The Alligator

The 26^th of September 2006 marks my 18^th anniversary with my partner Lee. 

 Unlike heterosexual couples we don’t have a wedding day to mark our anniversary.  After we were together for a while we decided to look back and “choose” a date for our anniversary.  We chose the date when we first said “I love you” to the other.  Other gay couples have used the date that the met, or the date that they first consummated their relationship, all sorts of milestones- but unless you have married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the past year or so- you don’t have a wedding day to serve as “the date”. 

18 years together and we still don’t have equality of recognition for our relationship that heterosexuals who maybe met the same day that we did but are long divorced had for their relationship.  Seems a little odd doesn’t it?

Due to the laws in California as registered domestic partners- we do have many of the rights of married people- but if we moved out of state- those rights are gone with the wind.  We and our gay brothers and lesbian sisters have been vilified by the radical right.  But why?  What is so odd about our domestic lives?  We care for one another, support one another, we are hard working, community and civic minded men, and we care about others and donate time and money to causes that help folks less fortunate than we are.  Sounds threatening doesn’t it?

I have AIDS, my partner is HIV negative.  It was that way when we met and remains that way 18 years later.  So- we are obviously not careless men, we are committed to one another and keeping one another healthy and lively.  I have had a number of down periods in my health- including one hospitalization.  Lee was there for me and took care of me.  When he had a scare with a cardiac episode a few years back- I was there for him.  We worry about one another, care for one another, enjoy life with one another and support one another.  Our lives are inextricably linked – where one’s soul starts and the other’s ends is impossible to assess.  My family has embraced Lee and his has embraced me.  Is that really any different than a man and a wife?

But still we cannot marry.  We do not have the same recognition from society as our straight counterparts.  Marriage in this country is both religious and civil.  I don’t particularly want to join a club that doesn’t want me- so I really don’t care if the Catholic, Episcopal, or any other faith recognizes my relationship.  I do care that the country where I live and pay taxes and believe in does not want to give me equal rights.

We are not a threat to the social fabric.  By recognizing our relationship the government is supporting loving commitment.  Doesn’t that help society?  Doesn’t that help improve our collective lot in life?

I certainly have not judged couples who have divorced, why should Lee and I be judged for being a couple for 18 years?  I’d really like to know!

Pundits, Politicians, Journalists and Bloggers all over the planet will be analyzing in minutia every possible aspect of 9/11 and the five years since its aftermath.  So- what could I possibly add to what is already being said?  Probably nothing and I actually thought of letting the day pass without comment.   Since I am a huge critic of President Bush and think that he is far worse a President than I would have ever anticipated during that agonizing election of 2000, I didn’t want to rail against the President and seem disrespectful to the memory of those that were lost five years ago today.

However I do think it is appropriate to look at the legacy of that day and to, if for no other reason than for my own benefit, write down some thoughts. We owe it to the heroes of 9/11 to learn from their deaths.  Things have changed dramatically since that sunny September day.

I remember members from both parties of Congress gathering by the steps of the Capitol building singing God Bless America.  Now both the House and the Senate are more fractured than ever.  Only 9 days after the 9/11 attacks my partner Lee and I went on vacation to Italy.  Everyone we spoke to showed nothing but compassion and support for the United States.  Now most Europeans have nothing but disrespect for our government (Europeans have a wonderful way of being able to dislike our government but like its citizens).   Most Arab countries condemned the 9/11 attacks, now many of our alliances in the Arab world are strained to say the least.  We had unity at home and support abroad.  Have we squandered that moment?   True, grief tends to unite a nation and the response to that grief can cause divisiveness.  But was it really inevitable that we end up where we are today?

I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question- but it feels to me like that moment in history was pivotal for this country and there were choices to be made and we went down a path that has led us to this very difficult place. 

There was almost universal support for our war against the Al-Qeda and Taliban in Afghanistan.  I have always found armed conflict abhorrent- but in some cases inevitable.  The war in Afghanistan was appropriate and just.  But now look where we are in that country.  The Taliban have re-emerged and Afghani opium is flooding the world and is supporting anti-American groups with its profits.  President Bush promised that he would “smoke out” Osama bin Laden and Al-Qeda, but five years later – he is still illusive.  Was this country distracted from its mission in Afghanistan by turning its attention to Iraq?

The question of Iraq seems to be fundamental to our current predicament- a country divided and a world that has serious problem with our actions.  There were huge anti-war demonstrations all over this country and abroad on the eve of the Iraqi invasion.  Compare that to the handful of dissenters of the Afghani war who were predominantly folks who condemn any war, even one that is a justifiable response.  The war in Iraq was the first time this country made a pre-emptive strike on any nation.  This was a monumental shift for this country.  Was a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq antithetical to our values and our moral authority as the remaining world’s super power. 

The question of whether or not Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 was answered by the President himself in a recent press conference when he said that Iraq had nothing to do with those despicable attacks on our people. It is striking that according to a recent poll conducted by CNN 43% of this country believes that Iraq was directly involved with supporting those attacks of five years ago.  There is debate in this country about whether or not the war in Iraq is part of the larger response to global terrorism.  Is terrorism quelled by an Iraq that is, for all intents and purposes, in a sectarian civil war and is becoming more closely allied with the very real danger of that region of the world- Iran?

