Remember the words of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who on September 20, 2006, standing before the United Nations General Assembly, said, “Yesterday, the devil came here,” alluding to President George W. Bush’s appearance before the General Assembly? Chavez continued, “Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of.” In case anyone had missed the point, Mr. Chavez drove it home: “Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.” Those remarks, combined with his hand gestures, will probably never be forgotten by many of our generation. They produced much chuckles and applause in the assembly hall.
Every September, many of the world’s leaders come to New York to address the General Assembly sessions of the United Nations. The 192-member Assembly, U.N.’s supreme policy making body -- much diminished in stature since the 1990s and viewed more like a toothless tiger, has routinely served as a high-profile international theatre for world leaders who take the podium for few minutes to boost their political image back home. There is rumor in the air that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is coming to the UN this year. This would be his first visit to the UN. His fellow country man Dr. Ali Abdessalam Treky, Libya’s Secretary for African Union Affairs, has already been elected to serve as the president of the upcoming 64th session of the Assembly.
Like some other controversial leaders, the late Hafez al-Assad of Syria, the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Gaddafi had scrupulously avoided the world body all these years. With lifting of the sanctions, easing of tensions between Libya and the West and the ensuing multi-billion dollar trade deals, things have been going rather well for the “brotherly leader and guide of the revolution” from Libya, until recently when his son accompanied Abdel-Baset Ali al-Megrahi – a prisoner released by the Scottish government on humanitarian ground – back to Libya.
So who is Megrahi and why is the West upset about his release? For that we have to turn our clock back to December 21, 1988 when a Boeing 747-121 (Pan Am flight 103) was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members. Eleven people in Lockerbie in southern Scotland (UK) were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270. Within hours of the plane crash, several groups, including the Ulster Defence League claimed responsibility. However, because of the escalating tension with the USA, fingers were quickly pointed toward known suspects - Libya, Syria, the PLO and Iran as countries that might have sponsored the crime.
After a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway (UK) Constabulary and the FBI (USA), indictments for murder were issued on November 13, 1991 against Abdel-Baset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, the LAA station manager in Luqa Airport, Malta. Libya refused to hand over the suspects, insisting that it would instead try them in its own courts, unless the trial took place in a neutral country -- a position that was also echoed by Nelson Mandela of South Africa who objected to British position by saying: “I have never thought in dealing with this question that it is correct for any particular country to be the complainant, the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.” Eventually, the UN’s punitive sanctions against Libya and negotiations with the Libyan leader secured the handover of the accused on April 5, 1999 to Scottish police at Camp Zeist, Netherlands, having been chosen as a neutral venue for their trial. On May 3, 2000, the trial of the two Libyans began. On January 31, 2001, a panel of three Scottish judges convicted Megrahi and sentenced him to 27 years in prison. Fhimah was acquitted.
The judgment stated: "From the evidence which we have discussed so far, we are satisfied that it has been proved that the primary suitcase containing the explosive device was dispatched from Malta, passed through Frankfurt and was loaded onto PA103 at Heathrow. It is, as we have said, clear that with one exception the clothing in the primary suitcase was the clothing purchased in Mr. Gauci’s shop on 7 December 1988. The purchaser was, on Mr. Gauci’s evidence, a Libyan. The trigger for the explosion was an MST-13 timer of the single solder mask variety. A substantial quantity of such timers had been supplied to Libya. We cannot say that it is impossible that the clothing might have been taken from Malta, united somewhere with a timer from some source other than Libya and introduced into the airline baggage system at Frankfurt or Heathrow. When, however, the evidence regarding the clothing, the purchaser and the timer is taken with the evidence that an unaccompanied bag was taken from KM180 to PA103A, the inference that that was the primary suitcase becomes, in our view, irresistible. As we have also said, the absence of an explanation as to how the suitcase was taken into the system at Luqa is a major difficulty for the Crown case but after taking full account of that difficulty, we remain of the view that the primary suitcase began its journey at Luqa. The clear inference which we draw from this evidence is that the conception, planning and execution of the plot which led to the planting of the explosive device was of Libyan origin. While no doubt organisations such as the PFLP-GC and the PPSF were also engaged in terrorist activities during the same period, we are satisfied that there was no evidence from which we could infer that they were involved in this particular act of terrorism, and the evidence relating to their activities does not create a reasonable doubt in our minds about the Libyan origin of this crime." [Note: both the PFLP-GC and PPSF are Palestinian Marxist groups.]
