Sanctuary City and Immigration in Iowa by Paul Deaton
Part Two of a series on labor and immigration in Iowa "While the idea of Sanctuary City is no panacea, it
would be a step toward recognizing that seeking the welfare of one is seeking
the welfare of all."
Last week, as part of the Martin Luther King Junior Human
Rights Week, a group of citizens in the labor and faith communities presented
an event at the Iowa City Public Library on immigration and the idea of making
Iowa City more welcoming to immigrants by becoming a Sanctuary City. On Monday,
February 1 at 7:00 PM,the
University of Iowa Graduate Social Work Student Association and the Social Work
Student Association in collaboration with the University of Iowa Center for
Human Rights and the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will make a different
presentation on the subject of refugees and immigrants. Why the attention
to immigration?
The media face of immigration is well known in Iowa, the
home of two visible immigration raids by United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents (ICE) at the meatpacking plants in Marshalltown and
Postville. We have also seen lawmakers in Des Moines take up English only and
prevailing wage legislation, partly in response to immigration issues. That
immigration reform in Iowa and the United States is needed is something upon
which people of diverse backgrounds agree. How to reform immigration and the detrimental
effects ICE raids have on communities is an active topic of discussion in Iowa.
Locally, the story
we hear in the community is more granular and personal. There is an increase in
the number of immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America. Parts of
Iowa, especially university centers are international communities. We find landlords
rent to immigrants more often and schools enroll more immigrant children.
People who work in social safety net organizations like free medical clinics,
food banks and neighborhood centers see a large number of immigrant clients. Public
Health workers in Northwest Iowa require some staff members to speak Spanish to
work effectively with immigrant communities. An increasing number of churches
are being founded by immigrants. These are some of the things we see.
The problems caused by a flawed immigration system are many. Native
born workers have seen a decline in standard of living. Businesses want access
to inexpensive labor provided by immigrants. Undocumented workers compete with
native born/naturalized workers on an uneven playing field for jobs. Guest workers
and work visa programs replace permanent jobs with temporary jobs without
benefits or the legal protections guaranteed to most U.S. workers. Undocumented
immigrants are most likely to receive abuse and mistreatment in social
situations and in housing and employment. There is a language barrier and skin
color may be different. Non-Christian religious backgrounds result in
discrimination and mistreatment. All of these are symptoms. So what can we do?
According to the National Network
for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, “At
the start of 2010, immigrant communities across the country are taking direct
action demanding immediate and decisive action by President Obama to stop
criminalizing immigrant families and workers, stop detentions and deportations,
and put an end to the devastating separation of families and communities.” In
April of last year, AFLCIO/Change to WIN expressed the desire of many labor
groups to provide all workers, regardless of immigration status, “full and
complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety, and other laws.”
Some in the faith and labor communities believe we should seek common
ground. United States immigration law and enforcement are flawed and
that there should be legal reform to facilitate immigration. For practical
reasons, the law should limit immigration. Worker exploitation is an issue and
steps should be taken to avoid such exploitation. Crimes against immigrants
should be prosecuted as “hate crimes.” Compliance with existing law is a place
where people can come together. At the same time there are polarizing issues
regarding immigrations, notably the idea of amnesty for undocumented
immigrants. The idea of Sanctuary City may be a way to address the issues
surrounding our flawed immigration system.
A Sanctuary City is a place
where a formal sanctuary policy is written that may have been passed by a local
government body in the form of a resolution, ordinance or policy. In Sanctuary
Cities, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal
government of the presence of undocumented immigrants living in their communities. The
policies also would end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
Some examples of Sanctuary Cities are Takoma Park, Maryland; Sacramento, California;
Worthington, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; and Columbus, Ohio.
By declaring a Sanctuary City
and creating a sanctuary policy, communities become more welcoming to
immigrants and address the fear of authorities, language and culture barriers,
racism and worker exploitation that often cause friction between immigrants and
others in Iowa society. While the idea of Sanctuary City is no panacea, it
would be a step toward recognizing that seeking the welfare of one is seeking
the welfare of all. It is worth considering.
Partisan Debate in the Iowa House over Military Families
by Paul Deaton
"If we consider that the United States is fighting two
wars, it is hard to say anything other than it is despicable to play partisan games when it comes to supporting our active duty military's
families."
