Fearless Leading of the Youth, Political Voice, and a Trauma Center Campaign
People have been speaking for centuries. In fact, some people have been yelling to the top of their lungs, and unfortunately (in far too many instances) to no avail. Matthew Hindman, in his new book on The Myth of Digital Democracy concludes his argument with a stark but honest lesson. “It may be easy to speak in cyberspace, but it remains difficult to be heard.” As we progress further into the 21st century we find more than ever, young marginalized groups screaming out to be heard on the Internet, but also in life. Now more than ever youth have the ability to access avenues that allow for the potentiality of their voice to be recognized by new audiences. Unfortunately, this potential often falls short and youth voice once again stumbles onto deaf ears.
In South Africa I was encouraged and given hope by observing how young people protest. I would say to myself, “If only youth in America would be so passionate about changing the society they live in.” However, I must take a step back and not ignore the history of young people screaming out for justice and equality in this country. I cannot ignore the myriad of political sore throats that were inherited somewhere between inter-generational struggle and cycles of poverty. I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that young people continue to be silenced even in a moment in history when the potential to having your voice heard is only a mouse click away.
We must support the youth that still have the strength to scream out to systems that don’t acknowledge their existence. There is still a remnant of young people organizing their communities for social change in this country. I was introduced to one of these organizations a couple weeks ago, when I went to a teach-in that educated me about my university’s fiscal priority and social abandonment. FLY (Fearless Leading by the Youth) is an emerging youth group that is fighting to make the lives of people in their community better. They are now working on what is being called the “Trauma Center Campaign.”
On their Facebook page they give background information on this issue:
“We lost one of our founders, Damian Turner [last year]. It was not just the stray bullet that killed him. Damian, a youth leader in the struggle for human rights, was a victim of the system he was fighting against. U of C Medical Center closed their trauma center in 1988 because it was losing them $1.5million/year. They get close to $60 million / year in tax breaks and are building a new $700+ million research building. We intend to make sure that the UCMC, as the most well-resourced hospital on the south side [and in the country], gives back to our community and fills the gap in trauma care.” (For more information on this visit their Facebook page)
Some institutions do not want these young people to be heard, but I implore all those reading not to fall into the same pattern of complacency. We (students, community members, politicians, professors, ect) cannot allow the continued subjugation of disenfranchised voices. If you are in Chicago, support FLY. They are having a protest for the Trauma Center, which will be this Thursday, April 21st where they will be at 61st and Cottage at 2:30pm.
Here is a moment where young people are picking up the torches of former generations and demanding to be heard. Let us not allow this moment to pass frivolously.
Hey:
I like this movement and support the cause. But I have to wonder a few different thoughts.
1) Is this movement attempting to bring a trauma center to the Southside of Chicago or is this movement attempting to get the UofC to bring that trauma center? As the video indicates, there is a general lack of hospitals on the Southside so I think an effort to get a trauma center anywhere should be a goal.
2) UofC does offer a Level I pediatrics trauma center. Northwestern does not. Is there frustration there about what appears to be a decision to divide the medical woes and conquer the problem? Why?
3) The video suggested UofC closed its facilities in the late 80s and diverted money to specialty clinics. Given some internal motivations that determined what they would deal with and what not to deal with, how would the UCMC deal with those costs of cutting back those programs to pay for this?
4) Perhaps the penultimate question behind #1. With UofC now barring the brunt of the closed southside hospitals especially via ER care (the video said UC has the highest bypass rate in the state), would the money saved by not having a level one trauma center be better spent on expanding ER care? The new facility being built and expanding rooms, nurses, doctors to deal with rising numbers of ER patients maybe on the whole good.
Hey:
I like this movement and support the cause. But I have to wonder a few different thoughts.
1) Is this movement attempting to bring a trauma center to the Southside of Chicago or is this movement attempting to get the UofC to bring that trauma center? As the video indicates, there is a general lack of hospitals on the Southside so I think an effort to get a trauma center anywhere should be a goal.
2) UofC does offer a Level I pediatrics trauma center. Northwestern does not. Is there frustration there about what appears to be a decision to divide the medical woes and conquer the problem? Why?
3) The video suggested UofC closed its facilities in the late 80s and diverted money to specialty clinics. Given some internal motivations that determined what they would deal with and what not to deal with, how would the UCMC deal with those costs of cutting back those programs to pay for this?
