Sunday, June 1, 2008

Health, chemicals ministries sort out pharma policy issues


The controversial National Pharmaceutical Policy 2006 may finally see the light of the day with the Health Ministry and Chemicals and Fertilisers Ministry sorting out differences over some proposals in the policy. "The secretaries of Ministry of Health and Ministry of Chemical and Fertilisers, held a meeting a couple of weeks back in which concerns of Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss were discussed and ironed out," a senior government official told a news agency.

With the issues sorted out, the Chemicals and Fertilisers Ministry would be approaching the Group of Ministers (GoM), which was formed to look into the policy again, the official said while adding that it would then be up to the GoM to decide on the future course of action.

The draft pharma policy was referred to the GoM headed by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, after concerns were raised by the pharmaceutical industry over the issue of price control as proposed in the draft. Till now, four meetings of the GoM have taken place but it has not been able to find a solution.

In the fourth meeting held on 30th April, Health Ministry has objected to the some of the proposals made in the draft after which it was decided that secretaries from both ministries should sit and overcome hurdles for smooth passage of the policy. The Health Ministry had apparently objected to the provisions in the pharma policy pertaining to drug regulator and procurement of medicines for government hospitals and health insurance, which it felt would be duplicated.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

What Are We Waiting For?


Long before the disastrous George W. Bush administration, I had been waiting for profound, systemic changes in our political system. Perversely, I saw the upside of Bush as motivating more Americans to demand political change. And that happened. But the national yearning for change was co-opted by Ron Paul on the right and Barack Obama on the left while John Edwards with the most authentic populist change message fizzled out early.

It is not enough to want, demand and support change, not when change is more of a campaign slogan than a carefully detailed set of reforms. Critically needed is a firm understanding of what specific changes can restore American democracy and remove the privileged rich plutocrats and corporatists running and ruining our nation.

A huge fraction of Americans have bought into the Obama candidacy because of his polished and effective rhetoric. But Obama does not offer the changes I have been waiting for, or the ones the public needs. A great speaker does not necessarily have the courage or intent to fight for deep political reforms.

Our nation’s Founders did not create the United States of America just with smiles and slick rhetoric; they were bold, risk-taking revolutionaries fighting tyranny. Obama has not defined our domestic tyranny and told us how he will try to abolish it. Obama is no dissident or revolutionary. The change he mostly seeks is moving from senator to president. Not what I have been waiting for.

There is no evidence in Obama’s brief political career that he is a champion for deep political reforms to transfer power from the plutocrats to the people. To the contrary, the more you learn about Obama’s history the more he appears as just another super-ambitious politician making friends, using people and cutting deals to get ahead.

To begin with, I have been waiting for a potential president that speaks out against the over-powerful two-party system that sucks up money from all countless corporate and other special interests. I have never heard a word from Obama to indicate he understands the many harmful effects of the two-party plutocracy and the need to open up our political system to a much wider spectrum of beliefs and strategies. Instead, Obama cleverly talks about bipartisanship just as many other Democrats and Republicans have, because that maintains the two-party status quo.

If Obama believed in opening up the political system he would, for example, advocate opening up televised presidential debates to third party candidates and removing the many obstacles the two parties have built to limit ballot access to third party and independent candidates. He would also openly call for replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president.

If Obama truly wanted to get rid of big, corrupting money from corporate and other special interests, then he should be advocating a constitutional amendment that would remove all private money from political campaigns and change the US system to totally publicly financed campaigns. Only a constitutional amendment can accomplish this. Campaign financing reforms by Congress are a distraction and next to useless.

And if Obama really supported universal health care, then he would have concluded as nearly all experts have that the nation needs a single payer insurance system that puts an end to the rape of the public by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Change? Absolutely. But real systemic, root changes that reform and transform the current system by changing the power structure that both major parties have nourished over many decades. What is so clear to millions of people highly skeptical of the Obama-as-political-messiah fiction is that he has not earned the presidency through diverse political and leadership accomplishments.

Sure, none of the other candidates are any better than Obama - not Hillary Clinton, not John McCain. More worthy candidates based on experience and authenticity succumbed to many bizarre forces and media disinterest. It is too late to enlighten ardent Obamatons, but millions of voters will justify voting for Obama as the lesser evil candidate. That proves how bankrupt our political system really is. Now is the time to reject the two-party plutocracy and vote for third party and independent candidates, such as Ralph Nader. Yes we can! Voters that define themselves as independents should assert their independence by rejecting candidates from both major parties.

With a longer view of history, there really is something worse than John McCain becoming president. It is once again upholding the periodic shift of power between the two major parties that stabilizes their tyranny. Just as the Bush administration has built demand for change so too would a McBush presidency. Maybe then in 2012 a true, trustworthy and proven agent of change would have a shot at the presidency. However, electing Obama will set back things back. He will only disappoint us and drain all the pent up demand for change by delivering, at most, some cosmetic actions. Just like his recent decision to wear a flag lapel pin.

The right question is not whether this African American can win the general election, it is SHOULD he be president?

