Thinking About Poverty, Part 3

This is Part 3 in a two part series on Poverty. You can read Part 1 here, and Part 2 there. This part? It's the Outrage Part.

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.

~ T. S. Eliot in Burnt Norton, from The Four Quartets

---

On September 13, 2011 Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech in the US Senate about Poverty. I encourage all my readers to please take the 8 minutes of time to listen to his speech.

A response salvo was fired off to the National Review on September 21st by that hail fellow, well met Senator from Kentucky, (I can feel Comtesse Glam cringing...) Rand Paul. It took a full week to reply to Senator Sanders because Senator Paul was pouring over facts and statistics trying to controvert Senator Sanders's statements. In contrast to Senator Sanders quoting those boring old statistics and facts and saying where he got them from, Senator Paul has given us broad statements of what I like to call, in Colbertian fashion, "truthy facts". Poverty, Mr. Paul assures us, is not a death sentence, and isn't really all that bad even! :)

"While we all hope to lessen the sting of poverty, we need to put poverty in America into context... Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has profiled the typical poor household in America. The average poor household has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and an Xbox. Its home is in good repair and bigger than the average (non-poor) European home. They report that in the past year they were not hungry, were able to obtain medical care as necessary, and could afford all essential needs."

I find it very strange that the US Senator from Kentucky is relying on the Heritage Foundation for specifics rather than sourcing his own facts and statistics from his facts and statistics obsessed government, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I went to Heritage Foundation's Poverty and Inequality page and looked for information about where they got their figures. Emblazoned on the page is:

"Poor persons in the United States have far higher living standards than the public imagines.  Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. 

The major causes of child poverty in the United States in any year will be the absence of married fathers in the home and low levels of parental work."

Okay, I'm not even going to touch the fact that the low levels of parental work are responsible for poverty (did they just say these kids' parents are lazy?) But you know, I could not find a source for this information. But I did find an article by Rector, claiming his stats are from a government survey (implying they were from the Census) in 2005, which was NOT a US Census year and which, oh, let me remember, was yes, before the economy really began to tank. There was no further information about where to get these facts and verify the information on their statistical accuracy. Hmmmm.

Well, Senator Paul and Mr. Rector, luckily for you I am the very soul of data on the issue of poverty at present. Especially child poverty, but in the course of looking for data on poverty faced by children, I have come across more than a few sources of information on the population as a whole. I'm sorry to say that unfortunately, some of them are promoted, funded or tallied by our US Government. I know that source may not be good enough for you. 

But first let's start with some child statistics culled from that highly suspect organization the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Here are some screen captures from their site, Kids Count, which used data from the 2010 United States Census and various other clearly named sources:

Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).1990-2006 data: The Urban Studies Institute at the University of Louisville, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement). 2007-2011 data: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).

Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).

Mortgage Bankers Association, National Delinquency Survey, 2007 to 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007 to 2009

Population Reference Bureau analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Basic Monthly data 2007 - 2010

Population Reference Bureau analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Basic Monthly data 2007 - 2010

Why, all those kids aren't really under duress! Oh, no! And they have excellent healthcare, happy families and X-Boxes. Well, maybe they have no place to plug the X-Box in, if Mommy and Daddy's house was foreclosed on. But other than that, they are all fine! (Isn't it ironic that that children without healthcare stat is in part thanks to an Urban Studies Institute at the University of Louisville study? No, really?!)

I'm sure you remember the food insecurity issue for children from Parts 1 & 2 of my blog article on poverty but just in case you didn't, let's recap. 22% of all children in the US live in poverty, 42% live in low income households, the USDA provides 31 million free school lunches to children who qualify and there's the sliver that falls through the gap- children whose households make between 185% and 199% of the Federal Poverty Level Income but are still considered low income. And the total number of children in food insecure homes in the most recent year tracked (2009) was 23.2 according to the US Government's Child Stats site.