The Libyan motive for the act is generally attributed to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra during Reagan era. In 1981 two Libyan fighter aircrafts patrolling over its territorial waters in the Gulf were shot down by the US Navy. Later two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf. On March 23, 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra, followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on March 25, 1986. When on April 5, 1986 a bomb exploded in a West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, which was frequented by American soldiers, killing three and injuring 230, the Libyan leader was accused of retaliating to those sinkings of Libyan boats. On April 15, 1986 President Reagan ordered bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi inside Libya. Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Gaddafi’s adopted daughter.
Megrahi throughout his imprisonment in Greenock Prison maintained that he was innocent of the charges against him in the Pan Am Flight 103 plane crash. His appeal against his conviction was, however, refused on March 14, 2002, and his application to the European Court of Human Rights was declared inadmissible in July 2003. Later that year he applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for his conviction to be reviewed, and on June 28, 2007 the SCCRC announced its decision to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh after it found he “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.” On August 20, 2009, the Scottish Government released him after serving nearly nine years on compassionate grounds to return to Libya as he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and had a life expectancy of less than three months.
After he left the Scottish soil, Megrahi released a statement protesting his innocence and expressing his sympathy for the families of the victims he was convicted of killing. Upon his return to Libya, Megrahi was welcomed by hundreds (a very small crowd by Libya’s standard), much to the chagrin of the British government and anger of the victims’ families. Many of the world leaders were also upset with Megrahi’s release from the Scottish prison and the reception he had received in Libya. [Even my own physician, a Jewish American, was upset. Last week, when I met him for my yearly physical checkup, he said, “Can you believe these Scotts? They have released a mass murder who had killed 270 people!” “If I had the gun,” he continued, “I would have killed that b--d. He should have served 270 life-terms and not released for his terminal cancer.”]
Two-thirds of the victims of the Lockerbie plane crash were Americans, which included many students from the north-eastern states. Before their death, 38 victims lived in the state of New Jersey, where Libyan officials were considering setting up a Bedouin-style tent at a Libyan-owned estate in the upscale suburb of Englewood to accommodate Col. Gaddafi and his entourage to attend the upcoming 64th Session of the General Assembly of the UN. Relatives of the victims had threatened to converge on New York to mount a protest when Gaddafi attends the United Nations General Assembly on September 23.
So, it is not difficult to understand why Gaddafi’s anticipated visit to New York and New Jersey has now become a big political debate in New Jersey’s gubernatorial election. The incumbent governor Jon Corzine and New Jersey federal legislators have joined an angry chorus of opposition to Gaddafi’s visit to the state. A columnist with the Star-Ledger wrote, “Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan dictator, is arguably an accessory to murder... The issue is whether he should be arrested once he sets foot on American soil -- on New Jersey soil.” (August 26, 2009)
However, such an opposition to foreign leader’s visit to attend the UN session is illegal according to the host-nation agreement with the UN, which stipulates that the USA is obligated to allow foreign leaders, other officials and diplomats into the country to visit or work at the UN, with limited exceptions. However, the agreement allows U.S. authorities to restrict their movement to a 25-mile radius around U.N. headquarters in Manhattan. Englewood is 12 miles north of Manhattan, apparently placing it within the 25-mile radius.
The opposition to Gaddafi’s anticipated visit also ignores the fact that the case against Libya and Megrahi was hemmed around flimsy evidences, which led to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh to declare that it “may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.” Many intelligence experts from the CIA and German security service believed that the type of bomb used to blow up the plane came not from Libya, but bore all the hallmarks of the PFLP-GC.
It is true that on 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to $2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing $10 million per family. But the payment was made in good faith to lift off economic sanctions against the country. By opposing Gaddafi’s visit now to the USA, these relatives of the victims who had benefited personally from such big pay-offs are setting a new standard in hypocrisy. If they had the moral higher ground, they should have denied the big pay-offs from Libya years ago. That would have been honorable and fair.
No less hypocritical is the stand of Robert Mueller, the FBI director, who wrote a scathing letter to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, for allowing Abdel-Baset Ali Al Megrahi to return to Libya. The director said the decision made “a mockery of justice” and gives comfort to terrorists around the world, according to US reports.
In response, a Scottish Government spokesman said: “The US authorities indicated that although they were opposed to both prisoner transfer and compassionate release, they made it clear that they regarded compassionate release as far preferable to the transfer agreement, and Mr. Mueller should be aware of that. Mr. Mueller was involved in the Lockerbie case, and therefore has strong views, but he should also be aware that while many families have opposed Mr. MacAskill’s decision many others have supported it.”