At one of the several legislative forums taking place around the state on Saturday morning, Representative Dave Jacoby (HD30) mentioned that there was a sickening debate in
the house pertaining to unemployment insurance benefits for spouses who
leave employment to accompany a spouse on a military assignment. (HF
2110) Republican Representatives Tymeson and Kauffman argued against
the bill saying it would impact employers. Republican Royd Chambers was
quoted as saying, “Why should Iowa businesses pay out unemployment
benefits when you volunteered?”
According to a member of an Iowa Veterans’ group, American Legion lobbyist, Laverne Schroeder “changed the
Legion’s position regarding proposed legislation allowing for the
spouse to be eligible for unemployment when leaving a job to be with a
reassigned soldier from â€undecided’ to â€against’ one minute before
discussion began. Then, Republicans used this information to argue
against it”.
Veterans caught flak in their communities over these
shenanigans and if we consider that the United States is fighting two
wars, it is hard to say anything other than it is despicable to play partisan games when it comes to supporting our active duty military's
families.
While some Republicans use national security issues to criticize
Democrats in partisan debate, the debate in the Iowa House
over HF 2110 this week is evidence that the Republican party has moved
further into a self-serving camp of making life harder for the families
of soldiers called to active duty if it might cost their constituents. The estimated cost of funding this bill was about $200,000 per year and employers were not to pay the benefit directly.
After this debate, the American Legion of Iowa was called on the
carpet by House Speaker Murphy and Majority Leader McCarthy. Iowa
veterans are calling and e-mailing the Iowa Legion Commander asking for
the lobbyist’s immediate firing. Thanks partly to the largely Democratic majority, HF 2110 passed 56-44 on January 26th.
From this debate, it is clear that Democrats do positive things for veterans in the Iowa House and each day earn the respect and support of constituents who have served in the military.
How Will Iowa Senators Harkin and Grassley Vote on LPFM? Prometheus Radio Project
On December 16, 2009 the Local Community Radio Act [which would expand Low Power FM radio stations and open the airwaves up to potentially tens of thousands of new community radio stations across the country], was launched out of the House of Representatives with unanimous bipartisan support. Now, the Senate version (S592), which has already passed out of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, must pass the full Senate to be placed on the President's desk this Spring.
U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) made the following statement in a committee hearing:
“In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission started to create new community radio stations, run by local schools, churches, community groups and governments. They did this because their mission from Congress is not to help entrenched lobbies, but to make sure that as many Americans as possible have access to the public’s airwaves to fulfill a basic human need – the right to communicate."
Cheryl Leanza, LPFM supporter, said, "This
is radio that speaks directly to the questions and concerns of the day,
unfiltered through large corporate entities or boardroom decisions. Instead, community organizations and volunteers put blood,
sweat and tears into the daily effort of bringing the culture, news,
and local events to their towns and neighborhoods."
Concluding
the hearing, Rep. Doyle stated, “Mister Chairman, we need to make sure
that more Americans get a chance to exercise their voice. We must pass
my bill this year, and we must bring low power to the people.”
A
video of Congressman Doyle’s statement can be seen on YouTube
2010 began in the throes of combatative partisanship and a Supreme Court ruling that further deregulates corporate campaign donations, giving corporate interests and corporate media more power in government.
But, we will not give in. We've seen grassroots supporters take action and make their voices heard, helping push the Local Community Radio Act out of the House of Representatives. We're going to keep fighting and see this thing through to the end.
S592 must be voted out of the Senate and signed by the President this year, or thousands of community groups across the country will lose out on the opportunity to have low power FM radio stations. For more info, go to: prometheusradio.org
**BFIA ACTION ALERT**
We do NOT have a liberal media. We have Corporate Media. We need community radio.
"If we care about sustainability and energy
independence, we should urge our elected officials in Des Moines to vote no on
SF464."
Once a year I try to get to Des Moines to visit my elected
officials in the legislature. As a citizen, my interests are many, and I lack
confidence that third parties can represent my interests as well as I can do it
myself. This is a native American impulse and the scourge of organized
religion, labor unions, trade associations and community organizing groups. If
everyone felt this way, and participated in our democracy directly, we would
have less need for third parties and our government would be much more
representative of the people. If you want to read more about my experience in
Des Moines, check out my blog, Big
Grove Garden.
