EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Blowing Our Chance for Real Health Care Reform
If you want to fix the disaster that is called the American healthcare system, the first thing to do is to clearly point out what its major failings are, and there are two of these.
The first is cost. America is one of the most expensive places, or possibly the most expensive place, in the world to get sick or injured. The corollary of that is that it is one of the best places to make a killing if you are in the medical business, whether as a doctor, a hospital company, a pharmaceutical firm or a nursing home owner.
The second is access. One in six Americans—a total of 50 million people at latest count—have no way to pay for that care. Too young for Medicare, too “well off” for Medicaid, but too poor to buy private health insurance or too sick to be admitted into a plan, or employed by a company that doesn’t provide health benefits, these people get no medical care until they get so sick that they are brought into a hospital emergency room where they get treated (often too late) at public expense, or at the hospital’s expense, with the cost shifted onto taxpayers or onto insured patients’ premiums.
Any reform of this atrocious “system” must address these two major failings or it is no reform at all.
And that’s where all the various versions of Obamacare fall flat.
Simply put, you cannot solve either of these problems by leaving the payment system for medical care in the hands of the private insurance industry, since the whole paradigm of insurance is to make money by keeping high-risk people out of the insured pool, and by keeping reimbursements and coverage for premium payers as low as possible.
Having a so-called “public option” plan working in competition with private insurance plans will not solve this problem. Either the public option will become like the private options—trimming benefits and rejecting some applicants—or it will become a dumping ground for all the high-cost, high-risk people that the private sector insurance industry doesn’t want. At that point, the public plan will become a huge cost burden on the taxpayer, who will begin demanding that it cut back in the benefits it provides, taking us right back to where we started.
The fact that the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are both raising the issue of the high cost of health care “reform,” and are talking about ways to raise revenues to pay for it tells us all we need to know about the alleged “reform” schemes they are contemplating. They are doomed and, even if implemented, will not work.
Real reform of the American health care system would not cost money. It would save money.
There is a level of dishonesty in what passes for the debate over health care “reform” in both Congress and the media that is stunning in its brazenness and/or venality. Of course real reform would cost more in government spending. But that is because real reform would remove the cost of medical care from both employers and from workers (who over the last 20 years have been shouldering an increasing share of their own medical care). And that shift would mean more profits for US companies, which would free up more money for wages, and it would mean less money deducted from paychecks, meaning higher incomes for workers.
If President Obama had any political courage at all, he’d simply get on TV and say this: I will create a plan that will cover everyone, lift the burden of paying for health care from individuals and employers, and have the government pay for it all. You the taxpayer will pay for this plan with higher taxes, but you will no longer have any significant medical bills, you will no longer have health insurance premiums deducted from your paycheck, your employer will no longer be paying for employee medical coverage, and you will never have to worry about losing health benefits again, even if you are laid off. (Incidentally, eliminating employer-funded health insurance would go a long way towards allowing workers to fight to have unions, and to strike for contracts, by ending the threat that they would lose their benefits.)
Of course, to do that the president would have to be talking about what is variously known as national health care or a single-payer plan, in which the government is the insurer of health care for all.
This option isn’t even being discussed in this so-called debate. As I’ve written earlier, even though there is an excellent single-payer system in place that has been running for a third of a century just to the north in Canada—a system where patients have absolute freedom to choose their doctor, get instant access to a hospital and to expert specialist care in emergencies, and have a healthier society by every statistical measure—all at a fraction of the staggering cost of healthcare in the US, not one Canadian expert working in that system has been invited down to discuss its workings with the White House or with members of Congress.
There has been a lot of negative propaganda spread about Canada’s single-payer system, by right-wing, business-funded “no-think” tanks, and by medical industry lobbies from the American Medical Assn. to the pharmaceutical industry, but no government committee or agency has bothered, or dared, to bring in Canadian experts to respond to and debunk that propaganda. The corporate liars talk about waiting lists and lack of access to CAT-scan or MRI machines. But all we really need to know about the Canadian, and other similar single-payer systems, is that nowhere that they have been instituted have they been later terminated, even when, as in Canada, right-wing governments have been elected to power. The public, whether in Canada, or France, or England, or Taiwan or elsewhere, loves their public health insurance system, whatever flaws or problems with underfunding those systems may have at certain times. Trying ot eliminate such systems would be political suicide for a conservative government, as even arch-free-marketer British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who never met a government activity that she didn’t want to privatize, learned.
