Island Hospital Merger Debated at Fidalgo Meeting.

Dr. Bogosian addresses
 Fidalgo Democrats 

           For their monthly meeting on May 7th.  the Fidalgo Democrats invited Dr. Charles Bogosian and Attorney Mary Kay Barbieri as guest speakers.    As commissioner of Island Hospital Dr. Bogosian outlined the financial necessity and medical advantages of forming a partnership with larger hospitals in the region.  Representing the concerns outlined by Healthcare Freedom  Attorney Barbieri argued that the Catholic Hospitals, now in consideration for merger,  have and will impose the  Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) of the Catholic Bishops on affiliated hospitals and clinics.   GoSkagit Reporter Gina Cole provided an excellent summary of  the proposed mergers for Island and other  hospitals in the North Sound.

Dr. Bogosian told the audience that Island Hospital is financially stable,  but warns that the Affordable Care Act requirement for electronic medical records and  reduced medicare payments due to the sequester will reduce their profit margins currently at 3%.  Because of these concerns the Hospital administration initiated the mergers.   I suspect the desire for greater profits was also a lure.

Most Democrats support medicare but if Republicans continue to win Federal Elections,  Medicare will be eroded and our local hospitals will be adversely impacted.  That is not yet a done deal.

As for electronic medical record,  one member of the Fidalgo Dems audience - Donna Davidson - asked if Island Hospital could turn to Group Health for help.   No one present could answer that question.  Hopefully an answer will eventually be found.  Because I have Group Health insurance,  my doctor and I have found  Group Health's electronic medical records (which are available to us online)  helpful and convenient.

I like many others (even some Catholics) would not like to be solely dependent on hospitals and clinics governed by the ERDs.   The death last November of a young woman because the ERDs denied the termination of a miscarried pregnancy is a cautionary event.   At the other end of life many of us would prefer Death with Dignity ( as guaranteed by WA state law) to having our estates dried up while we live on as unconscious vegetables.  We would rather see the money spent on educating the younger generation and other worthy causes we supported while we were alive.  This would be denied by the ERDs.    Death with Dignity would also reduce the cost of medicare to tax payers,  but it would mean less money for the pharmaceutical-medical industrial complex.

Hospital mergers could also mean monopoly pricing.  I would like to know what the effects of a single payer system would have on hospital costs and mergers.

Corporate versus Community Rights

 The Fidalgo Democrats gathered at the Anacortes Public Library for their April monthly meeting to discuss how Communities could regain sovereignty over their environment.  The meeting featured three speakers on this subject: Stoney Bird, retired corporate attorney,  Ron Harris, retired businessman and Bill Bowman.

  Commercial development that threatens the livability of many communities has been in the news.  In the North Sound our environment is threatened by coal trains  and a water bottling factory in Anacortes.   Communities in the Mid West are polluted by  aging pipelines transporting crude oil and worse - oil from tar sands.  Residents of Pennsylvania, New York and Quebec are worried that fracking to retrieve natural gas will contaminate and deplete their ground water.    Through their interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and rulings like "Citzen United" ,  the conservative US Supreme Court has given corporations the power to strike down various federal and state laws designed to protect public welfare. Businessman Ron Harris reported that there has been some local support for a 28th Amendment to  the Constitution a.k.a  The People's Rights Amendment. introduced into the US House by Congressman Jim McGovern.  Many believe that the amendment would level the playing field between coporate and community rights and allow communities to take the offense in their struggle against coporations.

Both Bill Bowman and Stoney Bird referenced the findings of The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund  (CELDF).    CELDF claims that after decades of work, billions of dollars, the work of thousands of communities, and the involvement of the largest environmental groups,  things are worse now than they've ever been.   They argue that communities need to go on the offense and stop playing defense.  "What we've had is groups and people resisting one hog factory farm at a time, one toxic waste incinerator at a time, one road project at a time, one asphalt plant at a time."    CELDF  aims its  focus on governance that has eroded community sovereignty.   As with former slaves,  the natural environment in our current legal structures is treated as property to be exploited.  Our  environmental regulations only regulate how that property is used.   The Interstate Commerce Clause in the US Constitution has been successfully used by Corporations to override local restrictions on their activities.