4) Perhaps the penultimate question behind #1. With UofC now barring the brunt of the closed southside hospitals especially via ER care (the video said UC has the highest bypass rate in the state), would the money saved by not having a level one trauma center be better spent on expanding ER care? The new facility being built and expanding rooms, nurses, doctors to deal with rising numbers of ER patients maybe on the whole good.
A.L.L. II-
Good questions, here’s the brief reply:
1) It is attempting to bring a level 1 trauma center to the southside but the only hospital fiscally sound enough and large enough and well-positioned enough to sustainably host one is the UCMC. Additionally, the UCMC’s efforts to get patients on public aid out of their hospital except people with advanced-staged or medically “interesting” conditions beneficial to their research agenda is a dangerous precedent and challenging the ability of non-profit hospitals that receive millions in public financing and tax breaks to ignore the community around them is a struggle that has important implications for the overall struggle for a human right to healthcare. While bigger-level change to our healthcare system is what we need in the long-run, in the absence of a universal single-payer system where healthcare is allocated based on need rather than greed, it is the responsibility of those institutions that take public financing to provide their fair share of community care. The U of C Medical Center gets over $58 million / year in tax-breaks and yet spends only about $10 million in un-reimbursed charity care.
2) No that is not the essence of what is being fought over. The south side needs an adult level 1 trauma center. Northwestern is far from the southside. Studies show transport time, especially in the case of piercing wounds, impacts mortality.
3) The U of C can afford a trauma center. It will have to work to secure additional funding perhaps, and we would be delighted to work with them in that effort, pressuring politicians to ensure Illinois aggressively applies for trauma center money available through the healthcare reform bill, for example, but there is no question that an institution building a $700 million research building, paying a Chief Investment Officer $2million/year and a CEO $1million/year, and receiving close to $60 million/year in tax breaks can afford to put in a level 1 trauma center. It is a question of priorities. Their specialty clinics get them reimbursements at a far higher rate so it is not an either/or. It is wrong to allow them to act as if they are choosing between a specialty care burn clinic and a trauma center when the choice is between a bloated administrative and construction budget and a trauma center, between institutional greed and community need.
4) Part of what they need to do is expand their ER care and especially number of in-patient beds available, but again, as per the response to number 3, that is not an either/or question. Both must happen, and if the UCMC is strategic about applying for money to offset additional cost burdens as well as cutting where it can from the administrative budget and its huge PR budget (notice the TV commercials and billboards everywhere) and using its vast corporate connections and thinking about value as more than short-term dollars and cents but also long-term ability to gain prestige as a hospital that serves its community and thus deserves further investment and attention (as has happened with John Hopkins Hospital which has a level 1 trauma center that loses money in the short-term but they consider to enhance the overall value of their institution), then they can make this happen. It is a question of will, not ability, and what hangs in the balance are the lives of thousands of people on the south side who are living in a trauma center desert.
A.L.L. II-
Good questions, here’s the brief reply:
1) It is attempting to bring a level 1 trauma center to the southside but the only hospital fiscally sound enough and large enough and well-positioned enough to sustainably host one is the UCMC. Additionally, the UCMC’s efforts to get patients on public aid out of their hospital except people with advanced-staged or medically “interesting” conditions beneficial to their research agenda is a dangerous precedent and challenging the ability of non-profit hospitals that receive millions in public financing and tax breaks to ignore the community around them is a struggle that has important implications for the overall struggle for a human right to healthcare. While bigger-level change to our healthcare system is what we need in the long-run, in the absence of a universal single-payer system where healthcare is allocated based on need rather than greed, it is the responsibility of those institutions that take public financing to provide their fair share of community care. The U of C Medical Center gets over $58 million / year in tax-breaks and yet spends only about $10 million in un-reimbursed charity care.
2) No that is not the essence of what is being fought over. The south side needs an adult level 1 trauma center. Northwestern is far from the southside. Studies show transport time, especially in the case of piercing wounds, impacts mortality.
3) The U of C can afford a trauma center. It will have to work to secure additional funding perhaps, and we would be delighted to work with them in that effort, pressuring politicians to ensure Illinois aggressively applies for trauma center money available through the healthcare reform bill, for example, but there is no question that an institution building a $700 million research building, paying a Chief Investment Officer $2million/year and a CEO $1million/year, and receiving close to $60 million/year in tax breaks can afford to put in a level 1 trauma center. It is a question of priorities. Their specialty clinics get them reimbursements at a far higher rate so it is not an either/or. It is wrong to allow them to act as if they are choosing between a specialty care burn clinic and a trauma center when the choice is between a bloated administrative and construction budget and a trauma center, between institutional greed and community need.