Nor should we be oblivious of the victims of the Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) that was shot down by the US Navy on July 3, 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz, inside the Iranian territorial waters. The civilian aircraft, an Airbus A300B2, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to Dubai, UAE, when it was destroyed by the U.S. Navy’s guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children, ranking it the among the deadliest airliner fatalities. The Vincennes was traversing the Straits of Hormuz inside Iranian territorial waters and at the time of the attack, IR655 was within Iranian airspace. As part of an agreement, reached in 1996, relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice, the United States agreed to pay only $61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner).
The amount paid by the US government is peanuts compared to that made by Libya. In a show of typical arrogance, the USA also did not admit responsibility or apologize to the Iranian government. [Digression: The US forces have not paid anything to most of its civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even when payments were made in some rare cases, the maximum payment was just couple of thousand dollars per victim. ] In a July 13, 1992 article, Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles noted that Captain William C. Rogers III had acted recklessly and without due care. They also accused the U.S. government of a cover-up which Admiral Crowe denied. (Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American (ABC) television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. This contradicted earlier Navy statements that were misleading if not incorrect.)
An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire. The Vincennes had been nicknamed “Robocruiser” by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its Aegis system and aggressive tendencies of its trigger-happy captain.
CIA’s ex-director Muller’s recent remarks are symptomatic of selective amnesia when we notice that in 1990 Captain Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989.” (Note: The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of IR655.)
I have never been an admirer of the Libyan strongman. But I am not sorry to stating that all this fuss around Megrahi’s release from the Scottish prison and opposition to Gaddafi’s anticipated appearance in the UN is nothing but blatant hypocrisy. Much that we may hate to admit, by paying handsomely the victims of terrorism, both at home and abroad, Gaddafi has set a higher standard than the USA on a comparable basis. For years, when the USA and Israel were Apartheid South Africa’s best friends, Gaddafi was a trusted comrade of Nelson Mandela’s ANC. He has more rights than any of the Israeli leaders that have had attended the UN General Assembly. If Governor Corzine (NJ) and Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) had no problem in letting such mass murderers to enter New Jersey and New York City, they should not set a double-standard now for Libya’s Gaddafi.
References:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6069475/Father-still-seeking-Lockerbie-truth-after-20-years.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/08_august/29/lockerbie.shtml
See, e.g., http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us-follows-iraqi-customs-to-avoid-new-enemies/?pagemode=print ; see also the reports: http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm , http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1074305.html
While Libya maintained that it was innocent of the bombing in UTA flight 772 and German discotheque, it never the less paid the victims. It even paid the victims of US attack in Tripoli and Benghazi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Debunking Saudi intellectual's observations on Muslim Scholars of the Past
Re: http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP233209
It seems I have some major disagreements with the Arab scholar Ibrahim al-Bulehi. I believe that while those individual philosophers from Andalusia like Ibn Rushd were not Arabs they definitely were products of Islamic civilization and not what is called western civilization. The Greco-Roman western civilization had collapsed centuries before the Islamic one ushered in. While our scholars did study Greek philosophy and the sciences, their contribution is beyond mere Arabization of the Greek knowledge. They took theory from textbooks and made it a practical science that nurtured on experimentation and observation. In that process, not only did they challenge old wrong notions and hypotheses but also did come up with new theories and axioms that are still valid. It would be wrong to separate them from Islamic civilization. They were both the products and trailblazers of that Islamic civilization.
It is also wrong to say that those great philosophers were detached from Islam. A keen reading of Ibn Rushd, and even the much controversial Bu Ali Sina, shows that they were motivated by Islam and were firmly grounded on the faith. It is true that Imam Ghazzali (RA) had criticized some of them, but that was only to demonstrate the fallibility of logic and rationalism to explain away non-rational matters like wahy, revelation, etc. As Muslims, we have learned to live in peace as those who believe in the unseen (one of the first few sentences of the Qur'an).
I am inclined to feel, probably like the interviewer, that al-Bulehi is a confused person, and undeserving of the status of an intellectual. He is right though to criticize our generation of Muslims that have only learned to take delight in the past and do nothing to make our imprints felt in this age. My article in the Muslim World Almanac had already dealt with the pathetic state of ours. That attitude of ours need to change and like Bulehi, I agree that we need to be self-critical. But self-criticism does not mean falsifying truth. He sounds too much like Zia Gokalp and many other derailed Kemalist, Muslim intellectuals who in the past had wrongly identified Islam as the main cause for today's backwardness of Muslims. That is why, I hate to consider them as intellectuals.