Iowa lawmakers will be considering SF464 this session, a
bill that would require, among other things, a five percent blend of B5
biodiesel to be sold at all diesel fuel outlets in Iowa. The preamble to the bill
seems simple enough, “An Act relating to motor fuel, by providing for a
biodiesel quality standard for energy security andsustainability,ethanol blended gasoline and biodiesel blended fueldesignations
and tax credits, penalties, and effective dates.” Already the powerful
interests are lining up on this one.
One thing about the Iowa legislature is that they provide
a list of all of the lobbyists and where they stand on specific bills. I
met Steve Falck who represents Renewable Energy Group, a registered biodiesel
industry lobbyist, and supporter of SF464. He seemed well versed on many of the
issues pro and con on this bill and was enthusiastic about its prospects. According
to Falck, the largest buyers of biodiesel in the state are truckstop operators and
they are against the bill. They don’t like mandates.
Falck gave me a copy of a letter dated December 10, 2009
from the American Lung Association supporting the bill, which asserted, “the
average diesel school bus emits nearly twice as much pollution per mile than a
big rig truck, and the type of pollution they emit is particularly harmful to
children, who have a higher respiration rate than adults, and immune systems
that are not fully developed.” He also indicated that Iowa becoming energy
independent was a national security issue and this bill would help keep dollars
in Iowa that are currently going to oil producing nations. He had a couple of
cogent talking points, which he had obviously rehearsed. If I didn’t know
better, I would have thought he was trying to scare me into supporting the
bill, talking about children and national security that way.
The American Lung Association letter was somewhat deceptive
with its focus on school buses. Their facts seem accurate, and using
pollution-reducing fuels in school buses is a no-brainer from a health of
children standpoint. As far as school buses are concerned, why not compressed
natural gas as an alternative to both diesel and bio-diesel? This is what other
communities are doing to control emissions, especially in urban centers. For
that matter, why a 5% blend in school buses instead of 100% bio-fuels if we want
a bio-fuels mandate? Another question is if school buses are to be a focus, then
why implement a legislative mandate when the same result could be achieved
through other administrative channels without it? The answer is it’s about the
biofuels industry and their lobbyists in Des Moines like Mr. Falck.
SF464 is a corruption of what it means to seek energy
independence for Iowa and to be sustainable. The most significant thing the
Iowa legislature could do to help move towards energy independence would be to
find ways to produce electricity with non-food fuel stocks. To a large extent,
this means stopping the flow of dollars out of the state to buy coal from the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming. It also means supporting development of enzymes
that can metabolize non-food plant products like corn stover to produce
cellulosic ethanol. What appears to be
foremost in the biofuels industry is locking in their sales through legislative
mandate by passing SF464. If we care about sustainability and energy
independence, we should urge our elected officials in Des Moines to vote no on
SF464.
Here is a link
to find your legislator. Please let them know how you feel about SF464.
"While policy
wonks may not have heard enough about their favorite things in the State of the
Union Address, seven minutes was enough to make the point that the work is
getting done."
Having waited for a couple of months to speak on nuclear
disarmament to the packed room of Linn County, Iowa activists, I got five
minutes. I set my kitchen timer and said that if President Obama has five
minutes to make a decision to use nuclear weapons after a strike against the
United States, then surely I could say my piece in support of nuclear
disarmament in five minutes as well. I set my timer and went to work. The bell
went off just in time to turn the projection television on to watch the State
of the Union Speech with those gathered.
My interest in the speech is foreign affairs and towards the
end of the speech, at 9:03 PM CST to be more precise, President Obama ticked
off the things his administration was working on in foreign affairs. He
finished this portion of his speech at 9:10 PM CST. His message was that
national security issues have always been a place where Americans have been
able to come together, saying, “Throughout our history, no issue has united
this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt
after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame
for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of
us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So
let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the
false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values.
Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our
nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world.”
Obama then ticked off his list, pursuit of the terrorists of
9/11, strengthening the Homeland Security Department, filling gaps identified
in the 2009 Christmas Day attack, banning torture by the United States,
revitalizing partnerships around the world, killing or capturing hundreds of al
Qaeda operatives, a troop surge in Afghanistan, initiating the end of the war
in Iraq, negotiations with Russia on Strategic Arms Reductions (START), the
Non-proliferation treaty, and a statement that violators of international
agreements, Iran and North Korea, would “face growing consequences” and
isolation from the world community.