Hmmmm. I wonder who else might be food insecure, besides all those chickadees? Well, SAMHSA.gov provides some broad information on their homelessness portal, that applies not just to the homeless. For instance, there is the Food Hardship in America report for 2010, prepared by the Food Research Action Center. This report, listed by a US government agency blatantly states: 

"The national data show that the struggle of tens of millions of American households to afford adequate food did not, by and large, get easier in 2010. While the nation’s Great Recession technically ended in mid-2009 (measured by growth in the Gross Domestic Product), it has not yet ended for most of the nation’s households. For them, 2010 was the third year of a recession that continues to have severe adverse impact on their well-being."

Or how about this SAMHSA.gov featured report, Food Insecurity Among Older Adults, prepared by the AARP. (Those damn lazy elderly/retirees! They are just dragging us down!) Some of their findings, and by the way, AARP offers up plenty of information about how their methods, how data was collected and what statistics were used to calculate their findings:

Our key findings on the trends and distribution of food insecurity are:

• Across all categories and older adult age groups, food insecurity increased substantially after 2007. The increases were most pronounced among 40-49 year olds, followed by 50-59 year olds, and then those 60 and older. Food insecurity for 40-49 year olds increased to an astounding 68 percent between 2007-2009 compared to 38 percent for 50-59 year olds, and 25 percent among those over 60. Rates of very low food security rates among adults in their 50s had comparable increases to those in their 40s (69 percent versus 71 percent). 

• The increasing trend in food insecurity implies that by 2009, among adults age 50 and older, 15.6 million persons faced the threat of hunger (i.e. were marginally food insecure), 8.8 million faced the risk of hunger (i.e. were food insecure), and 3.5 million faced hunger (i.e. were low food secure). This is an increase of 66%, 79%, and 132%, respectively, from the levels of food insecurity in 2001 among this population. 

• The levels of food insecurity among the poor and near poor are two to three times higher in any given year than for the general population of those over age 50. However, there is not nearly as dramatic an increase in food insecurity after 2007 among the poor and near poor in comparison to those higher in the income distribution. Thus, the recessionary increase in adult food insecurity was most pronounced among those with higher incomes.

Yes, indeed, I just do not know where Senator Sanders got this idea that things were bad in this country. Things are just fine here, Senator Paul. Everyone is just fine.

Oh, and Senator Paul also makes the claim:

"Over 30 percent of those living below the poverty smoke, compared with 19 percent of the rest of the population. Obesity rates are significantly higher among the poor than the general population..."

It seems as if the Senator has never reflected on the fact that the nicotine in cigarette smoke is well known for its appetite suppressant effects and that obesity rates are higher among the American poor because their diet is skewed toward cheap, high fat and high sugar foods that they can afford to eat, when they can eat. Food insecurity is directly tied to obesity (btw, that latter link was to the most current article I found on the topic on that cheesy and unreliable National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine PubMed search engine) and it is also clearly tied to diabetes, as detailed in a recent report title "The Inextricable Connection Between Food Insecurity and Diabetes" by the California Pan-Ethic Health Network, which receives the bulk of its funding from the highly questionable California Department of Public Health.

Oh, and one final comment, about the Poverty and Inequity page over at Heritage Foundation. They have a couple of links there that are interesting, namely:

Maybe it's just me but the idea that the number of Americans who pay taxes continues to shrink might possibly have something to do with the fact that so many Americans are living in frigging poverty! It seems to me some of those poor people might need to depend on government assistance. But shucks, that's just my take.

Anyway, I'm done here. For now.