It seems I have some major disagreements with the Arab scholar Ibrahim al-Bulehi. I believe that while those individual philosophers from Andalusia like Ibn Rushd were not Arabs they definitely were products of Islamic civilization and not what is called western civilization. The Greco-Roman western civilization had collapsed centuries before the Islamic one ushered in. While our scholars did study Greek philosophy and the sciences, their contribution is beyond mere Arabization of the Greek knowledge. They took theory from textbooks and made it a practical science that nurtured on experimentation and observation. In that process, not only did they challenge old wrong notions and hypotheses but also did come up with new theories and axioms that are still valid. It would be wrong to separate them from Islamic civilization. They were both the products and trailblazers of that Islamic civilization.
It is also wrong to say that those great philosophers were detached from Islam. A keen reading of Ibn Rushd, and even the much controversial Bu Ali Sina, shows that they were motivated by Islam and were firmly grounded on the faith. It is true that Imam Ghazzali (RA) had criticized some of them, but that was only to demonstrate the fallibility of logic and rationalism to explain away non-rational matters like wahy, revelation, etc. As Muslims, we have learned to live in peace as those who believe in the unseen (one of the first few sentences of the Qur'an).
I am inclined to feel, probably like the interviewer, that al-Bulehi is a confused person, and undeserving of the status of an intellectual. He is right though to criticize our generation of Muslims that have only learned to take delight in the past and do nothing to make our imprints felt in this age. My article in the Muslim World Almanac had already dealt with the pathetic state of ours. That attitude of ours need to change and like Bulehi, I agree that we need to be self-critical. But self-criticism does not mean falsifying truth. He sounds too much like Zia Gokalp and many other derailed Kemalist, Muslim intellectuals who in the past had wrongly identified Islam as the main cause for today's backwardness of Muslims. That is why, I hate to consider them as intellectuals.
Senator Edward Kennedy Dies at 77
It is a sad day for America. With the death of Senator Teddy Kennedy, America lost one of its most noble souls. He was an articulate advocate of human rights, an unwavering champion of peace against war, and, of course, immigration rights and health-care for all. His was a life very few could aspire for - from childhood upbringing unto death. He was able to see things very few had dared to consider. He was able to discuss things with ease very few dared to discuss. Often times the stand he took were not politically correct. Yet as a man of parts, a visionary, as one of the best citizens of our planet, he took a bold stand and tried to make America better for all its citizens and inhabitants and by that process he touched the lives of too many, even those who lived outside. He knew that we are all connected somehow. What is good for our world ought to have been good for America, too.
In deep sadness, I recall the demise of this great man whose contribution to the cause of Bangladesh should never be forgotten by our posterity.
In deep sadness, I recall the demise of this great man whose contribution to the cause of Bangladesh should never be forgotten by our posterity.
Arabism at its worst
My attention has been drawn to an article by Mr. Khalaf Habtoor in the Global Arab Network. In a blatant statement he says that the Persian Gulf need to be named the Arabian Gulf.
Khalaf Habtoor's article on the naming of the Persian Gulf is very problematic and shows nothing but arrogance and lack of wisdom. While the entire Muslim ummah is bleeding from one coast of the Arabian Sea to the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, such a proposal is not only utterly stupid but also very divisive and, therefore, un-Islamic, further creating tension within the region, as if we don't have enough already! I condemn such chauvinism and would encourage our Arab community to rise above petty narrow chauvinism and Arabism for the sake of God, especially in this blessed month of Ramadhan. Let us not put ax on our own feet with pronouncements and agenda that are self-defeating and only end up strengthening our enemies that like nothing better than disunity and strife within our camp. May Allah give us hiqmah to see clearly what is good and beneficial for the ummah.
Content item: http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2379&joscclean=1&comment_id=354#josc354
Khalaf Habtoor's article on the naming of the Persian Gulf is very problematic and shows nothing but arrogance and lack of wisdom. While the entire Muslim ummah is bleeding from one coast of the Arabian Sea to the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, such a proposal is not only utterly stupid but also very divisive and, therefore, un-Islamic, further creating tension within the region, as if we don't have enough already! I condemn such chauvinism and would encourage our Arab community to rise above petty narrow chauvinism and Arabism for the sake of God, especially in this blessed month of Ramadhan. Let us not put ax on our own feet with pronouncements and agenda that are self-defeating and only end up strengthening our enemies that like nothing better than disunity and strife within our camp. May Allah give us hiqmah to see clearly what is good and beneficial for the ummah.
Content item: http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2379&joscclean=1&comment_id=354#josc354
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Comments on global warming
Re: http://www.japaninc.com/Saving_the_Earth_from_Global_Warming#comment-1739
Flavio Souza has written a good article on harms done by human beings to the very place they call their home - the planet earth. Change is inevitable in history. Thus, we see that today's men are far more advanced to exploit nature for their needs. But in that process, something definitely has gone seriously wrong. Greed and satisfaction of our desires have taken priority over common sense. Thus, we are behaving like that stupid farmer who would rather eat the goose that was laying the golden eggs.
