Do you have health insurance? Have you been taught to fear a government option because of the 'death panels' that would condemn grandma to a horrible death because it was cost effective? Well surprise, there is a group of doctors, paid for by your insurance premium, who's sole purpose in life is to find a way to deny you care when you need it most.
Read for example the testimony before congress of Linda Peeno, in May of 1996, or that of Wendall Potter in June 2009. Thirteen years apart they were describing the same thing. The goal of for-profit health insurance companies is to make money, regardless of who dies in the process.
In many states, the Blue Cross companies have gone from non-profits to for-profit companies. Think their care has gotten better? Why do you think health care companies are such a great investment? Yes the cost of health care has gone up, but what has gone up are the profit margins of the health insurance companies, not the amount of money being made by doctors.
There are a lot of doctors, especially primary care physicians, who years after graduating from medical school are still trying to pay off the student loans they used to become doctors. No, I am not trying to say doctors are poor, most make more than I do, but when you go to school for as many years as they, work as hard as they do to become doctors, I do not begrudge them making a substantial living.
The raising cost of your insurance is not going to the cost of treating you, it goes into the pocket of the health insurance companies. And denying you coverage when you are most in need of it, is the dirty little secret of the industry.
The concept of 'death panels' in a public option was based on this: A public insurance option would negotiate with providers and drug companies to obtain the best possible prices for products and services. The only leverage the public insurance would have to obtain a better price would be the refusal to buy certain products and services. Therefore, they would be restricting what they covered to only those products and services that would give the agency a good deal. In other words, a death panel is doing exactly what the insurance company that you already have is doing, using its buying power to extract concessions from vendors.
But the real death panels, attempting to find excuses to drop you from your insurance if you become sick, or to deny treatments that are in fact covered by your policy, by claiming they are not 'medically necessary', well those don't count.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
What did you think it was for?
You are constantly hearing the right talking about limiting government, as though everything would be fine if only the government would just stop getting in the way of business. So let's just look at some of those crippling regulations that business and the right fought so bitterly against.
As you walk through the supermarket, throwing items into the shopping cart, your are checking the labels. Your child is allergic to nuts, and you know that selecting the wrong product could be the difference between life and death. Did you think that listing the ingredients on the labels was something the manufacturers did out of the goodness of their hearts? They do that because the law requires it. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 established labeling standards that were bitterly fought by industry.
Do you work an 8 hour day? Do you expect to be paid overtime when you work more than 8 hours a day? Although 8 hour work days had been won in pockets throughout the country over the years, through strikes dating back to 1835, it was not until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was enacted that the federal government got into the business of enforcing standards and working conditions. That established a 44 hour work week for a considerable portion of the nation, a minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, and outlawed "oppressive child labor".
When you have a cold, a fever, an ache, you can reach into your medicine cabinet and find a number of non-prescription drugs to treat the symptoms. And you can do so knowing that none of those medicines contain poison or heroin or cocaine. That all began with the Biologic's Control Act (1902) and The Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), These two pieces of legislation were the foundation upon which the Food and Drug Administration was eventually built. It is because of the FDA that pharmaceutical companies actually have to prove that a new drug works, that it does not do more harm than good, and that they have to tell you when the potential side effect are.
It is cheaper to sell contaminated food and medicinal products than it is to maintain a safe and clean facility, and to monitor for contaminants. It is cheaper to dump your toxic waste where it will contaminate the drinking water of the surrounding community, than it is to properly dispose of it. And if a small group of manufacturers do that, then others must do the same to compete.
Who's job did you think it was to enforce that the bottle that says 'Asprin' on it contains aspirin? Would you rather go back to the days when you might work in a factory where the air was filled with asbestos? If you get sick, and cannot work for a week, do you still want a job when you get back? Did you think the only purpose of the government was to invade relatively weak countries so that US companies could do things there that would be illegal here?
The purpose of our government is to protect us from those more powerful, those we cannot fight on our own. That includes, of course, foreign governments, that's why we have a military, but also from companies that would control our lives the way mining companies that ran 'company towns' in the 1800's did.
As you walk through the supermarket, throwing items into the shopping cart, your are checking the labels. Your child is allergic to nuts, and you know that selecting the wrong product could be the difference between life and death. Did you think that listing the ingredients on the labels was something the manufacturers did out of the goodness of their hearts? They do that because the law requires it. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 established labeling standards that were bitterly fought by industry.