Right now, with half of all Americans reportedly fearing that they could lose their jobs, and with one in five Americans reportedly either unemployed, or involuntarily working part-time, we have a situation where a majority of Americans either have no health insurance, have lost their health insurance, or are in danger of losing their employer-funded health insurance. It is a unique moment when a bold president and Congress could act to end private health insurance and establish a public single-payer insurance plan to insure and provide access to affordable medical care to all Americans.
Instead of this, we are being offered half measures or no measures at all by leaders who are shamelessly in hock to the health care industry or who are afraid of its power.
17 years ago, the Clintons had a similar opportunity to grab the health care industry by the neck, strangle it, and produce a single-payer alternative. They blew that chance by trying to keep the health care greed-heads happy. Now, almost a generation later, we have another shot at it, and Obama and his Democratic Congress are doing the same thing again. There is a strong likelihood that they will fail, like the Clintons before them. If they succeed in coming up with some kind of hybrid public-private Frankenstein of a system that includes a public insurance option, it will simply delay the inevitable disaster, as medical costs, already 20 percent of GDP—the highest share of any economy in the world—continue to soar, and as the cost of the public plan, which will inevitably become a dumping ground for high-cost patients, becomes politically untenable. In the end, we will have even more expensive and inaccessible healthcare than we have today.
It doesn’t have to be this way, but only if Americans rip their eyes away from their crisp new digital-image TV screens and start demanding real health care reform will we get honest reform. A good place to begin would be to start writing and phoning your local media outlets to ask why they are not reporting on single-payer, and in particular on the single-payer bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), which is being silently blocked and killed by his colleagues in the Democratic congressional leadership and by the White House. A good place to begin would also be to start calling your elected representatives to demand that they support Rep. Conyers’ single-payer bill.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


94 Comments so far
Show AllThe politicians can't do anything because they need corporate money to play the game. We all know this.
We also know we could fix the situation with publically-financed elections. But Obama has screwed that for us. He is not a Democrat.
Unfortunately, the problem is that he IS a Democrat. The Democrats have betrayed their own New Deal legacy, which they have been tapping for years shamelessly and illegitimately.
It is the unusual Democrat who really stands up for the public interest and the interest of the working stiff.
Visit (and support) Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Mr. Lindorff:
Thanks so much for your trenchant analysis of the health-care crisis and your lucid explanation of the shortcomings of the public-option scam, which seems to be the HMOs' Plan B--although they inveigh against it, given enough popular pressure for SOME kind of reform, they will gladly accept a cosmetic gesture that does not really loosen their grip on the system--and that seems to summarize any conceivable version of the public option.
So . . . the question is: how do single-payer activists counter this diversionary feint? It seems that it has succeeded in siphoning a considerable amount of activist attention and energy that would otherwise go to fighting for single payer. Even the normally sensible Consumer Union has hopped aboard the pub-op bandwagon with their PrescriptionForChange.org Web site.
Single payer vs. public option seems to me to be a reliable litmus test of true progressivism vs. corporate liberalism, much like the issue of Palestinian rights. The problem now is how to keep the K-street corporate liberals from torpedoing the single-payer movement with this sham. Any thoughts you have on this issue would be of interest.
I agree that "public option" is a scam and a diversion, and possibly a dangerous one at that, if it later is used, when it fails and balloons in cost, as an excuse for saying public health programs "don't work."
I guess the thing to do is work hard for single-payer and when that goes down, to fight to make sure that the "public option" is cheap, provides real, full coverage, and isn't captive to the private sector insurance companies.
Dave
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
March on Washington with a call to End Health Care for Congress until there is Single Payer Health Care for all.