A visit to places like Bangladesh, her frequent bout with natural calamities, is enough to make a believer out of anyone who is still doubtful about the harmful effect of global warming. Millions of people are routinely marooned there; the place is slowing going under water. And yet, hardly anything is done to stop this process of global warming. On the top of this misery, India is planning on building dams on international waters that run into the Bay of Bengal via Bangladesh - which is a sure recipe to destroy vegetation, ecology and people's livelihood. Where will all those tens of millions move if man-made disasters and madness are not stopped before it is too late?
But the good thing is -- we have the power to stop our stupidity and victimization of others. But the bad thing is we lack courage and foresightedness to undo our wrongs.
Flavio Souza has written a good article on harms done by human beings to the very place they call their home - the planet earth. Change is inevitable in history. Thus, we see that today's men are far more advanced to exploit nature for their needs. But in that process, something definitely has gone seriously wrong. Greed and satisfaction of our desires have taken priority over common sense. Thus, we are behaving like that stupid farmer who would rather eat the goose that was laying the golden eggs.
A visit to places like Bangladesh, her frequent bout with natural calamities, is enough to make a believer out of anyone who is still doubtful about the harmful effect of global warming. Millions of people are routinely marooned there; the place is slowing going under water. And yet, hardly anything is done to stop this process of global warming. On the top of this misery, India is planning on building dams on international waters that run into the Bay of Bengal via Bangladesh - which is a sure recipe to destroy vegetation, ecology and people's livelihood. Where will all those tens of millions move if man-made disasters and madness are not stopped before it is too late?
But the good thing is -- we have the power to stop our stupidity and victimization of others. But the bad thing is we lack courage and foresightedness to undo our wrongs.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Comments on Seoul Times article by a messenger of hate - Lee Jay Walker
Re: http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=8730
I must admit I have never read anything this bad in quite a while. This article is a blatant one-sided christian attack against Islam.
The appearance of this kind of hateful article in a newspaper from South Korea only shows that the paper does not have a high standard in journalism and is abused as a tool to create division and animosity with the world of Islam. This kind of article twists facts and distorts history, while trying to protect Christianity from a similar criticism when we know its problematic history of enslavement of hundreds of millions of people in vast territories of Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas, let alone the Crusades that saw no mercy from warriors for Christ. Much to the contrast of Jesus's much publicized words of peace what the Christian West presented the world was an ugly side of Christianity that the world never saw before.
The sad reality is even in this age of information super highways there are many pen-pushing pundits like Lee Jay Walker that are irate about Obama's fence-mending Ramadan message of peace with the 1.7 billion Muslims. They would rather see our world as a battle ground for toxic Christianity. Shame on the Seoul Times and shame on its Tokyo correspondent - Lee Walker for spreading hatred.
I must admit I have never read anything this bad in quite a while. This article is a blatant one-sided christian attack against Islam.
The appearance of this kind of hateful article in a newspaper from South Korea only shows that the paper does not have a high standard in journalism and is abused as a tool to create division and animosity with the world of Islam. This kind of article twists facts and distorts history, while trying to protect Christianity from a similar criticism when we know its problematic history of enslavement of hundreds of millions of people in vast territories of Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas, let alone the Crusades that saw no mercy from warriors for Christ. Much to the contrast of Jesus's much publicized words of peace what the Christian West presented the world was an ugly side of Christianity that the world never saw before.
The sad reality is even in this age of information super highways there are many pen-pushing pundits like Lee Jay Walker that are irate about Obama's fence-mending Ramadan message of peace with the 1.7 billion Muslims. They would rather see our world as a battle ground for toxic Christianity. Shame on the Seoul Times and shame on its Tokyo correspondent - Lee Walker for spreading hatred.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
America’s Health Care Debate
As I mentioned last week, the US health care program needs a massive overhaul and not a cosmetic one. This fact was recognized by all the presidential candidates last year when they ran for the highest office in the country. The current program only helps those who are insured and could afford to pay premium prices for their desired services, leaving behind tens of millions who are uninsured or under-insured.
