By Jamie York
Bill Clinton told columnist Joe Klein that the biggest mistake he made with his health care reform proposal was his support for universal coverage (Time, 8/10/09, p. 35.). The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists were ruthless and had a well-directed campaign against universal coverage. Clinton was blindsided and had thought he had no choice but to cower and try to sneak away from the fight as the lobbyists got their message across in the media while the voices of single payer advocates were drowned out. While Clinton may think that advocating single payer insurance was a mistake, I think it was his finest hour. His mistake was not that he supported single payer, but that he failed to stand up for single payer as logical and viable. He didn’t even try to fight the insurance lobby. “Hillary, “ he cried, “help me Hillary!” And so the insurance industry reformed itself and “managed care” came into being. At that time there were 33 million people without health coverage and today there are 47 million. So much for reform.
Today, as we witness the political fight over Obama’s health reform plan, it is clear that the insurance company lobbyists do not want any health care reform. Period. These companies pay out millions to get their point of view heard in the mass media, using any scare tactics they can think of. They are against Obama’s plan because they may lose some of their profits if the government insurance option turns out to be better and more affordable than their profit taking system. Obama, while admitting that single payer makes the most sense, turned against his senses and decided to play politics and get what he can get.
I am glad that the American colonists did not simply decide to get what they could get from the British occupiers. They declared their independence and fought for what they wanted. We don’t have the fight in us anymore, I guess. We send our kids off to die in foreign nations while the military contractors reap millions in profits. We sit and watch TV as one constitutional right after another is systematically rendered obsolete by imperial presidents like George W. Bush. We watch events unfold in news soundbytes not in in-depth discussion. If even half of us one day decided to skip work until we have single payer health care, we would have it. No question about it. Compared with the 19th and 20th century fight for better wages, shorter workdays, and for the right to organize labor unions, a general strike is about as American as you can get. Political divisions keep us from communicating and organizing, but when we get to the point where we see ourselves as human beings in a common struggle for things that make sense, for programs that work for the common good and general welfare, then we will begin to communicate with each other. There comes a point where the common good of the people must take precedence over unregulated profit taking. Health care is a birthright.
The insurance company lobby money is paying for a major PR campaign now under way to scare gullible seniors into thinking that the government will have them put to death if they have a terminal illness. This line is being spread around by the conservative bloggers and radio and TV hosts -- the usual unreliable suspects in the media. The truth is that Obama has called for more openness in discussing end of life wishes with doctors. Few people make their wishes known in living wills because the end of life options are just not discussed routinely now as they should be. Again, it is just common sense to be prepared so that your family is aware of your wishes, but the insurance lobby is using the old media formula that keeps Americans in tow time and time again -- repetition, repetition, repetition. If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, it will soon be accepted as the truth. We are so gullible it is pathetic.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Health care debate: It's all about the money
By Jamie York
Obama’s “public” insurance plan is not single-payer. Not even close. “Public plan” is a carefully chosen title that likely originated in a PR firm somewhere. Remember, perception is everything in politics. The word “public” brings to mind words like “we” and “us,” words that make us think the plan might be something we would like.
But hold on there, Hoss. First of all, Obama’s plan is a law requiring that everyone have insurance. All 47 million people who do not have health insurance will be required to have it. From this starting point -- and never mind for now that different states have different mandates as well -- it is just a matter making things fit, of twisting and tugging, pushing and pulling, and figuring out just how private insurance companies will fit into this cesspool too kindly referred to as a "system." If you already have insurance through an employer, then you will keep that insurance, no matter how good or how lousy it is. Dental and eye care are usually treated separately in employer health policies -- although they without question affect one’s overall health and should be included. If you have a stroke or some long-term affliction, don’t expect any insurance plan to cover you without a limit. You may be covered to a point, but read the fine print. You will likely have to buy a separate policy for long-term care as well as dental and eye care.
Here is how the “public plan” is shaping up: If you do not have insurance now, you or your employer will be given a choice between private insurance and government-run insurance. This is being portrayed as “competition” between private insurers and the government to “keep private insurers honest.” There is no way of telling right now what will be included in the final draft of the plan, as there is so much insurance industry lobbying going on to influence the outcome. According to Bill Moyers,(7/10/09, PBS) “three out of four of the big health firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on their payroll -- more than 350 of them -- and they’re all fighting hard to prevent a public plan, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.” Wow, how do common people compete with that?