"If President Obama had any political courage at all, . . ."
You can stick this clause into a discussion of our failure to resolve just about any issue facing us.
q
Capitalism is at the core of most of the U.S. problems!
True, but that observation and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
There is no revolution on the horizon.
Then again, they have capitalism in Europe, but somehow they also have various versions of socialized medicine. So how are you going to explain that?
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
In the social democracies, the beast capital is in the harness pulling the plow. But in the USA's faux-democracy, the people are in the harness and the beast capital cracks the whip.
Nicely summarized, Dave. Then there's this from the article:
"(Incidentally, eliminating employer-funded health insurance would go a long way towards allowing workers to fight to have unions, and to strike for contracts, by ending the threat that they would lose their benefits.)"
It goes farther than the mere fact of unionization. How many workers, unionized or not, feel stuck in their jobs? How many would up and quit right now if they weren't afraid of losing their benefits?
Single-payer would make for a mighty uppity workforce, one with the freedom to go when and where it wished; preventing that is one of the key strategic goals of the class warriors. I think this explains why the US auto industry, for one glaring example, won't back HR676, even though it would be relieved of the burden of paying for employee health plans. It's not as counterintuitive a position as it first appears.
Jethro's hit the crux of it right here. This is one of the most far-reaching and potentially culture changing aspects of a single payer health care system. Most people don't like their jobs very much, but are afraid to take a chance and pursue the things that really excite them. And that's great for the cubicle-housing corporations that exert such a control over the economy and, as result, the culture. A single payer system would effectively reduce the risk people would have to take to try for a different kind of life. If it suddenly takes less than a rebel's temperament to seek out alternatives to a corporate-driven lifestyle, it could end up altering much of how the economy is currently organized. That kind of change scares the Great White Fathers and they will fight like hell to keep things the way they are -- by using their lobby, money, and media clout.
Dave, you are absolutely correct in your analysis!
To reiterate:
1) the "public option" will be a dumping ground for unfortunate extremely sick people. In effect the "public option" will be a subsidy to insurance companies by removing these sick people from the insurance company's responsibility. The "public option" is corporate welfare and doomed to be high cost and unworkable insurance (just as conservatives want)
2)No country that currently has single payer, or variant, wants to change their health care system to the US model! These single payer systems may have issues but minor compared to the problems of the US system.
3) And yes, what doesn't get a lot of press or discussion, is this fact that Americans must stay in a job to keep their health insurance. Employers use this power to pay poorly and provide poor working conditions. Single payer health care would FREE Americans to change jobs as they wish.
Advocate, push for single payer.
It's great that we can get on the internet and voice all of our fears and opinions. Nice substitute for the 60's and 70's when a generation of people took to the streets to complain and protest which is our right as Americans. I agree with what many are saying here but it depresses me tremendously because I know that these blogs give us a place to vent which stops us from being activists. We need to take to the streets with signs and raise our voices loud enough so everyone can hear us. All presidents are controlled by the corporations.Everyone of them and as the 21st century moves on, they get more and more powerful. I believe that Obama is guilty of being nieve. He thought he could get into office and make real change. I believe those are his intentions but his advisors and his masters (corporations) are limiting him severely. We, the people, need to make him do the right thing. He needs us to get into the streets and scream and rant and wave signs and protest to make real change. This happened in the 60's and 70's. It needs to happen again but we use these blasted comment areas to vent instead of banding together to make congress and the president do what we want. We want real healthcare. We need education and college tuitions decreased. We need affordable housing and jobs. We need a decent wage. As Americans, we have to make the president help us. This is how he can get around the corporations and the advisors and the people that control him. We need to become activists in the streets, in front of the world, not peacefully sitting behind our computer screens voicing opinions that no one cares about and no one can do anything about!!!!!!! Wake up America before it's too late!
MARCIE, I agree with everything you said about getting into the streets and have posted so many times on CD. This is why I am posting less and less on CD.
There should be multi-million person march on DC in favor of healthcare reform, i.e., single payer! Someone should organize it. I'll be there.