The under-insured must pay exorbitant prices for their desired healthcare services – from making up the difference in hospital or medical cost, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars just for staying a night or two in a hospital to buying prescription drugs. Just to give some examples. When someone calls 911 for emergency medical assistance, the ambulatory service would take the patient to the nearest hospital unless asked otherwise. This cost of transporting the patient (usually within 5 miles) to the emergency ward may run close to a thousand dollars! Often times, even the best of the health insurance plans cover only a small fraction of such costs. The bill for a 24-hour stay in a hospital can run into several thousand dollars, depending on the type of sickness and treatment provided. Even when the attending emergency doctor could not diagnose the disease or there was not anything serious and had released the patient within few hours, the charge can run into a couple of thousand dollars. In such cases, the patient would be advised to see his/her own doctor. Most doctors would only see patients that are insured, or can pay their high bills for their services. An insured patient usually pays a co-payment every time he/she sees a doctor, which can run upwards of $15. But those who are uninsured are usually denied such services. They must pay the full amount to the attending doctor for any service, provided the latter is willing to see him/her. While any uninsured patient, once brought to an emergency ward in a hospital, cannot, in principle, be denied medical care, often times the failure of the patient for such medical services provided by the hospital are passed on to insured individuals, who now must pay a higher premium to continue their insurance policy. As a result, insurance payments and associated healthcare costs for insured individuals are always increasing while services are deteriorating.
Most medical treatments end up buying prescription drugs from pharmacies. Just a single tablet when it is categorized as a prescription drug (and no generics are available) can cost sometimes a hundred dollars. This brings into the fore the not-so-ethical or inhumane, almost viper-like, practices of the drug companies that charge such exorbitant prices for their so-called life-saving drugs. The pharmaceutical industry would tell you that it takes enormous efforts to bring a new drug into the market. It is true. In general, it takes nearly 7-12 years to bring a new drug, costing millions of dollars in research, development and regulatory compliance. The probability of success for finding the new target is too slim, thus, adding to such high prices in the discovery stage.
Unlike other process industries, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is in its infantile stage in matters of implementing Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, and other quality initiatives and measures which have proven to drastically cut down cycle time, reduce wastes and develop products faster and cheaper, while granting efficacy and stability. This I say based on my own experience of working with the pharmaceutical industry. When I worked as a Director with Merck & Co., a highly reputable global drug research and manufacturing company, I was simply shocked to see the deplorable state of affairs with its quality program – from research to manufacturing and human health. Most of its processes were not streamlined, requiring too many hand-offs and unnecessarily complicating simple systems, adding to time, cost and delivery.
Interestingly, Merck’s CEO Dick Clark, just months before I joined the company, had announced to the Wall Street how the six sigma initiative would improve performance throughout the company. The initiative was made part of Merck’s Plan-to-win strategy. But the players who were put in charge of making that happen were mostly unqualified in-house employees, who moved upward through the rank, with little or no prior experience with change initiatives of the size required to make the difference to the corporate vision and bottom line. The old guards were too protective of their turf and liked to micro-manage the entire change execution. Certification requirements were a joke. For example, people were awarded Six Sigma Master Black Belt (MBB) certification after completion of one or two projects (which I later guided to change to at least 7). But these soft-MBBs, if I may qualify their poor level of skill in lean/six sigma, were the same individuals put in place to run the overall corporate and division-wide process excellence program. Too many things – not just with the “soft” certification process of belt candidates and how financial benefits were reported - simply did not seem right, almost bordering into unethical practices, adding to overall low morale of employees and utter frustration of real experts brought from outside to guide and assist with the new initiative. Many such experts have since left the company. Sadly, incompetence, mediocrity, ego and lack of long term commitment and foresightedness seemed the rule rather than exceptions. If these are the facts with a highly respectable drug maker, one can sense the overall unhealthy condition of the pharmaceutical industry that truly needs a paradigm shift as to how better to cope with the challenges of the new century where quality matters to customers.
As I mentioned earlier, prescription drugs costs too much in America, and are unaffordable for most patients, esp. when they don’t have adequate health insurance plans for covering prescription drugs. Most co-payment for prescription drugs can cost minimum of $20 per 15-30 day supply of tablets per item. While longer, inefficient and non-streamlined processes for marketing drug from inception as it goes through all the phases and trials contribute significantly to such drug costs paid by patients, one should not be oblivious of the higher salaries of all those working in the bio-tech and pharmaceutical industry. [For instance, Abbott Laboratories Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Miles White's compensation was $25.3 million in 2008. Merck & Co.'s chief executive, Richard Clark, received a $17.3 million compensation package for 2008.] All individuals with ranks of vice president and above within Merck were provided with round the clock limousine service for commuting to and from work. That is, they did not have to drive to work. The president would use the helicopter. In departmental or most meetings, three to four times food would be supplied than actually required, only to be later wasted. It is no-brainer that all such unjustifiable work force practices, high salaries and wasteful activities end up costing the patient more in buying drugs.
