Today the US military announced: "JOINT BASE BALAD, Iraq -- One U.S. service member was killed and 12 others were injured when a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter went down inside of Joint Base Balad at approximately 8 p.m. Saturday. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.
The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/ The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin.
The cause of the incident is unknown and is under investigation. More information will be released as soon as it becomes available." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The helicopter crash was the first since two reconnaissance helicopters collided while under enemy fire in January near the northern city of Kirkuk, killing four soldiers." Really? Because Tim Cocks (Reuters) reports, "The last reported incident was on July 17, when a U.S. State Department helicopter crashed near Baghdad, killing two crew members. In January, two U.S. military aircraft came under enemy fire and crashed into each other, killing four soldiers."
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4343 and tonight? 4345. Meanwhile James Gilbert (Yuma Sun) reports, "Approximately 170 soldiers from the Yuma-based 855th Military Police Company will leave next week for a yearlong deployment to Iraq."
In other violence noted today, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Nineveh Province roadside bombing which wounded to Iraqi soliders and a Babil roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 man who was mourning at a grave yard and left four members of his family injured.
In Iraq, Camp Ashraf is where Iranian dissidents belonging to MEK live. They have been in Iraq for decades. Following the 2003 invasion, the US provided protection to Camp Ashraf and declared them protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. The US turned over control of Camp Ashraf to Nouri al-Maliki's government at the start of the year -- after getting assurances from him that he would not assault the camp or ship the dissidents back to Iran. Despite assurance, Nouri launched an attack on Camp Ashraf July 28th resulting in at least 11 deaths, hundreds injured and thirty-six residents hauled away. Michael Holden and Elizabeth Fullerton (Reuters) report that Archbishop Canterbury Rowan Williams, Anglican Church, declared today, "The continuing situation in Camp Ashraf together with the fact that the 36 people taken from the camp in July have not been released, constitutes a humanitarian and human rights issue of real magnitude and urgency. [. . .] Both the government of Iraq and the government of the United States -- as the agency responsible for the transfer of the residents to another jurisdiction -- have an obligation to secure the rights of these residents and to defend themf rom violence or abuse. I hope that all concerned will listen to what those across the world who are deeply anxious about these human rights violations are saying, and respond as a matter of urgency."
New content at Third:
Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: The walk-away from Iraq wasn't Pamplona...
TV: Republicans should boycott SNL
The never-ending fashion disaster
Raed Jarrar tries to 'correct' Ava and C.I. (Dona)...
US had prior knowledge of assault
We applaud Joe Wilson
Winter Soldier coverage
CCR announces Free Speech Victory
ETAN demands justice for mass atrocities
An evening with Janis Ian, October 22nd
Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Kat's "Kat's Korner: If you can get ahold of it, We Came To Sing! is amazing" went up earlier and Pru highlights Ken Olende's "US health plan is trapped by free market ideology" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):
US president Barack Obama addressed a joint meeting of Congress last week about the need to reform the US health system, which was one of his central electoral promises. This followed months of sniping from the right.
Whatever his opponents say, most Americans are aware that the health situation is bad and getting worse. The remarkable thing is how timid his proposals are.
Obama knows the gravity of the problem. In his weekly address to the nation last Saturday he said, “Over the last 12 months, nearly six million more Americans lost their health coverage – that’s 17,000 men and women every single day.
“We’re not just talking about Americans in poverty either – we’re talking about middle class Americans.”
He explained that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. This is because so many have insurance tied to their jobs.
His solution is to “make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition, drop your coverage when you get sick, or water it down when you need it most”.
These measures are welcome and his plans attack the terrible complacency of the US establishment, but none of the schemes under consideration address the central problem of the US health system – its domination by private insurance companies.
A central plank of all the plans is to make it compulsory for all US residents to take out private health insurance.
The government would pay the fees of those who could not afford it. So Obama is guaranteeing the profits of health insurance companies, not undermining them.
The Financial Times newspaper commented, “Obama promises no increase in public borrowing and no hike in middle class taxes. The bills promise to raise most of what is needed by reducing waste, inefficiency and fraud in Medicare, the government programme for the elderly.”
Obama’s preferred version includes the introduction of a “public option” – a publicly-owned company that would compete with the private companies in an attempt to undermine the price fixing that blights the system.
Under the existing system people have to take out health insurance with one of a range of competing companies. Those who can afford it enjoy the best healthcare in the world, but 46 million people cannot afford health insurance.
Most working class Americans are terrified of serious accidents or long-term illnesses – knowing that their insurance company will try and wriggle out of expensive commitments.
The US is the only major economy to have such a healthcare system. It was 37th in a ranking of health systems produced by the World Health Organisation in 2000, despite spending twice as much per head on healthcare as comparable countries.
The private system is supplemented by two government initiatives, Medicare and Medicaid.
Medicare is a universal system for elderly people and those with disabilities.
However, it does not provide equal provision. Its services are enormously overstretched and what any patient receives is based on the level of payments they can afford to put in.
In a recent survey 72 percent of Americans said they were worried about inadequate healthcare when they retired.
Medicaid is a means-tested system offering basic healthcare to people who can’t afford insurance.
Obama has no clear plan to resolve this mess, and is already retreating under pressure from the right.
The Financial Times pointed out, “In his speech Obama affirmed his support for the public option, but signalled flexibility. He was open to other ways of widening choice.”
There, as in Britain, “choice” is likely to mean real choice for those who can afford it and reduced access for those who can’t. The president has even said he will seek “common ground” with Republican opponents.
His plans do not match the health systems in all other developed countries. These all use a “single-payer health insurance” scheme, where a central body collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single, usually governmental, source.
The acceptance of the belief that the market makes things more efficient is hamstringing Obama’s attempts to reform the US system.
Obama has said, “Right now the healthcare system is perverse. It does not incentivise those things that actually make people better or keeps them out of hospitals in the first place, and that’s what we have to change.”
But none of the new systems on offer would alter how investment is organised.
Those in support of change can point to the state of Massachusetts, which enacted a version of Obama’s plan in 2006. While that means it now has the highest insurance coverage of any US state there are enormous problems with health provision.
The poor may be covered, but there has been no improvement in the level of treatment in hospitals, and costs are spiralling as more people compete to gain access.
The coalition that backed Obama’s campaign for president is noticeable by its absence from the streets. It is hard to motivate people if generalising conditions in Massachusetts is the best on offer.
Obama has proved that the will to reform exists, but is following his political training by trying to make deals in Congress rather than mobilise forces that could challenge the vested interests that want to block change.
On the other hand, his opponents are divided over health reform. The current system is unworkable, but to make it efficient requires major changes that undermine the free market values of the US’s elite.
The media is filled with their bizarre fantasies about totalitarianism and “death panels” because it is hard for them to say the real reason for their fear – dented profits.
Unfortunately, even if Obama wins US workers will still have worse healthcare than any comparable group.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
and the war drags on
the new york times
steven lee myers
the yuma sun
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review
the world today just nuts