Incidentally, much as I admire Rep. John Conyers for his stand on single-payer health care reform, I must say there is poetic justice in the fate his bill is suffering at the hands of his leadership colleagues in Congress. It was, after all, Rep. Conyers who for years has bottled up and prevented a hearing on impeachment bills filed against former President George W. Bush and vice President Dick Cheney.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Sioux Rose
DAVE: The problem with your (Conyers) observation is that the American people are the ones who suffer the karmic boomerang of both thwarted initiatives, rather than those who behaved cowardly.
There is no doubt among honest people that single payer is the correct method to solve this disaster in health care. I never hear anyone complaining about their Social Security or Medicare except the rich who don`t need them. There is plenty of resources in this country to give everyone a decent life, but some think they should have the hogs share for themselves and their cronies and the rest can share the scraps.
However, heaven will be a great place also, but impossible to have on earth, so we do the best we can to improve our lives. That means we have to deal with what we have and not what we dream about having.
Bush had an attack on the twin towers to allow him to push everything he wanted through using lies and scare tactics. Obama has to deal with a wrecked country and an opposition that is determined to stop him in any way possible. Remember, half a loaf is better than none, so maybe we should support his public health plan, even if not perfect.
Sorry-- this is a particularly feckless and pathetic appeal to a bankrupt and empty variety of hopeful submissiveness masquerading as "pragmatism".
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sort of a corollary to "voting for the lesser evil".
"we have to deal with what we have and not what we dream about having"
You can't say that until after you have adopted an alternate strategy and given it a chance - perhaps as much of a chance as the elites have given themselves in their quest to dominate.
We should commit to a policy of changing the K-12 school curricula and the media, including entertainment, to change the values of the society. It's a hell of a lot easier than the army of whiners believe today. We've heard too many "can't dos" that we know are simply excuses for the lazy comforts of surrender/submission.
Kaka on all that. First get through your head that you can change the society by starting with your local K-12 school board. Go to the meeting and tell them how it's going to be. Bring the kids and show them how to be the thorn in the side of the establishment. Recognize the elites encroached on our sovereignty and are forcing us to fight for it. Who's going to win? The elites or the people? It's obvious. The elites are weaker than ever now. They're frantic.
"Remember, half a loaf is better than none, so maybe we should support his public health plan, even if not perfect."
Not if the "half a loaf" is poisoned, as the "public option" will be.
I agree with you Kernelz. Healthcare will come in stages. The public healthcare plan is the first stage. Hopefully, single payer will come next but it won't happen unless all these outspoken people come out of their "computer" closets and march on Washington screaming for single payer healthcare.
Before an additional 50 million people become entitled to medical care, we need to ask where the additional doctors, nurses and hospitals are going to come from. In all the discussions that I've read on the single payer issue, the question of who is actually going to provide treatment is never addressed.
If the number of doctors and specialists is not increased in proportion to the new number of patients, then health care rationing and inferior treatment will become the norm as it is in Canada and Britain.
Everyone will have access to a waiting list and CNN is reporting that our taxes will go up by about one trillion dollars.
This is not correct. You're being suckered by the insurance industry's and AMA's lies on this issue. The US has a surplus of docs, not a shortage. It's just that right now, they're all crammed into locales where they can get more money. If they were getting paid set fees by a single-payer program, they'd end up spreading out to where the patients are. There'd be no particular advantage to serving Manhattan or Beverly Hills.
As for that $1 trillion figure, what you're forgetting is that that is just the government cost of the program. From that you have to subtract the money that employers currently pay for employee healthcare, and that employees contribute.
The average American today spends about $7000 a year for medical care, if you add up out of pocket expenditures, contributions to insurance coverage, and employer premiums. Multiply that by 300 million and you get 2.1 trillion dollars, almost all of which would be eliminated.