Do you work an 8 hour day? Do you expect to be paid overtime when you work more than 8 hours a day? Although 8 hour work days had been won in pockets throughout the country over the years, through strikes dating back to 1835, it was not until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was enacted that the federal government got into the business of enforcing standards and working conditions. That established a 44 hour work week for a considerable portion of the nation, a minimum wage, time and a half for overtime, and outlawed "oppressive child labor".
When you have a cold, a fever, an ache, you can reach into your medicine cabinet and find a number of non-prescription drugs to treat the symptoms. And you can do so knowing that none of those medicines contain poison or heroin or cocaine. That all began with the Biologic's Control Act (1902) and The Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), These two pieces of legislation were the foundation upon which the Food and Drug Administration was eventually built. It is because of the FDA that pharmaceutical companies actually have to prove that a new drug works, that it does not do more harm than good, and that they have to tell you when the potential side effect are.
It is cheaper to sell contaminated food and medicinal products than it is to maintain a safe and clean facility, and to monitor for contaminants. It is cheaper to dump your toxic waste where it will contaminate the drinking water of the surrounding community, than it is to properly dispose of it. And if a small group of manufacturers do that, then others must do the same to compete.
Who's job did you think it was to enforce that the bottle that says 'Asprin' on it contains aspirin? Would you rather go back to the days when you might work in a factory where the air was filled with asbestos? If you get sick, and cannot work for a week, do you still want a job when you get back? Did you think the only purpose of the government was to invade relatively weak countries so that US companies could do things there that would be illegal here?
The purpose of our government is to protect us from those more powerful, those we cannot fight on our own. That includes, of course, foreign governments, that's why we have a military, but also from companies that would control our lives the way mining companies that ran 'company towns' in the 1800's did.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
What 'Aqua Buddha' really tells you about Rand Paul
When GeorgeW was running for the presidency, he had a stock answer for questions about his history of moronic behaviors. They were youthful indiscretions, and they were in the past, and he would not go into that.
Yeah, that is sort of a copout. Without acknowledging anything in particular, he admitted that when he was young and stupid he did the sort of things that young and stupid people often do. But at least he responded to the question, where the answer actually had something to do with the question. He did not pretend to be someone else.
Rand Paul, however, did not take this path. Rather than defuse the issue he became irate. He wouldn't admit to doing anything that might be in character with the imbecilic stoner that the story seems to describe. Here is why that is a problem for me.
Paul has an image of himself. Fine, we all have that. But, if something, say facts, contradict that image, even in his distant past, rather than face those facts he becomes belligerent. It says that what he believes is much more important than what is true.
Every day in life, we face things that were not part of our plan. There are several ways we can handle this. Let's take a simplistic example. We have saved our money to buy a specific car, enough to pay cash for it. We go to the dealer, and find out that the price has gone up, and we no longer have enough. What can we do?
We can change what we are doing, to try to adapt to the new circumstances. Get a car that we actually can afford. We can try and change the environment itself. Go back and save some more money, come back when we have enough. Or we can take the approach that Rand Paul is trying to take. You keep trying to put the money into the salesman's hand, and snatch away the keys. Eventually you try assaulting the salesman and they call the police and you are taken away. Because you not having enough money is just not in your view of things,so you cannot accept it.
It is not that he did stupid shit when he was a college student that is important in all this. It is that pointing out something that does not jive with his view of himself and how he relates to the world causes such an inappropriate reaction. And it reveals how he will react when other facts do not agree with his prejudices. He is not interested in the truth, or what is right, he is interested in what he believes.
Unfortunately, that is a common trait of many tea bagger types. And that is why they are not fit to hold public office.
Yeah, that is sort of a copout. Without acknowledging anything in particular, he admitted that when he was young and stupid he did the sort of things that young and stupid people often do. But at least he responded to the question, where the answer actually had something to do with the question. He did not pretend to be someone else.
Rand Paul, however, did not take this path. Rather than defuse the issue he became irate. He wouldn't admit to doing anything that might be in character with the imbecilic stoner that the story seems to describe. Here is why that is a problem for me.