If you are one of the 47-million Americans without health insurance now, you are probably out of work, earn a low wage, or your employer does not provide insurance. In other words, you can’t afford it even if it were offered by your employer. In that case, the public plan is shaping up so that the government will subsidize an insurer for the amount you cannot afford. If you are employed, this will likely be done through your employer, which will have to compare prices of public and private insurers then choose a plan. The government will subsidize the insurer and your employer will take the rest out of your check to pay the balance. Put your calculators away, though; you won’t even see the money.
If you already have private insurance through an employer or you get Medicare or Medicaid, then your insurance may not change. But look for substantial rate increases because, after all, someone will have to pay the costs of implementing the public plan. Why not you? Remember, the private insurance industry -- or “mafia,” as I call them -- is not in the health care business; they do not exist as a public service so we can be happy, healthy citizens. Make no mistake: They are in the money-making business, just like a bank, and will continue to make decisions about your health based on what is economical for them. Expensive treatments and tests, chronic illnesses, and long-term care may not be covered. Your claims may be denied. Expensive medications you need may be limited or denied. Or you may be arbitrarily dropped from coverage.
Now, if you are “truly needy” (as President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying around the same time he declared that a dollop of catsup on a school-lunch tray counts as a second vegetable) then you will get Medicaid under the public plan. About 14 million truly needy people would qualify for Medicaid immediately. But there will also be a sizable group of homeless and undocumented workers falling through the cracks without any insurance at all. Will they get emergency care? Will they be put in prison for failing to obtain insurance? Under single-payer, if you need treatment you get it for the simple reason that you are human and living in the United States. Not so with the public plan. The for-profit insurance mafia remains in control because President Obama said the system is already in place and would be too difficult to change.
This part really chaps my hide. Too difficult, you say? You’ve got to be kidding! These are Americans you are talking to here, Mr. President. We may be grossly undereducated about our own history as a nation, but we don’t give up just because something is deemed too difficult by a career politician. Generally speaking, if a proposal cannot be completed within an election cycle, then it is deemed too difficult for politicians to accomplish. Politicians see progress in terms of their own election cycle. Programs that pay-off in months rather than years get the top priority, even though they are not best for the nation. But of course, the health care “debate” is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about compromise. But it is about who has the most money to spend. “That’s how it works,” Moyers continues. “And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change -- nothing -- until the money lenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATMs are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they’ve placed on government -- the one that reads. ‘For Sale.’” If the insurance mafia is against the public plan, which would leave them basically intact and in control, then the boat they really want to sink is single-payer.
The start-up costs for single-payer will be large, but it will save money in the long run. In a single-payer system, we will all be covered from the cradle-to-the-grave. Expanded Medicare-for-all. Everyone in, no one out! Single-payer will eliminate the health insurance mafia and patient billing. Job markets will be shifted. People will have to be re-trained. Hospitals will have full staffs to reduce the RN-to-patient ratio. Nursing homes, too -- now owned by private owners trying make a profit -- will benefit by hiring enough staff to properly care for this growing population as the baby boomers begin to reach old age. Opponents of single-payer say that it is “socialism.” They say that a socialist will be standing between you and your doctor making sure that he or she practices medicine to their satisfaction. That is what insurance companies do now, so this image is turned on its head and used as a scare tactic for people who have been taught the ignorant notion that socialism always has to be something bad that restricts freedom just because it cuts off the flow of money to greedy insurers.
Don’t expect the media to provide you with fair and accurate information regarding health care options up for consideration. Turn on just about any cable channel and you will see ad after ad telling you which drugs to ask your doctor for. The stations are heavily invested in the insurance mafia system and do not want to lose this lucrative source of revenue. Same is true for magazines you might find on the newsstand. Ad after ad from Big Pharma. Even groups like AARP will not provide complete, fair information. AARP is deep into the insurance business, from its famous Hartford auto insurance plans, to Geico, Foremost and New York Life. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you -- not for truth, not for fairness, and certainly not because it is the right thing to do. It’s all about the money, folks. Money, money, money.
Obama’s “public” insurance plan is not single-payer. Not even close. “Public plan” is a carefully chosen title that likely originated in a PR firm somewhere. Remember, perception is everything in politics. The word “public” brings to mind words like “we” and “us,” words that make us think the plan might be something we would like.
But hold on there, Hoss. First of all, Obama’s plan is a law requiring that everyone have insurance. All 47 million people who do not have health insurance will be required to have it. From this starting point -- and never mind for now that different states have different mandates as well -- it is just a matter making things fit, of twisting and tugging, pushing and pulling, and figuring out just how private insurance companies will fit into this cesspool too kindly referred to as a "system." If you already have insurance through an employer, then you will keep that insurance, no matter how good or how lousy it is. Dental and eye care are usually treated separately in employer health policies -- although they without question affect one’s overall health and should be included. If you have a stroke or some long-term affliction, don’t expect any insurance plan to cover you without a limit. You may be covered to a point, but read the fine print. You will likely have to buy a separate policy for long-term care as well as dental and eye care.