So you'd end up, by your figures, with a net $1 trillion in savings.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
If your scenario is a real one then single-payer could also include medical and nursing school scholarships for college and high school graduates in the top 1/2% of their classes. If that means paying to build a few new medical schools, so what? Taxes may go up a trillion dollars over a period of time while, as Mr. Lindorff points out, medical insurance paid by employees and employers over the same period of time may decrease by an even greater amount than that trillion dollars. And, I DON'T CARE how much single payer would cost. It would certainly not cost as much as our trillion dollar a year militarist interventionist forein policy, and THAT is one place where we make cuts to finance single payer.
Sioux Rose
EKATON: And don't forget the trillions plus to the darling bankers who have always shown such regard for the American people, NOT! The money exists, it's about priorities. If the rest of the world cuts us off and says "bah, humbug" about our dollars, we will need to see more wealth-creation enterprises circulating within our domestic confines. Perhaps retired medical personnel can give courses at community colleges that prepare communities for basic first aid in the event they can't afford local doctors or hospitals. We have enormous resources, it's often the matter of how distribution comes about, or is motivated to do so.
Even a Fox News reporter pointed out that the stimulus bill provides funds for the training of more nurses. Julia Banderas's only complaint was that it wasn't enough. The simple answer to whatever problem you think exists would be to provide medical schooling for free...and perhaps allow someone besides an MD to treat light injuries and illnesses such as sprains, childhood illnesses, etc.
There already are nurse practitioners and physicians assistants, although not nearly enough, to handle exactly what you suggest. Thank you for mentioning that facet of medical care.
CNN is propaganda. They lie to you 24/7. If you must watch, put a sign on your set that says, "They're lying to me." Or, if you prefer, "Who benefits?"
You said, "Before an additional 50 million people become entitled to medical care..." You are assuming that 50 million of us are not currently "entitled" to care. We are "entitled," in that they don't leave us to bleed to death in the parking lot - yet-, which is your inferred preference. The care is delivered. The hospitals are reimbursed one way or another, including increased costs to paying patients, squeezing every available drop out of patients who have some means, and tax subsidy to the indigent. So, the level of care needed isn't going to suddenly increase by 50 million people.
There is no "Rationing" of Health Care in Canada. Where did you get thyat Information?
You're listening to rush limbaugh and his clones, apparently. The "waiting list" thing is a tipoff that you are being bamboozled by misinformation. I actually often go to Canada for health care because it's faster, cheaper, friendlier, and easier.
part of the strategy of the nwo/controllers is to create false divisions within the population
the old divide and conquer
nowhere is that more prevalent than in health care
race cards are played, social class cards are played and religious cards are paid
they have us right where they want us
the us against them strategy - or as sarah palin calls it "my whole political platform"
let us not forget that there are many millions of american who have health care - that is they pay for it - and then when they try to use it the are cut off for any numbers of reasons
the whole thing is simple, either:
1. health care exists to provide a prohit mechanism for the hmo's, pharma and other concerned parties
or,
2. health care exists as a compassionate, kind and socially wise government service
option 1 or option 2
what say you
Clear-eyed assessment and reminder: United we stand, divided we fall(fail).
Any chance of changing health care in our country is finished. Its been tossed in the ditch by Obama and the Democrats. It is already over.
The sheer arrogance and condescension of these folks is beginning to repel me.
By the way, does anyone really believe that 1 trillion in costs? That it would be the actual figure? History shows quite clearly that its not close.
Perhaps what really repels you is the prospect that the adoption of single-payer would force you to find a job in which you'd actually have to do something productive.
q
q: i'm not sure how or what you know about anyone else's employment status
my guess is you are just being a prick, pointless and hurtful - were you treated harshly as a child
besides that: who said jobs are productive - most are dreary, dull, pointless surrenderings of 8 hrs/day of your life - 8 hours you will never get back
most of us work to stay out of the homeless shelters
that's why you don't see many folks who win the lottery back in the plant or factory or office after they cash their winnings
in your case - don't get a job - get a life
lots of people don't work due to health reasons
i have 23 years on the job - i'm not unhappy - i enjoy my clients - i have a nice desk and access to a clean washroom
i could walk out tonight though and never think of it again - i'm one lotto win from freedom
ma g
Thanks very much for the kind thoughts. Frankly I didn't understand the attack.