4) Part of what they need to do is expand their ER care and especially number of in-patient beds available, but again, as per the response to number 3, that is not an either/or question. Both must happen, and if the UCMC is strategic about applying for money to offset additional cost burdens as well as cutting where it can from the administrative budget and its huge PR budget (notice the TV commercials and billboards everywhere) and using its vast corporate connections and thinking about value as more than short-term dollars and cents but also long-term ability to gain prestige as a hospital that serves its community and thus deserves further investment and attention (as has happened with John Hopkins Hospital which has a level 1 trauma center that loses money in the short-term but they consider to enhance the overall value of their institution), then they can make this happen. It is a question of will, not ability, and what hangs in the balance are the lives of thousands of people on the south side who are living in a trauma center desert.
Those responses were very good. I like and support this idea and I think those answers would help get some of the apathetic students on board too. Thanks Matt!
Those responses were very good. I like and support this idea and I think those answers would help get some of the apathetic students on board too. Thanks Matt!
Dear Matt and Jonathan,
I am very inclined to agree with you. It’s very weird that the Southside doesn’t have a trauma 1 center. But I need to see a plan before I can support it.
What I’m interested in is if you were the top guy at the UMUC and you controlled the UMUC’s actions, what would be your practical plan to add a trauma center? What services would you cut and what would you say to the patients that require those services?
Matt you said, ” It is wrong to allow them to act as if they are choosing between a specialty care burn clinic and a trauma center when the choice is between a bloated administrative and construction budget and a trauma center, between institutional greed and community need”
“Part of what they need to do is expand their ER care and especially number of in-patient beds available”
These are parts of your responses to Allen. How do you propose the University expand their ER service, ie number of beds (which is an already obvious need as is), without starting new construction? At this moment the UMUC has the highest bypass rate in the state. If the university does not expand its physical capacity, then what do you think will become of the state of the ER once it gives into your demands and opens a trauma 1 unit?
PS. Where is the city of Chicago’s responsibility to provide a public hospital on the southside? Why is it okay for it to shift all the burden to a private hospitals (last I checked Northwestern is private too) that do not receive the same amount of reimbursements as public hospitals?
Dear Matt and Jonathan,
I am very inclined to agree with you. It’s very weird that the Southside doesn’t have a trauma 1 center. But I need to see a plan before I can support it.
What I’m interested in is if you were the top guy at the UMUC and you controlled the UMUC’s actions, what would be your practical plan to add a trauma center? What services would you cut and what would you say to the patients that require those services?
Matt you said, ” It is wrong to allow them to act as if they are choosing between a specialty care burn clinic and a trauma center when the choice is between a bloated administrative and construction budget and a trauma center, between institutional greed and community need”
“Part of what they need to do is expand their ER care and especially number of in-patient beds available”
These are parts of your responses to Allen. How do you propose the University expand their ER service, ie number of beds (which is an already obvious need as is), without starting new construction? At this moment the UMUC has the highest bypass rate in the state. If the university does not expand its physical capacity, then what do you think will become of the state of the ER once it gives into your demands and opens a trauma 1 unit?
PS. Where is the city of Chicago’s responsibility to provide a public hospital on the southside? Why is it okay for it to shift all the burden to a private hospitals (last I checked Northwestern is private too) that do not receive the same amount of reimbursements as public hospitals?
As one of the youth members in FLY. The discussion ahead is very interesting. Even tho U Of C can ONLY afford to HAVE a level 1 trauma center they ALSO can AFFORD to help other HOSPITALS tend to one. SEE, the HOSPITAL GAME is like standing dominoes and knocking them DOWN. once one closes trauma center so does another. In fact, U of C closed their trauma center in 1988 IN 1990 MICHAEL REESE closed theres. BUt For Further info YOUR WELCOME TO COME TO OUR MEETING EVERY TUESDAY AT 5:30PM AT 6146 S. KENWOOD.
-THANKS
As one of the youth members in FLY. The discussion ahead is very interesting. Even tho U Of C can ONLY afford to HAVE a level 1 trauma center they ALSO can AFFORD to help other HOSPITALS tend to one. SEE, the HOSPITAL GAME is like standing dominoes and knocking them DOWN. once one closes trauma center so does another. In fact, U of C closed their trauma center in 1988 IN 1990 MICHAEL REESE closed theres. BUt For Further info YOUR WELCOME TO COME TO OUR MEETING EVERY TUESDAY AT 5:30PM AT 6146 S. KENWOOD.
-THANKS