Here is how the “public plan” is shaping up: If you do not have insurance now, you or your employer will be given a choice between private insurance and government-run insurance. This is being portrayed as “competition” between private insurers and the government to “keep private insurers honest.” There is no way of telling right now what will be included in the final draft of the plan, as there is so much insurance industry lobbying going on to influence the outcome. According to Bill Moyers,(7/10/09, PBS) “three out of four of the big health firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on their payroll -- more than 350 of them -- and they’re all fighting hard to prevent a public plan, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.” Wow, how do common people compete with that?
If you are one of the 47-million Americans without health insurance now, you are probably out of work, earn a low wage, or your employer does not provide insurance. In other words, you can’t afford it even if it were offered by your employer. In that case, the public plan is shaping up so that the government will subsidize an insurer for the amount you cannot afford. If you are employed, this will likely be done through your employer, which will have to compare prices of public and private insurers then choose a plan. The government will subsidize the insurer and your employer will take the rest out of your check to pay the balance. Put your calculators away, though; you won’t even see the money.
If you already have private insurance through an employer or you get Medicare or Medicaid, then your insurance may not change. But look for substantial rate increases because, after all, someone will have to pay the costs of implementing the public plan. Why not you? Remember, the private insurance industry -- or “mafia,” as I call them -- is not in the health care business; they do not exist as a public service so we can be happy, healthy citizens. Make no mistake: They are in the money-making business, just like a bank, and will continue to make decisions about your health based on what is economical for them. Expensive treatments and tests, chronic illnesses, and long-term care may not be covered. Your claims may be denied. Expensive medications you need may be limited or denied. Or you may be arbitrarily dropped from coverage.
Now, if you are “truly needy” (as President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying around the same time he declared that a dollop of catsup on a school-lunch tray counts as a second vegetable) then you will get Medicaid under the public plan. About 14 million truly needy people would qualify for Medicaid immediately. But there will also be a sizable group of homeless and undocumented workers falling through the cracks without any insurance at all. Will they get emergency care? Will they be put in prison for failing to obtain insurance? Under single-payer, if you need treatment you get it for the simple reason that you are human and living in the United States. Not so with the public plan. The for-profit insurance mafia remains in control because President Obama said the system is already in place and would be too difficult to change.
This part really chaps my hide. Too difficult, you say? You’ve got to be kidding! These are Americans you are talking to here, Mr. President. We may be grossly undereducated about our own history as a nation, but we don’t give up just because something is deemed too difficult by a career politician. Generally speaking, if a proposal cannot be completed within an election cycle, then it is deemed too difficult for politicians to accomplish. Politicians see progress in terms of their own election cycle. Programs that pay-off in months rather than years get the top priority, even though they are not best for the nation. But of course, the health care “debate” is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about compromise. But it is about who has the most money to spend. “That’s how it works,” Moyers continues. “And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change -- nothing -- until the money lenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATMs are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they’ve placed on government -- the one that reads. ‘For Sale.’” If the insurance mafia is against the public plan, which would leave them basically intact and in control, then the boat they really want to sink is single-payer.
The start-up costs for single-payer will be large, but it will save money in the long run. In a single-payer system, we will all be covered from the cradle-to-the-grave. Expanded Medicare-for-all. Everyone in, no one out! Single-payer will eliminate the health insurance mafia and patient billing. Job markets will be shifted. People will have to be re-trained. Hospitals will have full staffs to reduce the RN-to-patient ratio. Nursing homes, too -- now owned by private owners trying make a profit -- will benefit by hiring enough staff to properly care for this growing population as the baby boomers begin to reach old age. Opponents of single-payer say that it is “socialism.” They say that a socialist will be standing between you and your doctor making sure that he or she practices medicine to their satisfaction. That is what insurance companies do now, so this image is turned on its head and used as a scare tactic for people who have been taught the ignorant notion that socialism always has to be something bad that restricts freedom just because it cuts off the flow of money to greedy insurers.
Don’t expect the media to provide you with fair and accurate information regarding health care options up for consideration. Turn on just about any cable channel and you will see ad after ad telling you which drugs to ask your doctor for. The stations are heavily invested in the insurance mafia system and do not want to lose this lucrative source of revenue. Same is true for magazines you might find on the newsstand. Ad after ad from Big Pharma. Even groups like AARP will not provide complete, fair information. AARP is deep into the insurance business, from its famous Hartford auto insurance plans, to Geico, Foremost and New York Life. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you -- not for truth, not for fairness, and certainly not because it is the right thing to do. It’s all about the money, folks. Money, money, money.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Twitter, #iranelection and the pitfalls of Groupthink
By Jamie York
While I wholeheartedly support genuine movements for freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, I find it interesting that so many Americans have jumped on the #iranelection bandwagon without taking the time to learn about Iran, its culture, its mullahs (supreme leaders), its wars, and its history with the United States.