Claiming that health care reform is finished deserves a response.
If you don't like it, learn to express yourself better.
q
quickstepper
I thought it was expressed quite succinctly. It is finished. Do you think there is any chance of Single Payer.....any at all? I certainly do not. I don't know how much better I could express it than....Single Payer is dead. There will be no health care reform passed that will help anyone. I don't know how to express it any better than that.
If you favor the mix proposed by this Congress and this President, we are simply on opposie sides in our view of what will make a difference.
"I thought it was expressed quite succinctly."
Of course you do; you know what you were thinking when you wrote it. The rest of us don't.
Why would someone claim that the single-payer issue is dead unless that person wants to convince its supporters to give up? And who would want us to give up besides someone with a stake in the health-insurance industry?
You probably don't like this logic but it's a perfectly reasonable inference from your own writing.
q
I'm not claiming anything. It was my opinion just as what you are saying is yours.
The only stake I have in the insurance industry is they just stiffed me.
I have no concern wheither you give up or not, but I'll bet you a trillion internet dollars you won't see Single Payer out of this bunch. Not now, not ever. If they wanted it, they would never have proposed anything else.
And no I don't see your reasoning as a perfectly reasonable inference from what I wrote. So we agree at last!
quickstepper
Frankly incivility and rudeness coupled with inane statement's has always repelled me.
Your summation of my productivity is astounding with nothing to base it on. Are all of your opinions reached that way?
Next, with your ability to read minds, I'm amazed you didn't know I favor only Single Payer and never the Hybrid systems that are being proposed. Were you under the impression thast a Single Payer system is being proposed? It is most definately not.
I urge you to read more slowly and consider more carefully before making a statement.
Nothing in your first post suggests that you support single payer. In fact, it appears that you are urging others to give up the fight for it. Your statements are at best ambivalent and at worst incomprehensible.
As a matter of fact, I can't read your mind; I can read only what you write.
I urge you to take the time to write more clearly.
q
i just reacted to your comment about implying that the guy you were attacking is not productive because he doesn't have a job
its cruel and judegemental
lots of folks don't work because of health issues
they can still be productive and often are
he could have cancer, or ms or be homeless or many other things
seeing though that we all agree on single payer - let's all be productive and work towards forcing this adminsitration to throw off the hmo's and bring in health care for all
that could be all of our jobs for the time being
quickstepper
"Your statements are at best ambivalent and at worst incomprehensible."
I still feel it was quite clear what I was saying.
"As a matter of fact, I can't read your mind; I can read only what you write."
Then where did the insult about my productivity and my job come from?
"I urge you to take the time to write more clearly."
So let me try to be clearer. Single Payer is already dead in the water (in my opinion) I see no way it would be proposed at this late date, nor do I think any one would believe it now.
In my opinion Health Care reform of any kind will not pass this year (in my opinion) aside from which as I stated elsewhere, whats proposed is nothing more than a cover to raise taxes as the stimulas bills were, a "bait and switch" again.
If they pass anything it won't help anyone (in my opinion) it, if anything will "help" like the Auto bailouts helped the already retired auto workers. They were losers in the "bankruptcy" (in my opinion)
Perhaps you didn't mean what you posted the way I took it, I don't remember you being that type.....so lets forget it and see where we differ or agree.
My take is you still feel Single Payer can be restored to life while I feel its a "no way" proposition.
Perhaps you favor the proposal by the Congress and the administration, in which case we will never agree.
And if you feel any meaningful reform will pass, I disagree and one of us is wrong.
Good Day To You
"Single payer is dead in the water." This is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the political slacker.
Good thing the abolitionsts and suffragists and unionists didn't adopt this same defeatist attitude against even steeper odds.
I think you need to change your tampon, quickstepper.
Sioux Rose
EKATON: Was that necessary?
Read the above blogs for your answer about the trillion in savings. And stop being so negative. Healthcare is not blown...yet. Wait and see or raise your voice and take to the streets to protest.