So it goes without saying that a comprehensive overhaul of the entire healthcare program – from drug makers, distributors/marketers/pharmacies to insurance companies, doctors and hospitals – is needed to get out of the current quagmire. President Obama’s push for healthcare reform is trying to address issues surrounding each player in this game by reining in costs, constraining insurance companies and expanding coverage to 46 million uninsured Americans. There are many who oppose any reform within the healthcare sector. Many are opposed to putting a cap on salaries of top level executives. Last Friday, August 21, billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York defended multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate. In spite of such condescending voices opposing change, it is fair to say that the salaries made by anyone related to the healthcare industry need to be regulated, bringing it at par with other industries. The current economic downturn should also provide enough justification for curtailing unbelievable paychecks and bonuses offered to the C-level executives in every industry, and not just limited to the pharmaceutical industry.
As it stands today, Obama’s courtship with the Republicans has failed to persuade them to approve his government-run insurance plan. To ensure approval Obama needs 218 votes (out of 435) in the House, where Democrats have 256 seats, and 60 votes in the Senate, where Democrats and their allies have exactly 60 seats -- enough to break any Republican effort to block the legislation through procedural tactics. However, as opined by many experts who are observing the debate closely, to reach the magic number in the House, he must walk a tightrope between more than 50 conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, many from Republican-leaning districts, and more than 80 liberal members, most from safe Democratic seats where they rarely face a re-election challenge. Liberals within his party have demanded inclusion of a government-run insurance option and threatened to withhold support without it. Many Democratic conservatives on the other hand have voiced concern about the cost, the public plan and the impact on small businesses.
Three House committees have passed a health care measure that includes a strong public option, which according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated would attract 10 million to 11 million people by 2019. Many critics say that the government-run insurance plan, designed to bolster competition and choice in the market would amount to a government takeover of health care. While they are against government programs, they have failed to offer anything substantial to alleviate the current problem with 46 million uninsured Americans.
Only the coming weeks would show how effective the White House was in getting the necessary support from the elected representatives within President’s own party to passing the health care bill. Obviously, getting a bi-partisan approval would be even better and go a long way to show Obama’s leadership skill to make deals that are critical to the public.
The under-insured must pay exorbitant prices for their desired healthcare services – from making up the difference in hospital or medical cost, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars just for staying a night or two in a hospital to buying prescription drugs. Just to give some examples. When someone calls 911 for emergency medical assistance, the ambulatory service would take the patient to the nearest hospital unless asked otherwise. This cost of transporting the patient (usually within 5 miles) to the emergency ward may run close to a thousand dollars! Often times, even the best of the health insurance plans cover only a small fraction of such costs. The bill for a 24-hour stay in a hospital can run into several thousand dollars, depending on the type of sickness and treatment provided. Even when the attending emergency doctor could not diagnose the disease or there was not anything serious and had released the patient within few hours, the charge can run into a couple of thousand dollars. In such cases, the patient would be advised to see his/her own doctor. Most doctors would only see patients that are insured, or can pay their high bills for their services. An insured patient usually pays a co-payment every time he/she sees a doctor, which can run upwards of $15. But those who are uninsured are usually denied such services. They must pay the full amount to the attending doctor for any service, provided the latter is willing to see him/her. While any uninsured patient, once brought to an emergency ward in a hospital, cannot, in principle, be denied medical care, often times the failure of the patient for such medical services provided by the hospital are passed on to insured individuals, who now must pay a higher premium to continue their insurance policy. As a result, insurance payments and associated healthcare costs for insured individuals are always increasing while services are deteriorating.
Most medical treatments end up buying prescription drugs from pharmacies. Just a single tablet when it is categorized as a prescription drug (and no generics are available) can cost sometimes a hundred dollars. This brings into the fore the not-so-ethical or inhumane, almost viper-like, practices of the drug companies that charge such exorbitant prices for their so-called life-saving drugs. The pharmaceutical industry would tell you that it takes enormous efforts to bring a new drug into the market. It is true. In general, it takes nearly 7-12 years to bring a new drug, costing millions of dollars in research, development and regulatory compliance. The probability of success for finding the new target is too slim, thus, adding to such high prices in the discovery stage.
Unlike other process industries, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is in its infantile stage in matters of implementing Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, and other quality initiatives and measures which have proven to drastically cut down cycle time, reduce wastes and develop products faster and cheaper, while granting efficacy and stability. This I say based on my own experience of working with the pharmaceutical industry. When I worked as a Director with Merck & Co., a highly reputable global drug research and manufacturing company, I was simply shocked to see the deplorable state of affairs with its quality program – from research to manufacturing and human health. Most of its processes were not streamlined, requiring too many hand-offs and unnecessarily complicating simple systems, adding to time, cost and delivery.