The Fidalgo Democrats Chairwoman -Corinne Salcedo (left) - hosts guest speaker Stoney Byrd 

To take the offense against environmental destruction in the Pacific Northwest ,   Stoney Bird outlined efforts made by  Bellingham and Spokane.   Residents of these cities have tried to pass a "Community Bill of Rights" e.g.  One group proposing the idea is called Envision Spokane. Founded by the CEDLF,  Envision Spokane is made up of more than two dozen unions, community organizations and groups with ties to national organizations. Envision Spokane wants  “big developers, corporations and the city government” to respect the natural environment.  Envision Seattle has an agenda similar  in spirit embodied in Initiative 103 .    Coal-free-Bellingham has also proposed a Community Bill of Rights to be adopted by citizen's initiative.

 Section 6 of Envision Seattle's Initiative 103  seemed almost as aggressive as the 1776 Declaration of Independence i.e:

By the adoption of this ordinance by this municipality, the people call for changes to state and federal law that would result in the recognition of a fundamental and inalienable right to community self- government throughout this State and the United States. The people also declare their support for changes to state and federal law that would eliminate certain corporate constitutional rights and powers that currently interfere with, and prevent, the exercise of local self- governance. Those rights and powers include corporate authority to preempt community lawmaking, corporate “rights” as “persons” under the State and federal constitutions, and corporate “rights” under other sections of the State and federal constitutions. 

These Community Rights initiatives have already  faced  court challenges based on conflicts with State and Federal Law.   However,  Fidalgo Democratic Chairwomen - Corinne Salcedo - challenged my pessimism  with the following email response: "I would differ with your statement that these initiatives have already faced court challenges.  Out of some 150 community rights initiatives, only THREE have faced challenges.  So I'd say the community rights movement is making headway."

To many beleaguered communities,   large corporations have replaced the top down power of King George III.    Their power is based on money to finance elections and the promise of jobs.  Nevertheless,  the damage done by the massive explosion of the  West Texas fertilizer plant  this week has been an object lesson.   Even though there are State and Federal regulations for the use of chemicals,  citizens cannot depend on those governments to effectively administer those regulations.

Skagit County Law officers discuss "Gun Violence and Gun Laws: Stand Your Ground?"

Although Florida is thousands of miles away,  those of us in the Pacific North West could not help but wonder how gun violence, racism and the Castle or Stand Your Ground laws in the National news affect us.   So the Fidalgo Democrats asked Anacortes Police Chief Bonnie Bower and Skagit County Sheriff Will Reichardt to address these issues during their monthly meeting at the Anacortes Public Library April 17th.   

Chief Bower surprised me and maybe others with the long list of gun regulations enacted since our country was founded.   Sheriff Reichardt claimed that there had not been a strong correlation in the number of guns owned by WA state residents and gun violence.  He remarked that most violent crimes were committed with stolen guns.  WA state has extensive requirements for concealed weapons which seems to be effective in promoting responsible gun ownership. 

 The castle doctrine ( the right to defend yourself against an intruder into your home) is not a law but a principle from 17th century English common law.  WA State Senate Bill 5418 would make the castle doctrine into law.   Chief Bower credited the impetus to extend  the Castle doctrine  with  “Stand Your Ground” to the Clint Eastwood 1985 movie “Dirty Harry”  e.g “do something that will allow me to shoot you”.  The “Stand Your Ground” law promoted by the NRA varies from State to state.  In Florida the law allows immunity from arrest to the shooter if he/she meets certain criteria. This can take time for the police to verify.  This  caused a delay in police taking action against George Zimmerman in Florida after he shot an unarmed 17-year-old - Trayvon Martin.  In the Trayvon Martin case the relevant part of the statue says that “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked . . . has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”  In WA there is “Stand Your Ground” case law which can be invoked during trial but, unlike the Florida statute , it does not provide immunity from arrest.  I had the impression from talking with Sheriff Reichardt that he favored the status quo in WA because immunity from arrest outside of the defendent's home or vehicle would require a complicated set of  determinations that would be better handled in court than by the police.  I too think these decisions would place a tremendous burden on the police to determine guilt or innocence . 

As I glanced at the audience most seemed to have pale faces, but there was some mention of excessive gun violence towards African American males and one woman pointed out an incident where a black man was convicted in spite of the castle doctrine when he was defending his home.  A few in attendance had open carry weapons at the meeting, even though others were wary of people wearing guns into a public library.  Several in the audience spoke passionately about the need to carry weapons.  One even said Trayvon Martin would have been better off had he a gun.  In which case,  I think,  it would have been harder to assume Trayvon’s  innocence and the injustice of  Zimmerman’s stalking. Both men would probably be dead. The wild west lives on in the heart of some.