© Bright Nepenthe, 2011

On Aging Parents

Mother and Child

Artist Unknown

As some of my readers know, I'm an only child. While I can honestly say that up until now, it's been a picnic being an only, the new realities of being an only child whose aging parents have health concerns have been something of a challenge. Last week I was worried about my dad's health (he's in Seattle most of the time) yet I was forced to choose between visiting him in early June and being here in Miami to keep an eye on my mom, who's having hand surgery, and whose current doctor I feel I have to stay well on top of, because of his prevailing attitude that if you're 72 and still alive at all, clearly you're fine! (Translation: get out of my office! Next patient!) The reality, sadly, is that she really isn't so fine right now. She has lost more than 20 pounds in the past 8 months and let me tell you it was 20 pounds she definitely could not afford to lose. I felt just great having to choose between staying to take care of my mom and going to visit my dad, who's had some serious stuff going on in the past year. I'm so fortunate that my wonderful stepmother is healthy herself, and willing to deal with a sometimes rather obstinate husband and his resistance to the whole healthcare scene, since my father's health has been dicey. I'm equally fortunate that, like me, my stepmother is clearly not going to take the attitude that if you're breathing, you're doing just fine. Because these days, if you're old, let's just say in my experience you have to be ready to fight the good fight.

I still remember that moment, about 7 years ago when I realized my mother had really lost height. She's Irish and from a family rife with autoimmune and osteoporosis issues. But it's a shock when you have that moment of realizing that this person who used to be your height, or going way further back in your mind, who was so big, comforting and warm, is now smaller and frailer than you ever thought possible. And it's even more of a shock when you're trying to get that person decent healthcare, even when you're fortunate enough to be able to do private pay, to find that most general practitioners do not want to take geriatric patients.

After shifting to Medicare, at age 70 my mom was dropped by her GP, who told her to go elsewhere. Given the retirement haven that Florida has typically been, you'd think that there would be a lot of geriatricians down here. I guess there are. But I've called quite a few and they aren't taking new patients. Mom called 13 physicians before finding one who was taking on new patients. I currently find only 78 listed in the the Miami (pop. 2.5M) geographic area HealthGrades listing. That includes her present doctor, who was quite content to have her just "put up with" this painful synovial cyst on the middle finger of her left (writing) hand, which keeps getting larger (the joint keeps trying to stay lubricated!) and more traumatized by her  every day activities from gardening to writing checks to dressing to cooking. 

In frustration, my mother recently admitted she had tried to drain it herself with a sterilized sewing needle and pressure. She was unsuccessful, and lucky it didn't get infected. When I took her to a hand surgeon about two weeks ago, he was scandalized both that it was so large and that she'd tried to drain it herself in frustration because her doctor hadn't referred her timely. He said she was lucky not to have infected the joint with her improvised drainage attempt, because she could have potentially lost the finger. We had cold-called the hand surgeon, without a referral, by the way. Unfortunately, the joint is totally shot, no cartilage left, and rubbing bone on bone. Because of the extent of the damage, the whole joint will have to be resurfaced and the finger will be splinted for at least 3-4 weeks and then she may have to have some physical therapy. Mind you, my mother used to play a concert grand piano that still sits, growing dusty, in her living room. Chopin, Scriabin, Brahms. She played well but has had so much pain in her hands in recent years due to some of her autoimmune issues that she gave up playing. One of my mother's few pleasures in life at this point is her garden, some photos of which have been shown on this same blog. She is, as I said, left handed and so she's really had a lot of pain when she works in the garden. But it's one of the only things that makes her happy so she wouldn't give it up even though it hurts. You can see a little laceration on that cyst/tumor. That was a gardening injury. The hand surgeon told her to cut out the garden stuff until she had it off. So that's only two months in the hottest part of the year when she shouldn't tend her garden. Yeah, I'm sure that's not going to happen. Maybe when it's splinted she won't garden. I hope.

Because they will have to sedate her for the surgery, she had to go for preoperative testing, which was, of course, to be ordered by her regular physician. This appalling doctor, who was steadfastly refusing to even listen to my concerns that she had lost 23 pounds since August and now weighed only 113 lbs at a height of 5' 3", said doing surgery on her finger was a waste and that he could just stick a needle in it and drain it. When I clarified that it was not a regular fluid filled cyst and that it was synovial fluid, which is extremely viscous, and that the joint would have to be resurfaced to help prevent recurrence, he looked at me vacantly (you know, the who the fuck are you look?), obviously surprised I even knew what synovial fluid was. He still ordered the tests since we already had a date for the surgery and hey, it's money in his pocket, right? They can bill Medicare for drawing the blood right in his office. Woohoo, more $$$! Well, I didn't even like how they drew the blood there. Gentle, these people are not. I'm left with this feeling that is oddly like what I feel when I see that I don't like how someone acts with one of my kids when they're sick. Whether it's my youngest child getting sutured, or the oldest being treated too roughly in an ER, it's just that instantaneous "Don't you dare treat them/touch them/ignore them like that!" feeling. That's now the feeling that I have when I see medical people dealing with my mom. It was another one of those moments you remember... the moment when you realize that they really can't do this stuff alone anymore, because it's akin to leaving a baby with wolves.