After a few years as president, millions of people would realize that Obama is not the political salvation people have been waiting for. Of course, he would then focus on getting a second term, with more seductive smiles, empty platitudes and false promises. Why not? It worked the first time.

What Are We Waiting For?


Long before the disastrous George W. Bush administration, I had been waiting for profound, systemic changes in our political system. Perversely, I saw the upside of Bush as motivating more Americans to demand political change. And that happened. But the national yearning for change was co-opted by Ron Paul on the right and Barack Obama on the left while John Edwards with the most authentic populist change message fizzled out early.

It is not enough to want, demand and support change, not when change is more of a campaign slogan than a carefully detailed set of reforms. Critically needed is a firm understanding of what specific changes can restore American democracy and remove the privileged rich plutocrats and corporatists running and ruining our nation.

A huge fraction of Americans have bought into the Obama candidacy because of his polished and effective rhetoric. But Obama does not offer the changes I have been waiting for, or the ones the public needs. A great speaker does not necessarily have the courage or intent to fight for deep political reforms.

Our nation’s Founders did not create the United States of America just with smiles and slick rhetoric; they were bold, risk-taking revolutionaries fighting tyranny. Obama has not defined our domestic tyranny and told us how he will try to abolish it. Obama is no dissident or revolutionary. The change he mostly seeks is moving from senator to president. Not what I have been waiting for.

There is no evidence in Obama’s brief political career that he is a champion for deep political reforms to transfer power from the plutocrats to the people. To the contrary, the more you learn about Obama’s history the more he appears as just another super-ambitious politician making friends, using people and cutting deals to get ahead.

To begin with, I have been waiting for a potential president that speaks out against the over-powerful two-party system that sucks up money from all countless corporate and other special interests. I have never heard a word from Obama to indicate he understands the many harmful effects of the two-party plutocracy and the need to open up our political system to a much wider spectrum of beliefs and strategies. Instead, Obama cleverly talks about bipartisanship just as many other Democrats and Republicans have, because that maintains the two-party status quo.

If Obama believed in opening up the political system he would, for example, advocate opening up televised presidential debates to third party candidates and removing the many obstacles the two parties have built to limit ballot access to third party and independent candidates. He would also openly call for replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president.

If Obama truly wanted to get rid of big, corrupting money from corporate and other special interests, then he should be advocating a constitutional amendment that would remove all private money from political campaigns and change the US system to totally publicly financed campaigns. Only a constitutional amendment can accomplish this. Campaign financing reforms by Congress are a distraction and next to useless.

And if Obama really supported universal health care, then he would have concluded as nearly all experts have that the nation needs a single payer insurance system that puts an end to the rape of the public by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Change? Absolutely. But real systemic, root changes that reform and transform the current system by changing the power structure that both major parties have nourished over many decades. What is so clear to millions of people highly skeptical of the Obama-as-political-messiah fiction is that he has not earned the presidency through diverse political and leadership accomplishments.

Sure, none of the other candidates are any better than Obama - not Hillary Clinton, not John McCain. More worthy candidates based on experience and authenticity succumbed to many bizarre forces and media disinterest. It is too late to enlighten ardent Obamatons, but millions of voters will justify voting for Obama as the lesser evil candidate. That proves how bankrupt our political system really is. Now is the time to reject the two-party plutocracy and vote for third party and independent candidates, such as Ralph Nader. Yes we can! Voters that define themselves as independents should assert their independence by rejecting candidates from both major parties.

With a longer view of history, there really is something worse than John McCain becoming president. It is once again upholding the periodic shift of power between the two major parties that stabilizes their tyranny. Just as the Bush administration has built demand for change so too would a McBush presidency. Maybe then in 2012 a true, trustworthy and proven agent of change would have a shot at the presidency. However, electing Obama will set back things back. He will only disappoint us and drain all the pent up demand for change by delivering, at most, some cosmetic actions. Just like his recent decision to wear a flag lapel pin.

The right question is not whether this African American can win the general election, it is SHOULD he be president?

After a few years as president, millions of people would realize that Obama is not the political salvation people have been waiting for. Of course, he would then focus on getting a second term, with more seductive smiles, empty platitudes and false promises. Why not? It worked the first time.

Monday, May 19, 2008

That’s What Saddam Said



By Anna Badkhen

BAGHDAD—The war is over on Sixth Street, where Sahar al-Jawari’s family lives in a modest brick house. Dust has filled the shrapnel holes in concrete fences, stagnant water has pooled in the crater left by a roadside bomb, and the ash and the few charred chunks of the Iraqi police car that the bomb blew up are barely visible on the sidewalk.

But Jawari, 33, has little faith that her life is about to improve. Every night the wind carries the sounds of gunshots and occasional explosions from other parts of Baghdad, where the war still goes on. Every day is a struggle to get by in a city that gets only four hours of power and running water a day. Jawari is divorced and unemployed, but Iraq’s weak government gives her no financial aid. Nor does it make her deadbeat ex-husband pay her child support to help raise her 12-year-old daughter, Roula.