Interestingly, Merck’s CEO Dick Clark, just months before I joined the company, had announced to the Wall Street how the six sigma initiative would improve performance throughout the company. The initiative was made part of Merck’s Plan-to-win strategy. But the players who were put in charge of making that happen were mostly unqualified in-house employees, who moved upward through the rank, with little or no prior experience with change initiatives of the size required to make the difference to the corporate vision and bottom line. The old guards were too protective of their turf and liked to micro-manage the entire change execution. Certification requirements were a joke. For example, people were awarded Six Sigma Master Black Belt (MBB) certification after completion of one or two projects (which I later guided to change to at least 7). But these soft-MBBs, if I may qualify their poor level of skill in lean/six sigma, were the same individuals put in place to run the overall corporate and division-wide process excellence program. Too many things – not just with the “soft” certification process of belt candidates and how financial benefits were reported - simply did not seem right, almost bordering into unethical practices, adding to overall low morale of employees and utter frustration of real experts brought from outside to guide and assist with the new initiative. Many such experts have since left the company. Sadly, incompetence, mediocrity, ego and lack of long term commitment and foresightedness seemed the rule rather than exceptions. If these are the facts with a highly respectable drug maker, one can sense the overall unhealthy condition of the pharmaceutical industry that truly needs a paradigm shift as to how better to cope with the challenges of the new century where quality matters to customers.
As I mentioned earlier, prescription drugs costs too much in America, and are unaffordable for most patients, esp. when they don’t have adequate health insurance plans for covering prescription drugs. Most co-payment for prescription drugs can cost minimum of $20 per 15-30 day supply of tablets per item. While longer, inefficient and non-streamlined processes for marketing drug from inception as it goes through all the phases and trials contribute significantly to such drug costs paid by patients, one should not be oblivious of the higher salaries of all those working in the bio-tech and pharmaceutical industry. [For instance, Abbott Laboratories Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Miles White's compensation was $25.3 million in 2008. Merck & Co.'s chief executive, Richard Clark, received a $17.3 million compensation package for 2008.] All individuals with ranks of vice president and above within Merck were provided with round the clock limousine service for commuting to and from work. That is, they did not have to drive to work. The president would use the helicopter. In departmental or most meetings, three to four times food would be supplied than actually required, only to be later wasted. It is no-brainer that all such unjustifiable work force practices, high salaries and wasteful activities end up costing the patient more in buying drugs.
So it goes without saying that a comprehensive overhaul of the entire healthcare program – from drug makers, distributors/marketers/pharmacies to insurance companies, doctors and hospitals – is needed to get out of the current quagmire. President Obama’s push for healthcare reform is trying to address issues surrounding each player in this game by reining in costs, constraining insurance companies and expanding coverage to 46 million uninsured Americans. There are many who oppose any reform within the healthcare sector. Many are opposed to putting a cap on salaries of top level executives. Last Friday, August 21, billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York defended multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate. In spite of such condescending voices opposing change, it is fair to say that the salaries made by anyone related to the healthcare industry need to be regulated, bringing it at par with other industries. The current economic downturn should also provide enough justification for curtailing unbelievable paychecks and bonuses offered to the C-level executives in every industry, and not just limited to the pharmaceutical industry.
As it stands today, Obama’s courtship with the Republicans has failed to persuade them to approve his government-run insurance plan. To ensure approval Obama needs 218 votes (out of 435) in the House, where Democrats have 256 seats, and 60 votes in the Senate, where Democrats and their allies have exactly 60 seats -- enough to break any Republican effort to block the legislation through procedural tactics. However, as opined by many experts who are observing the debate closely, to reach the magic number in the House, he must walk a tightrope between more than 50 conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, many from Republican-leaning districts, and more than 80 liberal members, most from safe Democratic seats where they rarely face a re-election challenge. Liberals within his party have demanded inclusion of a government-run insurance option and threatened to withhold support without it. Many Democratic conservatives on the other hand have voiced concern about the cost, the public plan and the impact on small businesses.
Three House committees have passed a health care measure that includes a strong public option, which according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated would attract 10 million to 11 million people by 2019. Many critics say that the government-run insurance plan, designed to bolster competition and choice in the market would amount to a government takeover of health care. While they are against government programs, they have failed to offer anything substantial to alleviate the current problem with 46 million uninsured Americans.
Only the coming weeks would show how effective the White House was in getting the necessary support from the elected representatives within President’s own party to passing the health care bill. Obviously, getting a bi-partisan approval would be even better and go a long way to show Obama’s leadership skill to make deals that are critical to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)