Now I'm trying to locate a new geriatric physician that she can see asap after her hand surgery. I'm trying different channels to locate someone else on that list of 78 who is competent, has experience with autoimmune disease and who will take her as a new patient. It's kind of pressing because her pre-operative tests elaborated on my concerns about her weight loss. Her blood results are all wonky and even her chest x-ray is a bit of a concern. Does she have pernicious anemia? Some other blood or bone marrow disorder? Why are her RBCs too large and is her hemoglobin in her RBCs too low? And what is up with those kidney values? Is she, ironically since she didn't smoke, still developing emphysema after all the years of secondhand smoke exposure from her parents or is it chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) from years of unprotected respiratory exposure to vermiculite and perlite and mulches in the garden? After having no interest in the emphysematous bullae in both her lungs, (hey, she isn't blue, right?) the practice partner of her present doctor at least was willing to agree that her weight loss was a concern and that the fact that 8 of 24 values on her CBC/SMAC 14 were abnormal is um, yeah, a little worrisome. But hey! She looks good, he said. How old was she, again? he asked. Only 72, I said. Oh, she's fine. She just has to eat more! As the Cynical Nymph would say in emoticons, that earned him the e_e look, and then I got him to take things a little more seriously after reminding him, in my charmingly vociferous fashion, that she was not just some old biddy sitting in his waiting room, with no one to notice if he let her incipient health issues worsen, including the nice cyst on her finger that was now making it difficult for her to do many, many everyday things with her left hand including writing checks to pay people like him. He evidently didn't realize she was left handed. Like pain in either hand is something you, you know, just put up with, because you don't really need your hands or anything when you're old.

We hold that life in the womb is so sacred. Children once here, not so much (especially if you consider what we're willing to spend on them to keep them safe and healthy and all the ways in which we fail at that). And the elderly? After all the Republican talk of death panels under Obamacare, what I can tell you is this- in my conservative state, going to these doctors with my conservative mother, I have been left with the distinct impression that my mother, and elderly people in general, are in everybody's way and that the quicker we get these damn old people gone, the better. After all, they are just weighing down our country, what with all the issues of Medicare and Social Security. They are the unwanted burden. They're getting all these discounts and aren't really paying much in the way of taxes. What good are they? Let's get some new young tax-payers, I mean fetuses, I mean young people. Let's protect them until they're here and then cut 'em loose and hope they grow up to be docile little capitalists.

Well, I may not always get along with my mom. She may listen to Glenn Beck and Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly and think I'm 'left of Lenin' and at various times have driven me practically insane. But she still deserves to bend her fingers without pain and know why she's losing weight and what's up with her CBC results and her kidneys and her lungs, ya know? They may think she's the unwanted burden but they will be very wrong in trying to treat her that way. She's my mom and I know she deserves better. She going to be getting it, too.

---

Next Up:

After the long delay due to the above and many, many other things, we will finally have TL's GMO posts up shortly. I'll also be looking at the issue from several angles- hunger, drought, global warming. GMOs seem scary from the angle of monopolies, but if we remove the business angle, we can assure you that GMOs are here to stay. In fact, they may be your best hope for the future. There's the science of GMOs and then the rhetoric and the financial monopoly aspect of GMOs. Thelma-Lee's post will set you straight on the basic science. You'll be better informed by far for having read them...

Corn image by Achim Raschka.

© Bright Nepenthe, 2011