For those of us who follow foreign affairs, this was enough
because we can see the work being done in the State Department, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
throughout the administration. Whether it be Secretary Clinton speaking out on Internet
Freedom, or a report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on al Qaeda in Yemen and
Somalia, the Obama administration is already delivering on the promise of
keeping the United States secure and doing things necessary to reduce our risks
in the world and hold rogue nations and terrorists accountable.
If we consider what
the State Department is working on, it is a very long list of what should
be important to us as citizens of the world, as Americans and members of a
society that asks too often, “what’s in it for me?” A better question to ask is "what
can we do as a nation to facilitate international cooperation and reduce the
risks of living in a 21st century world community?"
While policy
wonks may not have heard enough about their favorite things in the State of the
Union Address, seven minutes was enough to make the point that the foreign affairs work is
getting done.
I hope you will check out some of the links in this post and
get more involved in understanding the work our country is doing in foreign
affairs.
President Obama's State of the Union Address We found the full text of President Obama's speech on Huffpo. Here are some excerpts we liked. For policy details, we recommend the full text.
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable - that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust - deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
I am not naĂŻve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent - a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.
So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.
Each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.
No wonder there's so much disappointment.
I campaigned on the promise of change - change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change - or at least, that I can deliver it.
But remember this - I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.
We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment - to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.
Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.
Cedar Valley Voices: The Reasons for Health Care Reform by Dave Hunt
The Cedar Valley Voices project is a citizen response to state Representative Jeff Kaufmann’s column in the West Branch Times during the legislative session.
As the debate on health care reform continues, it is important to understand the process that brought us to this point.
It is evident that there are major problems with our current system:
The US ranks 37th in quality of health care even though we pay nearly twice as much as the next highest county.
Using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage has greatly expanded. Over 1400 conditions have been identified to deny coverage.
Insurance companies often drop policy holders who get sick with a practice called recission.
20% of doctor recommended treatments have been denied.
Small businesses often face huge premium increases or are dropped if one worker or family becomes ill.
47 million Americans have no health insurance. Another 25 million are significantly under-insured.
14,000 Americans lose their insurance daily. That is over 5 million per year.
A recent study estimates well over 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance.
While individual Americans are doing well, health insurance companies have never done better. Profits are up 430% in the past seven years. Premiums have risen at 3 times the cost of living. Payouts as a percentage of premiums continue to decline from a high of 95% in 1993 to 80% today.
Consider the fact that we are the only advanced country with a for profit health care system. The greatest cost growth for insurance companies has been in overhead including lobbying and executive salaries.
Logic suggests that major changes are needed, but opponents of health care change prey on the fear that people have about change. There are also powerful forces that have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Republicans have drawn a line in the sand, stating they will oppose any reform. Even our own Chuck Grassley joined in spreading fear with his parroting of talking points on death panels. Groups such as Freedom Works helped spread confusion through town hall disruptions last summer.
The vast majority of Americans want and need change. True change must have certain characteristics, including:
1 - Costs must be controlled. The best way to do this would be through competition created by a public option or access to Medicare.
2 - End of abusive practices by insurance companies such as recission, and denial of claims
3 - End the doughnut hole for Medicare drug plans. And allow drug re-importation.
4 - Strengthen Medicare.
Finally, fixing our health care system could be one of the most important pieces of economic recovery. This would help level the playing field between American companies and foreign manufacturers.
Dave Hunt Tipton, Iowa
Dave Hunt is a retired social studies teacher who lives in Tipton. He is a former Iowa teacher of the year who taught at North Cedar High School.
Riding the Health Care Roller Coaster Can Be Hazardous to Your Health by Karen Metcalf
This last week has probably been the craziest one yet for those of us working on national health care reform. On Monday I heard that the House and Senate were very close to resolving the differences between the two different versions of legislation that they had passed. Hooray!
Then came Tuesday's election in Massachusetts, and the wisdom out of D.C. was that significant health care reform was probably dead. Nausea! Groan!
My Wednesday and Thursday were taken up with conference calls of various pro-reform groups that had pulled together a common strategy: visits to Congressional offices on Friday and Saturday, and a national call-in day on Monday. Yes! We're all pulling together.
