Skip to main content

President Obama and Governor Christie: A Model of Cooperation for Protecting Public Health


It took Super Storm Sandy to remind us how much we need our government. And how rarely we see government leaders truly cooperate.

Cooperation has been a dirty word in politics for close to two decades.  But in responding to the crisis caused by Sandy, President Obama and Governor Christie showed us that political adversaries are at their best when they work together to meet our needs.

It took an environmental holocaust for this to happen.  But as the pictures of destruction in state after state circulated throughout the media, no one talked about privatizing FEMA.  No one complained that the government was spending too many taxpayer dollars rescuing people from death. 

It was a fine way for the President to end his first term in office – one that may ultimately have won him his re-election.  And also won him a new opportunity to collaborate with the states.

In the storm’s aftermath, we understand that one of the prices of having the freedom to live where we desire – Queens or Greenwich, Staten Island or the New Jersey Shore, Hoboken or New Orleans, the West Virginia mountains or the central plains – is that we must protect our living environment.

We understand that no place is safe from sudden destruction.  So we need all levels of government – and they need our support – to build better flood berms, hire more first responders, and put in place pumps and sewers to get polluted water more rapidly out of streets, subways, and homes.

And to prevent such catastrophes in the future.

God only knows if Sandy itself was caused by preventable climate change.  And it’s not really worth arguing anymore with people who deny what they see with their own eyes – that our weather has changed dramatically over the past few years.

What no one can deny is that we have been lax in our preparation for catastrophe.  We have been lax in investing in the infrastructures needed to clean up and repair the devastation.  And we have been lax in investing in the infrastructures that can prevent such catastrophic damage in the future.

This time, the crisis was in the northeast.  In recent years, the central plains and gulf coast have experienced similarly horrifying environmental catastrophes. 

No one knows who will be next. But we all know someone will be next.

So we need to prepare.  And this means strengthening our public health infrastructure.  That infrastructure:
  • Prepares for and organizes our response to natural disasters.
  • Makes certain we have access to emergency services.
  • Handles pollution control and abatement, decreasing our negative effect on our environment.
  • Enforces our building codes.
  • Prevents environmental and health disasters every day.

We have let this infrastructure go during the last few years, with deadly consequences.

Robert Pestronk, Executive Director of the National Association of County and City Health Officers (NACCHO), predicted what would happen  almost a year ago, when he said “at this critical juncture of dwindling funding and difficult choices, health departments are now doing less with less.  Budget cuts and a declining public health workforce challenge their ability to protect the health and well-being of all people in their communities.”

How well the people of Staten Island and scores of other communities understand this now!

Despite the closeness of the election, Barack Obama has a mandate as he enters the next four years.  It is to continue the bi-partisanship that served us so well at the close of the campaign season.

And governors like Chris Christie have a new mandate, too – they need to rebuild public health infrastructures in partnership with the federal government, no matter what their Congressional representatives may say or do. 

As we continue to pray for our most recent victims, let us hope – for the good of all – that in the coming years our leaders heed these needs, and tackle together all the real crises that command our attention as a nation.

And let us hope that rebuilding the infrastructure that has been devastated as much by budget cuts as it was by Sandy will be at or near the top of the list.

If you would like to arrange for Paul Gionfriddo to speak to your group or organization, or have questions about this column, please send an email to gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

States and Rebates

If you run a small business in Florida, are self-employed in Texas, or work for a large corporation in New Jersey ( see an update below ), then your state insurance regulators probably haven't been working for you. The news that 15.8 million people can expect $1.3 billion in rebates from insurers this year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) underscores how weak health insurance regulation has been in states across the country.  It may come as no surprise that Florida and Texas, two leaders in the fight against ACA, have been exposed as anti-consumer.  But they are not the only states with an anti-consumer bias. First, the good news: last week, the federal government announced that three-quarters of us will get letters beginning on July 1 telling us that our insurance plans paid out at least 80 to 85 cents in benefits for every premium dollar they collected. This means that under ACA they met the minimum standard for a reasonable benefit payout (which i...

Why the Republicans Have No Health Care Plan

There's a simple reason why (after more than a decade) Donald Trump and the Republicans have no plan to replace Obamacare. I'll explain in a few minutes. But first, some background. When the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) was passed in 2010, it was an effort to expand health care coverage to a lot of people who needed it, while controlling their costs. It had certain key provisions, not the least of which were that people couldn't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, that all chronic diseases needed to be covered fairly, and lifetime coverage caps had to be lifted. The problem was that if you left matters to insurers to set insurance premiums based on what this would cost, the price of insurance would rise dramatically. So the government took a look at three different programs and ultimately put them together into one system. For people whose income was so low that they couldn't afford any real cost-sharing, the government expanded Medicaid. For elders...

The Ten Best and Ten Worst States for Your Mental Health

Connecticut spends four times more per capita on state mental health services than Texas.  In Florida, 25 percent fewer people report having mental illnesses than in Washington. Across the nation, there are significant differences in the amounts states spend on mental health services.  Connecticut spends $189 per capita, while Texas spends only $39. But there are also significant differences in the reported prevalence of mental illnesses.  For example, fewer than 18 percent of Floridians report having a mental illness during the past year, but in Washington almost 24 percent do. But what happens when you put spending and prevalence together?  Some new rankings emerge that give you a measure of each state’s real commitment to protecting mental health – and treating mental illness – in their population.  This week, I have ranked all fifty states using both spending and prevalence data.       I have taken per capita m...