Paul has an image of himself. Fine, we all have that. But, if something, say facts, contradict that image, even in his distant past, rather than face those facts he becomes belligerent. It says that what he believes is much more important than what is true.
Every day in life, we face things that were not part of our plan. There are several ways we can handle this. Let's take a simplistic example. We have saved our money to buy a specific car, enough to pay cash for it. We go to the dealer, and find out that the price has gone up, and we no longer have enough. What can we do?
We can change what we are doing, to try to adapt to the new circumstances. Get a car that we actually can afford. We can try and change the environment itself. Go back and save some more money, come back when we have enough. Or we can take the approach that Rand Paul is trying to take. You keep trying to put the money into the salesman's hand, and snatch away the keys. Eventually you try assaulting the salesman and they call the police and you are taken away. Because you not having enough money is just not in your view of things,so you cannot accept it.
It is not that he did stupid shit when he was a college student that is important in all this. It is that pointing out something that does not jive with his view of himself and how he relates to the world causes such an inappropriate reaction. And it reveals how he will react when other facts do not agree with his prejudices. He is not interested in the truth, or what is right, he is interested in what he believes.
Unfortunately, that is a common trait of many tea bagger types. And that is why they are not fit to hold public office.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Democrats Surrender
I was listening to the news last night, and it was reported that congress is going to defer voting on the tax cuts till after the election. This is the Democratic Party essentially conceding the election. Their absolutely best campaign material would have been forcing the Republican Party to vote against tax cuts for the middle class.
In protecting the interests of their masters, the wealthy elite, they are working against their own self-interest. Sounds a lot like the Tea Baggers, right? You would expect a little more intelligence from our elected representatives. OK, maybe not. Or perhaps there are promises of well paying lobbying positions for those committing political suicide.
This means, of course, that after the election, the wealthy will have their cuts extended, perhaps indefinitely. They have handed a majority to the Republican Party who, while they may lack a veto-proof majority, will nonetheless attempt to dismantle the few protections for the American people that have been enacted during the prior two years.
Boy, do we need a strong Green Party in this country to counterbalance the Republican and Republican Light parties.
In protecting the interests of their masters, the wealthy elite, they are working against their own self-interest. Sounds a lot like the Tea Baggers, right? You would expect a little more intelligence from our elected representatives. OK, maybe not. Or perhaps there are promises of well paying lobbying positions for those committing political suicide.
This means, of course, that after the election, the wealthy will have their cuts extended, perhaps indefinitely. They have handed a majority to the Republican Party who, while they may lack a veto-proof majority, will nonetheless attempt to dismantle the few protections for the American people that have been enacted during the prior two years.
Boy, do we need a strong Green Party in this country to counterbalance the Republican and Republican Light parties.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The other September 11th
If you live in Latin America, then September 11th has a very different meaning than it does to those of us living in the United States.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Sharing the Wealth
One of the things that Sarah Palin has been know to speak proudly of, is how every man, woman, and child in Alaska receives a check each year, proceeds of the oil revenue. I find that a little odd, as I am sure if the discovery of oil had occurred while she was governor, there would be no such payment.
It has always been the Republican philosophy that when natural resources are extracted from public lands, the company doing the extracting pays minimal fees. The idea is that you do not want to place any conditions that might discourage a business from exploring and extracting resources, anything that would effect the bottom line. The concept that the nation's natural resources, even those on public land, should be for the benefit of the nation as a whole is foreign to the right.
It has also been our policy that those we do business with live by the same rules. Our current problems with Iran can be traced to our complicity in the 1953 Iranian coup, where a democratically elected government was overthrown for having the temerity to expect to demand a larger (50%, what Saudi Arabia was getting at the time) share of the oil revenues. When the British company (predecessor to BP coincidentally) refused to negotiate, the Iranians nationalized the oil industry. Although President Truman refused to participate, Eisenhower was more than willing to aid the British in the overthrow of the only democracy in the Muslim Middle East. The fallout from that plagues us to this day.
Closer to home there are many cases where the US intervened in Latin America to protect business interests. In Nicaragua alone, we intervened 7 times between 1894 and 1912, the last time being an occupation that lasted until 1933.
So, is it any surprise that corporate profits are up, wages are stagnant, and unemployment remains high? This is just how it is. You are not important, you never have been. What is important is that the businesses that buy and sell the politicians maintain their profit margins.