Groupthink is a decision-making process that occurs when an idea is put forth and becomes publicly accepted without proof. Groupthink is like an intellectual snowball effect carried from person to person with little, if any, firsthand knowledge or scientific scrutiny. The effect of Groupthink is that it makes the quest for historical truth that much harder when people already accept a given idea as the truth. Ordinarily, one would gather information from first-hand sources, then form an opinion and subject it to examination and reexamination. Groupthink forgoes this process and leads directly to an opinion.
Fact: There has been no vote recount in Iran and the winner of the election is still in dispute. This is really all we can be certain about right now, so I cannot make a valid determination about what is happening in Iran in regard to the election results; rather, this is a quick-and-dirty examination of the process through which unconfirmed information received worldwide attention and force-fed public opinion.
There is some suspicion -- although this idea does not get through in the massive tweets -- that the George W. Bush’s CIA had a hand in supporting Mousavi, who now claims election fraud and victory over Ahmadinejad, even though no proof has been offered that either candidate won the election. The Supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the mullah who has the real power in Iran, quickly declared Ahmadinejad the winner, then Mousavi supporters claimed the election was rigged and demanded a new election. State forces, controlled by Khamenei, then attacked a group of Mousavi supporters and #iranelection became the top trending topic on Twitter.
Twitter, a real-time microblogging site where users publish 140-character tweets that can be read anywhere in the world where someone has an internet connection, including on cell phones, can spread information rapidly. Users can attach links and photos and state a brief opinion. The hashtag #iranelection takes the Twitter users to a page where all of the tweets using that hashtag can be found. I left the page untouched and unrefreshed for just a few minutes and had a backlog of more that 1,000 tweets. It would be impossible for one person to keep up with this amount of information, but it gives you an idea how rapidly information -- true or not -- can be disseminated via Twitter, as well as Facebook and YouTube.
Youtube videos from Iran are often uploaded from cell phone cameras. The videos show various scenes, usually with some kind of action or violence. Sometimes there is Farsi being spoken in the background, but many have no commentary, so the viewer is left to decide what the scene depicts without actually having been there to witness it. Comments are then made about about the video and some people post links to the video on Twitter and Facebook. Once there, the videos receive additional commentary, then are reposted and retweeted countless times. Some are even broadcast via CNN, although, to CNN’s credit, they do say that the information is unconfirmed. Citizen journalism is a powerful tool, but the content must still be judged critically and confirmed.
According to Time Magazine (June 29, 2009), “it is impossible for an outsider, in Iran for 10 days, to sift through the governmental opacity, the contradictory demonstrations, and predict what comes next.” Yet, by reading a few Tweets and turning our icons green, we jump on the Groupthink bandwagon in cheering for Mousavi and “freedom.” But, when pressed, no one seems to know of any reforms Mousavi has advocated. No one seems to know what kind of president he would be or how he would treat his opposition. While Mousavi was Prime Minister, thousands of political prisoners were executed and hundreds of striking workers were jailed or beaten. Has he changed? Will he continue to assert Iran’s right to build a nuclear power reactor in spite of warnings from the United States and Israel? Will he assume more state power now in the hands of the religious mullahs? No one has these answers, but one thing is certain in the wake of the violence: the mullahs will go to great lengths to preserve their power.
While I wholeheartedly support genuine movements for freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, I find it interesting that so many Americans have jumped on the #iranelection bandwagon without taking the time to learn about Iran, its culture, its mullahs (supreme leaders), its wars, and its history with the United States.
Groupthink is a decision-making process that occurs when an idea is put forth and becomes publicly accepted without proof. Groupthink is like an intellectual snowball effect carried from person to person with little, if any, firsthand knowledge or scientific scrutiny. The effect of Groupthink is that it makes the quest for historical truth that much harder when people already accept a given idea as the truth. Ordinarily, one would gather information from first-hand sources, then form an opinion and subject it to examination and reexamination. Groupthink forgoes this process and leads directly to an opinion.
Fact: There has been no vote recount in Iran and the winner of the election is still in dispute. This is really all we can be certain about right now, so I cannot make a valid determination about what is happening in Iran in regard to the election results; rather, this is a quick-and-dirty examination of the process through which unconfirmed information received worldwide attention and force-fed public opinion.