“We have no money, no electricity, no water, no security, no future, nothing,” Jawari says. “Maybe in 50 years it will get better.”

Many Iraqis in this part of southwestern Baghdad say the same thing. They have little hope for help from a government that has been unable to deliver even the most basic services, and little faith in the Iraqi security forces, tainted by their past association with sectarian militias and infamous for defecting under fire.

And although American forces have effectively established security in the streets here, every time residents go outside, bomb craters, bullet holes and buildings damaged by explosions remind them of the sectarian violence that raged here less than a year ago.

Sahar and Roula live with Sahar’s mother, Salimah, and her two nieces, Basmah, 16, and Thohara, 14. The girls’ mother, Jawari’s sister, died of kidney disease 12 years ago: Because of the United Nations’ sanctions and mismanagement by the dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein, Baghdad’s hospitals did not have the proper medicine to treat her, and the family could not afford to send her abroad for surgery. The girls’ father, an engineer, died last year of a heart attack.

“He could not bear what we are suffering in Iraq,” Jawari says.

On a recent afternoon, the women and girls gathered in the kitchen to listen to Jawari’s aunt, Nuriyah, who lives in Denmark and came to Baghdad to visit her family. Nuriyah immigrated to Denmark 10 years ago.

“Over there, we live in heaven,” Nuriyah told them. “All the people there are good. They help everyone, even Iraqis. They send me a social worker to clean my house once a week. They give me health insurance. And every 14 days a nurse comes and gives me my medicine—for asthma, for high sugar content in my blood, for cholesterol and high blood pressure.”

Jawari shook her head.

“They take care of them as though they were little children,” she said. “I want to go to Denmark, any place, just to leave Iraq. What is here for me?”

“That’s a pretty pessimistic view. Iraq is going to get better,” interjected U.S. Army Lt. Rusty Mason, whose platoon was patrolling Sixth Street that day and who stopped by Jawari’s house.

“People are giving their lives to improve the life here: American soldiers, other soldiers,” said Mason. Four soldiers from his platoon were killed not far from Sixth Street in March when an explosively formed projectile, one of the devices that U.S. forces say are supplied to Iraq’s sectarian militias by Iran, pierced the armor of their Bradley fighting vehicle. “Iraqis are giving their lives.”

“We saw nothing good,” Jawari shot back.

Her family fled the violence that engulfed Sixth Street last summer, when Sunni and Shiite militias battled each other in the streets of this neighborhood, Saidiyah. The women stayed with relatives in another part of Baghdad, and when they returned, they found their door broken and their computer and television missing.

The government said it would give all returning refugees a one-time payment of approximately $900 to help them resettle in their homes. But in Saidiyah, where almost 400 families have returned since February, only 285 have received the money, said Lt. Col. Johnnie Johnson, whose 4-64 armor battalion of the Fourth Brigade, Third Infantry Division, patrols the area. Jawari’s family was not among them.

The family depends on the government-issued ration cards, which all Baghdad residents receive to buy heavily subsidized rice, flour, oil, sugar and chickpeas. To pay for electricity, clothes and the rare treats of meat or fried fish—once every month or two—Jawari and her mother have been selling their jewelry. They also sold a plot of land they had owned in the country. Even on a diet of rice, eggs and pasta, the family spends between $250 and $400 a month.

Mason tried words of encouragement.

“Things will get better,” he said. “The security is already better. Hopefully, soon the power will get better in all of Iraq.”

Jawari shrugged.

“Under Saddam Hussein that’s what they used to tell us, too: This will get better, that will get better, the power will get better. And—nothing,” she showed Mason the empty palms of her hands. Then she added, in English, for emphasis: “Never.”

Friday, May 9, 2008

Low-cost clinic serves about 50 a day since opening


A month after the Amistad Community Health Center opened its doors to those who have trouble finding and paying for medical care, a constant stream of patients -- 50 or so a day -- is showing up looking for help.
The clinic, located at 1533 Brownlee Blvd., had a grand-opening party Thursday to celebrate its mission, which is to serve low-income patients who may not qualify for medical assistance. Patients pay for services on a sliding scale, taking into consideration things such as family size and income. No one is turned away.
The clinic operates with $1.8 million in federal grant money split over three years, along with state and private funding from nonprofit organizations such the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas.
The clinic is a faith-based, nonprofit organization governed by a board of directors that targets more than 7,300 residents, including 200 homeless people who live in inner-city neighborhoods near the clinic. Both neighborhoods have overwhelmingly Hispanic populations, combined with high poverty levels and low levels of health insurance coverage.
During the past month, two full-time doctors, Dr. Lydia Graham and Dr. Robert Caro, have seen everything from diabetes and high blood pressure cases to pregnant women searching for prenatal care, said Caro, the center's medical director. They get help from two nurse practitioners, a dentist, dental hygienist and an outreach worker, all employed by the clinic.
Expansion plans include a pharmacy, which should be open this fall, and expanded services to include pediatrics and obstetrics and gynecology and additional physicians, executive director Orlando Gomez said.