So when Sarah Palin speaks proudly of the oil revenues shared by the Alaskan people, remember, if she had been in charge when they built the pipeline, the Alaskan people would be getting squat, except perhaps toxic waste dumped into their rivers. And it is not just the Sarah Palins of this world. A lot of the administrations that aided in the looting of Latin America were Democrats.
So don't feel bad that you are getting screwed. It is not just you. They do this to everyone.
It has always been the Republican philosophy that when natural resources are extracted from public lands, the company doing the extracting pays minimal fees. The idea is that you do not want to place any conditions that might discourage a business from exploring and extracting resources, anything that would effect the bottom line. The concept that the nation's natural resources, even those on public land, should be for the benefit of the nation as a whole is foreign to the right.
It has also been our policy that those we do business with live by the same rules. Our current problems with Iran can be traced to our complicity in the 1953 Iranian coup, where a democratically elected government was overthrown for having the temerity to expect to demand a larger (50%, what Saudi Arabia was getting at the time) share of the oil revenues. When the British company (predecessor to BP coincidentally) refused to negotiate, the Iranians nationalized the oil industry. Although President Truman refused to participate, Eisenhower was more than willing to aid the British in the overthrow of the only democracy in the Muslim Middle East. The fallout from that plagues us to this day.
Closer to home there are many cases where the US intervened in Latin America to protect business interests. In Nicaragua alone, we intervened 7 times between 1894 and 1912, the last time being an occupation that lasted until 1933.
So, is it any surprise that corporate profits are up, wages are stagnant, and unemployment remains high? This is just how it is. You are not important, you never have been. What is important is that the businesses that buy and sell the politicians maintain their profit margins.
So when Sarah Palin speaks proudly of the oil revenues shared by the Alaskan people, remember, if she had been in charge when they built the pipeline, the Alaskan people would be getting squat, except perhaps toxic waste dumped into their rivers. And it is not just the Sarah Palins of this world. A lot of the administrations that aided in the looting of Latin America were Democrats.
So don't feel bad that you are getting screwed. It is not just you. They do this to everyone.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Get used to it, we don't have any oil
We always hear about what a great thing it is to drill for our own oil, how having domestic oil supplies is such a good thing. There is one thing that is often overlooked in this argument. It doesn't matter whose ground the oil is under, it will still not be ours.
This is not some "we all share the earth" philosphy or anything like that. The is about business, how things work, how things are. And how things are is that the oil will always be sold to whoever wants to pay for it.
The oil companies are multinational corporations. They have no loyalty to any nation. Theoretically, they are loyal to their shareholders (and this is a whole topic in an of itself, perhaps later) but mostly they are loyal to their own entrenched management. So if an oil company pulls oil out of Saudia Arabia, or the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska, or your back yard, it all gets dumped into that company's supply, and sold for whatever they can get for it to whoever will pay.
The price is set by a combination of supply and demand, and speculation. Traders buy and sell oil every day. Now different qualities may have different prices. The price you hear quoted in the news all the time is what they call 'light sweet crude', the easiest to refine. But where it came from? Means squat.
So the next time you hear someone saying how important it is to increase our domestic oil supply you know they are taking you for a fool, or they are ignorant themselves. In either case, they are missing the point.
This is not some "we all share the earth" philosphy or anything like that. The is about business, how things work, how things are. And how things are is that the oil will always be sold to whoever wants to pay for it.
The oil companies are multinational corporations. They have no loyalty to any nation. Theoretically, they are loyal to their shareholders (and this is a whole topic in an of itself, perhaps later) but mostly they are loyal to their own entrenched management. So if an oil company pulls oil out of Saudia Arabia, or the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska, or your back yard, it all gets dumped into that company's supply, and sold for whatever they can get for it to whoever will pay.
The price is set by a combination of supply and demand, and speculation. Traders buy and sell oil every day. Now different qualities may have different prices. The price you hear quoted in the news all the time is what they call 'light sweet crude', the easiest to refine. But where it came from? Means squat.
So the next time you hear someone saying how important it is to increase our domestic oil supply you know they are taking you for a fool, or they are ignorant themselves. In either case, they are missing the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)