President Bush came to Washington with a promise to be a “uniter and not a divider”.  He said he was determined to end Washington gridlock.  9/11 was a time in our history where we were united we might have built on that unity.  It seems that our division and the world’s contempt have less to do with our response to global terrorism or 9/11and has more to do with our policy in
Iraq.

Part of our response to terrorism has been to take actions that many question- surveillance and secret prisons with questionable interrogation practices which is a nice way of saying torture.  This too has caused problems at home and abroad.  The larger question for me is whether or not we have lost our values in the face of a threat.  Our constitution, our domestic laws and our support of international laws are central to our nation’s greatness.  To me- patriotism is not about flying the American flag but is about venerating our Constitution.  Have the terrorists won when our own value system is compromised?

Even in the face of falling support for his Presidency, Mr. Bush has vowed to stay the course. One may see this as determination but I and many citizens see this as arrogance.    It strikes me that we do not want the legacy of 9/11 to be one of arrogance and division.  As we honor those that were lost on that fateful day five years ago it important that we continue to ask fundamental questions about how this nation responds to terrorism and our involvement with Iraq.  The hallmark of this nation is our ability to openly question our policies.   We must continue to ask the difficult questions and to work towards a nation united- this should be the legacy of 9/11.  

I spent the last week of August at a conference for grantees of the federal Ryan White CARE Act which funds services for people living with HIV/AIDS who are uninsured or underinsured.  The conference was organized by the HIV AIDS Bureau (HAB) within the Health Resources Service Administration (HRSA) which is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS).  With all those acronyms there is no disputing that this is a federal program. 

In their attempt to make the attendees feel warm and fuzzy about the work of the CARE Act grantees (state health departments, local health departments and an array of clinics) the conference organizers (HRSA/HAB) stated some statistics for this $2.1 Billion program.  According to 2006 Ryan White CARE Act Progress Report: On the Frontlines, people living with HIV/AIDS are poorer than the general population, and CARE Act clients are poorer still. More than 50 percent of CARE Act clients have household incomes equal to or below the federal poverty level and only 11 percent have any private health insurance. Findings in the report summarize program data from 2004.   In a HRSA press release, agency administrator Dr. Elizabeth M. Duke stated, “The report reminds us of our mission in administering the CARE Act: to ensure that we address the needs of those living with HIV/AIDS who otherwise would have no access to care.”

Am I the only one struck by the disconnect between a government agency touting their service to an impoverished population without health coverage that is operating in a government that is adamantly opposed to universal health coverage and does not support any economic and tax policy that would work towards lessening poverty?

While HRSA was patting itself on the back for serving a population that our leaders leave behind on a regular basis, the Census Bureau released some sobering statistics.  The new data also showed continuing erosion in the percentage of Americans covered by health insurance. In 2005, an estimated 46.6 million people had no coverage, up 1.3 million since 2004 and increasing the percentage of Americans without health coverage from 15.6 percent of the population to 15.9 percent.  After recent decreases in the numbers of children without health insurance, this year’s data found that their numbers grew between 2004 and 2005, rising from 10.8 percent of those under 18 to 11.2 percent. 

Simultaneously the California Legislature passed a bill that would make
California the only state to offer all its residents government-operated health care. Of course it should be no surprise to anyone that the state Republican party has cozied up to the insurance industry in opposing this bill and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is likely to veto the legislation.

The health care bill “will make quality health care available to each of us while preserving our freedom of choice as consumers and patients,” the bill’s author, Senator Sheila Kuehl, (D-Santa Monica), said after the Senate agreed to Assembly amendments on a 24-12 party-line vote.  Under the amended bill,
California residents essentially would pay their health insurance premiums, copays and deductibles into a state-funded health insurance program. Money the state spends on health care also would go into the new system. Kuehl modeled her bill on a private study that found billing each resident and business an annual premium based on income would be enough to pay for universal health care.  Kuehl said her bill guarantees that patients can choose their own doctors and would allow the state to cut prescription drug costs by negotiating bulk purchases. It also would help cut health care costs through increased efficiencies and reduced administrative costs, she said. In April, Massachusetts passed a plan that would require all residents to buy health insurance or face legal penalties, in much the same way California requires motorists to buy auto insurance.

The recently released census figures show Californians are more likely to be uninsured than residents of other states, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California. The Legislature’s approval of Kuehl’s plan shows that California’s health care system needs immediate improvement, he said.

San Francisco Chronicle business columnist David Lazarus has said that a single payer health system that would mix current federal programs (Medicaid and Medicare) with tax revenues that would raise corporate taxes by a little more than 7% and individual income taxes by a little over 3% would save more than $8 billion to the state, corporations and individuals in the first year.  Health care economists everywhere agree that public sector health care (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid) are much more administratively efficient than health care in the private sector. 

I vigorously support the CARE Act and other programs that cobble together some resources for those in our society that are poor, living with disabilities and have no health coverage.  I have spent a great deal of my professional life advocating for the CARE Act and for appropriations to its programs.  I am a staunch supporter for reauthorization of this legislation in a way that ensures thoughtful health policy and not a political agenda.  As a person living with AIDS I have benefited from the CARE Act’s ADAP program but admittedly- it is California’s generosity to this state/federal program that benefits me the most.  However Americans – including people living with HIV/AIDS – would be best served by universal health care.  It would reduce the strain on our economy (health care costs our economy about $2 trillion annually), ensure a healthier population and benefit those least likely to have health coverage- our children.