Then Thursday Speaker Pelosi announced that she didn't have the votes among members of the House to pass the Senate bill. Ooof—health care reform is not just dead, but the coffin is already buried six feet under. Back to the antacid!
The weekend was relatively quiet, except for the outbursts and venting in my own home over the apparent inability of the folks in D.C. to find a way to finish the process that they started. How do I get my blood pressure down?
Now here it is Monday, and the process begins again: “Call Congress NOW or we lose everything!” “Reconciliation is alive and well!” “We'll be moving on to jobs.” “There's a new time line that will salvage comprehensive reform this year.” Even the “insiders” seem very uncertain about what is likely to happen next.
Last Friday I wrote the following:
“Today, those of us who have been fighting, locally and nationally, for serious health care reform are angry and frustrated. I'm thinking about all the people whose stories I've heard since I began my fight here in the Quad Cities for health care justice - people who are scared and desperate, or who have lost loved ones because they can't get good, affordable health care in "the richest nation in the world." It's a moral outrage that I feel in the core of my being, and I know many of you have the same feeling. How long must people wait? And how much worse will it get for all of us if we don't pass something significant this year?”
Although most of the time I feel this intense outrage about this issue, I tell myself that it's usually somewhat below the surface, which allows me to operate in a reasonably controlled and rational way. But this highly emotional last week, with all its ups and downs, has been unusually stressful.
Why am I sharing these feelings with (for the most part) unknown strangers? I think my primary reason is that everything I'm hearing, whether from people who have invested a great deal of time and energy in health care reform or from those who just care about public issues, is that we're all angry, we're all frustrated, we're all very uncertain about what will happen today, tomorrow, or next week. I think we all feel blind-sided by what happened in Massachusetts last week and then by all the gloomy prognostications that the fight for meaningful health care reform is over. My inner voice tells me that we need a collective venting of our frustration, so overall it's probably a positive shared experience.
But what I'm hearing from fellow progressives at the moment also raises two concerns for me. First, I hope we don't turn on each other and start finger-pointing. However the fight turns out this year (and from what I'm hearing today I feel a bit more optimistic than I did over the weekend), all of us who identify ourselves as “progressives” must continue to remember that, by its very definition, that label says we—all of us--look forward to a better society that we can help craft.
Right now I see our anger and frustration starting to divide us, with this progressive group or individual blaming certain other groups for the current confusion about how to move forward. But genuine differences of opinion about strategy and tactics don't mean that we disagree about the need for comprehensive health care reform that will finally recognize that quality, affordable health care for all is an American right, just as it is in most other industrialized countries.
Second, I hear from others that they are too upset to continue the fight; they've done their bit, as have so many others, and it appears to have had no effect on the powers-that-be, so there's no point in continuing to try. While I respect this point of view, I hope it doesn't become wide-spread. I don't want to sound like some kind of naĂŻve optimist, but I do think we must continue the fight for health care reform, whatever happens in Washington this year. If we achieve a comprehensive package, then we breathe new energy into our progressive agenda.
I think Paul Krugman got it about right in his book, The Conscience of a Liberal:
Universal health care could, in short, be to a new New Deal what Social Security was to the original—both a crucially important program in its own right, and a reaffirmation of the principle that we are our brothers' keepers. Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals. Once they succeed there, they can turn to the broader, more difficult task of reining in American inequality (p. 243).
If, however, the forces of self-interest, cynicism, and $$ do prevail in D.C. in 2010, then next year there will be a large group of informed and trained activists turning their attention to some of the state legislatures. Washington can't wave a magic wand and make health care injustices disappear, and I don't think the progressive community will let them do so.
I recommend the recent opinion piece from Froma Harrop, Pass Universal Coverage Now, Fix It Later as a starting point to get us thinking about how, if necessary, to enact health care reform at the state level.
A
native of St. Louis and a graduate of Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Karen Metcalf has been working on health care reform since 2003,
when she learned that an estimated 18,000 people die every year in this
country because they lack health insurance. Although her background is
non-medical, she is married to a pediatrician who trained in Britain
and Canada and practiced in Canada for many years before they moved to
the Quad Cities in 1994. Since their move, they have been studying,
discussing, and writing about the American health care “system,”
drawing upon their experience in all three countries where they have lived.
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
by Paul Deaton
by Dave Hunt