There is some suspicion -- although this idea does not get through in the massive tweets -- that the George W. Bush’s CIA had a hand in supporting Mousavi, who now claims election fraud and victory over Ahmadinejad, even though no proof has been offered that either candidate won the election. The Supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the mullah who has the real power in Iran, quickly declared Ahmadinejad the winner, then Mousavi supporters claimed the election was rigged and demanded a new election. State forces, controlled by Khamenei, then attacked a group of Mousavi supporters and #iranelection became the top trending topic on Twitter.
Twitter, a real-time microblogging site where users publish 140-character tweets that can be read anywhere in the world where someone has an internet connection, including on cell phones, can spread information rapidly. Users can attach links and photos and state a brief opinion. The hashtag #iranelection takes the Twitter users to a page where all of the tweets using that hashtag can be found. I left the page untouched and unrefreshed for just a few minutes and had a backlog of more that 1,000 tweets. It would be impossible for one person to keep up with this amount of information, but it gives you an idea how rapidly information -- true or not -- can be disseminated via Twitter, as well as Facebook and YouTube.
Youtube videos from Iran are often uploaded from cell phone cameras. The videos show various scenes, usually with some kind of action or violence. Sometimes there is Farsi being spoken in the background, but many have no commentary, so the viewer is left to decide what the scene depicts without actually having been there to witness it. Comments are then made about about the video and some people post links to the video on Twitter and Facebook. Once there, the videos receive additional commentary, then are reposted and retweeted countless times. Some are even broadcast via CNN, although, to CNN’s credit, they do say that the information is unconfirmed. Citizen journalism is a powerful tool, but the content must still be judged critically and confirmed.
According to Time Magazine (June 29, 2009), “it is impossible for an outsider, in Iran for 10 days, to sift through the governmental opacity, the contradictory demonstrations, and predict what comes next.” Yet, by reading a few Tweets and turning our icons green, we jump on the Groupthink bandwagon in cheering for Mousavi and “freedom.” But, when pressed, no one seems to know of any reforms Mousavi has advocated. No one seems to know what kind of president he would be or how he would treat his opposition. While Mousavi was Prime Minister, thousands of political prisoners were executed and hundreds of striking workers were jailed or beaten. Has he changed? Will he continue to assert Iran’s right to build a nuclear power reactor in spite of warnings from the United States and Israel? Will he assume more state power now in the hands of the religious mullahs? No one has these answers, but one thing is certain in the wake of the violence: the mullahs will go to great lengths to preserve their power.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The smiling new face of foreign affairs
By Jamie York
Wingnut Newt Gingrich suggested that President Obama showed weakness when he smiled and shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Must a president be cold and unsmiling when conducting foreign affairs? Is a gruff, rough & tumble demeanor the sort of image that the United States needs to portray in the world? That may be the Bush/Cheney approach, but you gain more respect with a smile than a scowl. You can smile and be friendly without being perceived as a wimp, especially when you are confident in your positions. While I may disagree with President Obama on policy issues, I have more respect for him than I did for anyone in the previous administration.
Wingnut Newt Gingrich suggested that President Obama showed weakness when he smiled and shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Must a president be cold and unsmiling when conducting foreign affairs? Is a gruff, rough & tumble demeanor the sort of image that the United States needs to portray in the world? That may be the Bush/Cheney approach, but you gain more respect with a smile than a scowl. You can smile and be friendly without being perceived as a wimp, especially when you are confident in your positions. While I may disagree with President Obama on policy issues, I have more respect for him than I did for anyone in the previous administration.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Special Prosecutor needed after release of "torture memos'
By Jamie York
The Obama administration did the right thing in releasing the "torture memos" from the Bush administration and they should be applauded for it. However, the Department of Justice failed to call for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the memos. Learning the truth is one thing, but failing to hold individuals responsible for wrong-doing is quite another matter. How do we justify letting public officials off the hook for possible crimes when common citizens are expected to either follow the “rule of law” or risk going to prison. Public officials should not be above the law or given immunity for crimes. In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about these torture memos and how public officials violated the Geneva Conventions and International Law.
The Obama administration did the right thing in releasing the "torture memos" from the Bush administration and they should be applauded for it. However, the Department of Justice failed to call for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the memos. Learning the truth is one thing, but failing to hold individuals responsible for wrong-doing is quite another matter. How do we justify letting public officials off the hook for possible crimes when common citizens are expected to either follow the “rule of law” or risk going to prison. Public officials should not be above the law or given immunity for crimes. In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about these torture memos and how public officials violated the Geneva Conventions and International Law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
