Commentary on "Texans Will Now Hit-And-Render-Aid"

Fellow blogger Alejandro Atencio wrote a blog entry entitled Texans Will Now Hit-And-Render-Aid where he discusses a Texas Tribune story about a new Texas State law that will become effective September 1, 2013, where the punishment for failing to stop and render aid in a fatal accident will be increased from a third degree to a second degree felony.   He summarizes that the law was the result of a joint bi-partisan effort that stemmed from a recent incident involving a former Austin legislative staff member involved in a fatal hit and run accident who was found guilty, but then acquitted.

I agree with his assessment that this was common sense to change this law. The mother of the victim, Laurie Griffin, in a video portion of the story, expresses how disappointing it was that there were no existing laws that the driver could be charged with. A comment made to her by a detective indicating that the only way to provide justice in the future was to change the law motivated her to lobby to actually get the law changed.  This unfortunate incident empowered her to become involved in the legislative process to change a law that will benefit and comfort future victim’s family members.  It’s also an appropriate lesson to the end of this course that shows how participation in our government can actually affect change.

Improving Healthcare in Austin

Providing access to affordable health care has been a goal that some organizations in Austin have struggled to make available.  The State of Texas has decided not to participate in the Medicaid expansion that is part of the Affordable Care Act and instead chose to pass up access to billions of dollars that could have helped alleviate the strain on current resources. In the meanwhile, Central Health, a healthcare district created by Travis county voters in 2004, addresses how local taxpayer funds are distributed to benefit the community.  

Central Health contracts with a variety of healthcare providers, such as University Medical Center Brackenridge (UMCB), Community Care Clinics, and the MAP program, to provide the infrastructure to deliver care.  Central Health will facilitate the existence of a new medical complex in 2016 when a new teaching hospital will replace UMCB and UT Austin will operate a new medical school.  All sectors of the community, insured and uninsured, will benefit with the presence of this new complex.  More specialized services can be offered to eliminate the need to travel outside of Austin for specialized care.  A new medical school will produce more primary care physicians, surgeons, and specialists that can enrich the pool of local doctors needed in the future. Central Health also facilitates access to the Medical Access Program (MAP), which provides qualified Travis County residents at certain income levels with access to primary and specialized health care.

Another organization that is uniquely Austin’s is the Health Alliance for Austin Musicians (HAMM), an organization that provides access to affordable care to Austin musicians. Community leaders and prominent musicians recognized the contribution that musicians make to the “Live Music Capital of the World” and that most musicians are self-employed without many options when they need medical care.  They decided to create this Alliance to support local musician’s need for health care.

 These groups provide solutions for groups that would normally would have been shut out of the healthcare system. I believe that the groups that dedicate their efforts to solve social issues like health care access do not take on an easy task.  They are faced with criticisms as to why some of those who benefit from these programs deserve the effort that is taken to put these programs into place and how funds are spent. They address the needs of the city as a whole and are farsighted in how they invest time and money in the improvements they provide to our city.  

Commentary on Phyllis Schlafy

My collegue, Arno Natapradja, writes in his blog, Lone Star Gazer, about an article that references Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the conservative group, Eagle Forum, and the advice she gives to the Republican Party. As Natapradja summarizes in his blog, Shlafly’s radio interview on Focus Today advises the Republican party to stop reaching out to Hispanic voters and focus on reaching out to white people.  I agree with the view that Ms Shlafly projects racist views and will only hurt the Republican Party in the long run. 

I find it alarming that Ms Schlafly would have support for her ideologies; however, she has a history of success to implement her policies. Back in the 1970’s, she organized a movement called STOP ERA and almost single-handedly stopped the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment that feminists had long fought to ratify.  Her campaign created fears that were based on misinformation, such as suggesting that women would be subject to the draft and that alimony protection would be eliminated. At the last minute, five states that had voted to ratify the ERA amendment rescinded and the amendment did not pass.  She currently tries to use the same tactic of using misinformation to mischaracterize Hispanics. My point is that Ms Shlafly may still have her supporters, maybe not in the same numbers as the 1970’s, but enough to cause further rift in the Republican Party and further contribute to split their Party with differing ideologies.  Instead, the Republican Party should focus on how to include a population that is increasingly more racially diverse.