldwide car sales, while
Mitsubishi's car sales were down 45 percent.
Withdrawing from American guardianship could also change Japanese policy
toward Israel. Until now, Japan limited its support for the Palestinians to
aiding economic projects, in keeping with American requests. The Hatoyama
government is likely to take a more pro-Arab stance, such as by recognizing
Hamas and making tougher demands of Israel, such as calling for an end to
construction in the settlements. Such a position would be similar to the
line taken by some European governments, and will not necessarily lead to a
confrontation with the United States. The Obama administration may actually
be pleased.
This January, the Israeli ambassador in Tokyo, Nissim Ben-Shitrit,
participated in a Democratic Party convention. At the end of the convention,
he met with Hatoyama. The party's Web site stated that Hatoyama expressed
his deep concern over the Palestinian victims of Israel's Cast Lead
operation in the Gaza Strip, and added that he hoped Israel would change its
policies toward the Arab world, like American foreign policy had changed
with the election of Barack Obama.
Hatoyama called himself the Japanese Obama in his election campaign, and
said he would bring hoped-for change. When it comes to Israel, Obama and
Hatoyama may coordinate efforts in ways Israel hasn't expected.
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html?th&emc=th
Until Medical Bills Do Us Part
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NY Times Op-Ed: August 29, 2009
Critics fret that health care reform would undermine American family values,
not least by convening somber death panels to wheel away Grandma as if she
were Old Yeller.
But peel away the emotions and fearmongering, and in fact it is the existing
system that unnecessarily takes lives and breaks apart families.
My friend M. - you'll understand in a moment why she's terrified of my using
her name - had to make a searing decision a year ago. She was married to a
sweet, gentle man whom she loved, but who had become increasingly
absent-minded. Finally, he was diagnosed with early-onset dementia.
The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care
for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably
need to be institutionalized.
The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined
how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and
then added, out of the blue: "Maybe you should divorce."
"I was blown away," M. told me. But, she said, the hospital staff members
explained that they had seen it all before, many times. If M.'s husband
required long-term care, the costs would be catastrophic even for a
middle-class family with savings.
Eventually, after the expenses whittled away their combined assets, her
husband could go on Medicaid - but by then their children's nest egg would
be gone, along with her 401(k) plan. She would face a bleak retirement with
neither her husband nor her savings.
A complicating factor was that this was a second marriage. M.'s first
husband had died, leaving an inheritance that he had intended for their
children. She and her second husband had a prenuptial agreement, but that
would not protect her assets from his medical expenses.
The hospital told M. not to waste time in dissolving the marriage. For five
years after any divorce, her assets could be seized - precisely because the
government knows that people sometimes divorce husbands or wives to escape
their medical bills.
"How could I divorce him? I loved him," she told me.
"I explored a lot of options with an attorney here in town," she added. "The
attorney said, 'I don't see any other options for you.' It took about a year
for me to do the divorce, it was so hard."
So M. divorced the man she loves. I asked him what he thought of this. He
can still speak, albeit not always coherently, and he paused a long, long
time. All he could manage was: "It's hard to say."
Long-term care constitutes a difficult and expensive challenge in any health
system. But the American patchwork, full of cracks through which people
fall, has a special problem with medical expenses of all kinds bankrupting
couples.
A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that
62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These
medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years.
Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance, but
the gaps and inadequacies left them unprotected when they were hit by
devastating bills.
M. still helps her husband and, quietly, continues to live with him and care
for him. But she worries that the authorities will come after her if they
realize that they divorced not because of irreconcilable differences but
because of irreconcilable medical bills. There were awkward questions from
friends who saw the divorce announcement in the newspaper.
"It's just crazy," she said. "It twists people like pretzels."
The existing system doesn't just break up families, it also costs lives. A
2004 study by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of
Sciences, found that lack of health insurance causes 18,000 unnecessary
deaths a year. That's one person slipping through the cracks and dying every
half an hour.
In short, it's a good bet that our existing dysfunctional health system
knocks off far more people than an army of "death panels" could - even if
they existed, worked 24/7 and got around in a fleet of black helicopters.
So, for those of you inclined to believe the worst about President Obama,
think it through. Suppose he is indeed a secret, foreign-born Muslim agent
who is scheming to undermine American family values while killing off as
many grandmothers as possible.
If all that were true, why on earth would he be trying so hard to reform our
health care system? We already know how to prod families into divorce and
take a life unnecessarily every 30 minutes - all we need to do is reject
reform and stick with exactly what we have.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment