EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Health Insurers Have Already Won
How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit
As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.
Executives from UnitedHealth certainly showed no signs of worry on the mid-July day that Senate Democrats proposed to help pay for reform with a new tax on the insurance industry. Instead, UnitedHealth parked a shiny 18-wheeler outfitted with high-tech medical gear near the Capitol and invited members of Congress aboard. Inside the mobile diagnostic center, which enables doctors to examine distant patients via satellite television, Representative Jim Matheson didn't disguise his wonderment. "Fascinating, fascinating," said the Democrat from Utah. "Amazing."
Impressing fiscally conservative Democrats like Matheson, a leader of the House of Representatives' Blue Dog Coalition, is at the heart of UnitedHealth's strategy. It boils down to ensuring that whatever overhaul Congress passes this year will help rather than hurt huge insurance companies.
Some Republicans have threatened to make health reform Obama's "Waterloo," as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has put it. The President has fired back at what he considers GOP obstructionism. Meanwhile, big insurance companies have quietly focused on what they see as their central challenge: shaping the views of moderate Democrats.
The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business. UnitedHealth has distinguished itself by more deftly and aggressively feeding sophisticated pricing and actuarial data to information-starved congressional staff members. With its rivals, the carrier has also achieved a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry.
Matheson, whose Blue Dogs command 52 votes in the House, can't offer enough praise for UnitedHealth, the largest company of its kind. "The tried and true message of their advocacy," he says, "is making sure the information they provide is accurate and considered."
Representative Mike Ross, an Arkansas Democrat who leads the Blue Dogs' negotiations on health reform, also welcomes input from UnitedHealth. "If United has something to offer on cutting costs, we should consider it," says Ross, a former small-town pharmacy owner. "We need more examples that work, and everything should be on the table."
DEMOCRATIC WELCOME
Fifteen years after the insurance industry helped kill then-President Bill Clinton's health-reform initiative, Ross is frustrating the Obama White House by opposing proposals for a government-run insurance concern that would compete with private-sector companies. The President argues that without a public plan, premiums and medical bills will remain prohibitively high. Ross and Matheson have given strong voice to the industry's contention that such a public insurer would actually reduce competition by undercutting private plans on price and driving them out of business. "We have concerns about a public option if it's not done on a level playing field," Ross says.
Obama launched his Administration vowing to extend coverage to all Americans and help pay for it by reining in insurance costs. Seven months later, insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers that appeared vulnerable to a regulatory crackdown have been welcomed to the negotiating table by the President's own party.
The several competing bills pending in Congress would guarantee all Americans access to health coverage, addressing the plight of the 47 million who are now uninsured. Congress plans to achieve that by expanding Medicaid, the government program for the poor and disabled; requiring insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health; and mandating that everyone purchase coverage. Government subsidies would make the obligatory coverage more affordable. The legislation would do little, however, to slow spending by Medicare, the public program for senior citizens, or cut overall medical costs. Congress is considering taxes on the wealthy and on benefits now provided to many white-collar workers.
During the UnitedHealth road show in July, Democrat after Democrat clambered into the company's promotional vehicle beneath a sign declaring: "Connecting You to a World of Care." Judah C. Sommer, who heads the company's Washington office, looked on with satisfaction. "This puts a halo on us," he explained. "It humanizes us."
And that Democratic proposal to tax insurance companies? It seems to be fading after the industry said it would raise rates for workers and their families.
UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama-and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats.
UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.
When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record.
Warner acknowledges in an interview that he worked on the hospice-care legislation with UnitedHealth executives. But he stresses that he has long experience with health issues and has formed his own views. The senator echoes UnitedHealth's contention that a so-called public option could be a "Trojan horse for a single-payer system," meaning government-run medical care. Warner has heard from some of UnitedHealth's largest employer clients, such as Delta Air Lines (SWY). Delta CEO Richard H. Anderson, a former UnitedHealth executive, has told Warner and other lawmakers that big companies don't want government to limit their flexibility in crafting employee health benefits.
Click here to read the rest of the article.
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...
53 Comments so far
Show AllKorporations uber alles. Give us your tired, your sick, your worried longing to be free of debt, and we'll bankrupt them, take their homes and toss them aside while we give our CEOs multi-billion dollar bonuses for fleecing the sick and disabled. Ethics? compassion? healing? hope? Forget it. This is the land of free enterprise and profits and anything for some bigger bucks. Now where's that listing for a second home in Aspen, Palm Beach, the Hamptons, or maybe a Rolls or yacht this time. Life gets so boring buying the people's Congress and writing Obama's speech lines for him.
Seriously, will the Democrats finally see just how this totally corrupt two party duopoly operates in criminal corruption, always making sure that corporate PROFITS trumps the people's needs? Round here the Obama as messiah fixation still reigns and excuses for his betrayals are ready at hand, though weakening slightly.
"Will the Democrats finally see...?" NO.
So called nationalized healthcare is really just a plan that LOCKS both the insured and the insurer into a lifelong commitment to coverage. The insurer then covers AS MUCH of current medical practice as is consistent with the payments coming in. Because those payments are assured, they can plan for the long term, and they can also buy in bulk because they know ahead of time who they are insuring. Typically, the insurer is 'not for profit', but doesn't have to be (in Switzerland, for example, I think the public healthplan administrator is a private company). The insured benefit from knowing they will always have healthcare, but cannot later choose to leave the plan. A lot of the so-called 'choice' of private health insurance is actually the choice of the insurer to drop your coverage once you actually need it.
Because of the unique characteristic of 'nationalized' healthcare (that you are locked in once you choose it), I propose that Americans be given a ONE TIME ONLY choice to choose a 'nationalized' plan, or to stay with the current system of private insurers. Die-hard 'socialists' will then choose the public plan, while die-hard 'free-marketeers' will stay with private insurance. The private plans offer more choice, but the public plan offers assured healthcare when you actually need it. Whether public or private, these plans could both be administered by corporations, but, as is true currently, there would be much gov't regulation specifying how they did their business. For example, employers would pay for it, as is true now. Also, I think that when children get off their parents healthcare, they be offered that one-time choice (say at 25) to choose public insurance, or to go with the private insurers. Again, because the public plan NEEDS its insured to LOCK in their commitment (in order to offer lower costs and long term planning), this choice should only be offered once, and is binding lifelong (or until Medicare kicks in at 65).
The issue of the gov't paying to cover people who can't afford healthcare (due to job loss or something else), is really a separate issue. I think its a good idea, and support higher taxation to pay for it. But we need to realize that its a separate issue. If we go that route, we should offer to subsidize the poor at whichever plan they already hold.
Wanna laugh?
We The People spend over $3 billion/year to provide 2.3 million prison inmates with 'free' health care.
That's $1,300/year per prisoner.
Once ya nix the waste and exorbitant profits, the wholesale cost for providing a prison inmate with 'free' health care is about $500/year - or about $40/month.
I just called all 75 million uninsured/underinsured Americans and asked them if they would like 'free' health care for only $40/month, like the convicts have...
Every single one said abso-f@#king-lutely...
75 million x 40 = $3 billion per month. Don't tell me We The People can't provide ourselves with 'free' health care for $3 billion dollars A MONTH! But we can hand 5 times more than that per month to the banksters who raped us silly?
Here's the new play: we need to divide the insurers from the care providers and drug makers. Explain to them that, under the new American Public Care Trust Fund system, insurers go bye-bye - but providers and drug makers are guaranteed 5% profits.
Once the insurers are hung out to dry, the party is over...
frank1569 August 8th, 2009 4:27 pm............Again, I see no problem here, other than organizing a corporation, getting citizens involved and spreading the word...the rest will gain momentum as all see it is working. I have had feedback that it's too simple. I believe that's the beauty. I see nothing illegal here. What feedback are you getting?? And if not, why not.
Free health care and they get room and board too? Is this what the Republigoons have in store for the left?
Blue Dog, Red Dog, Stray Dog... What see now is proof-positive that once again, by and large, there is no difference between the two parties.
The democratic party has all the power it needs but has failed once again to carry out the will of the people and to do what is morally right.
We still have a warmongering, privacy-busting, treasury-raiding, police-state building, healthcare failing democratic president & congress.
What do you do now democrats? What will your next excuse be? What's the plan? 2012? 2016? 2020? More get out the vote campaigns? More posturing? More clever strategy? More insight from The Nation (via subscription of course). More MoveOn type cyber activism?
Tell me. Seriously. I really want to know.
@ moonpie August 8th, 2009 4:58 pm: Here's what I can tell you -- you need new glasses, because you apparently can't tell the difference between Russ Finegold and Jim Inhofe, or Dennis Kucinich and John Boehner, or Brian Schweitzer and Arnold Schwarzenegger, or even George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That's a dangerously stupid and useless simplification, unless your only goal is to demoralize progressive Dem voters, which just happens to be the same strategy as the 'divide and conquer' GOP in 2010.
And what's your solution -- run Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney for president again and teach those Democrats a lesson they'll never forget like you did in 2000, 2004 and 2008?
RSJ August 9th, 2009 8:52 am............Allow me to kick in here a moment. Please tell me what BO has done to un-do the hell of 8 years of Bush? And while you are at it, tell me what was accomplished by Pelosi and the rest of the complicit gang, when they said impeachment was off the table because they had more important things to accomplish. What was accomplished? They all voted for the bailout that thus far has cost the taxpayer 27 trillion dollars. Are we out of Iraq? Afghanistan? We are now in Pakistan. Rendition continues. The banksters are using the bailout money for outrageous bonuses, which are in essence hush money. Obama has caved on every major issue he sought to undertake. You know damn well deals were made or he would not be president. And what's wrong with RN, he's been right on EVERY MAJOR ISSUE.
And may I also refer you to my post on this article
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/09-0
@ easydoesit August 9th, 2009 12:40 pm: What has Obama done? He's ended torture as a policy of the US government. He's closing Gitmo. We are withdrawing from Iraq, and he's trying to pass health care reform with a public option that, if done right, will eventually lead to a single-payer system. Those are just a few of the changes he's made from the Bush years and, if you don't see the differences between the intelligent and thoughtful Obama and the dingbat Dauphin from Crawford, then you need glasses, too.
You said rendition continues -- such an accusation requires proof, not opinion.
I don't know 'damn well' that deals were made so that Obama could become president -- if you do, then present your incontrovertible evidence that such is the case. If such backdoor deals were made and Obama is merely the stooge of the corporations and banksters, then why are they spending so much money opposing him? The health care industry alone is spending more than $1.2 million per day lobbying to junk his health care reform plans. Why bother if he is in their back pocket already?
There's nothing wrong with Ralph Nader's ideas, and I supported him with my money and vote in 2000. However he has no power and little influence to change the way things are done, which is why I think he should run for congressman, senator or governor where he might actually have a chance at winning an office and having power. If Ralph had started a takeover of the Dems in 2000 or 2004, there might be a very healthy progressive wing in the party; instead, he frittered away his time in vain campaigns for president and squandered his reputation. As a Dem elected official the media would have to pay attention to him and he could propose legislation; as a third-party candidate he can be, and has been, dismissed as a nut. Is it any wonder his former backers, such as Michael Moore and Bill Murray, abandoned him after 2000? Or are they in the tank for the corprocracy as well?
As flawed as Barack Obama may be, as 'centrist-liberal' as his positions may be, and as mistaken as he sometimes appears to be -- he is, after all, a subtle political general who plots to win the war rather than each battle -- he has the power to change things that Ralph does not.
As far as Pelosi, I won't defend her actions -- I hoped Cindy Sheehan would beat her last election -- but Pelosi does not represent every member of the Democratic Party, and you'll find no progressives among the Republicans, so to say the major parties are the same is, as I said, a dangerously stupid oversimplification.
Rather than trying to mount a third party challenge, which hasn't worked, why shouldn't progressives simply take over the Dems? It's a much easier course, and Ralph could start that ball rolling by running for congress in 2010.
Article says: "The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business."
This says it all. At this point I don't give a damn if the Repugs torpedo Obama's plan, just as I was basically happy to see Billary's farce of a plan go south in the 1990s. Halfway, or a quarter of the way, or most likely, an eighth or a thousandth of the way, is not enough. Same with Iraq. Same with Afghanistan.
These puppets and farceurs need to be ridden out of power on a rail.
And note, mind, that this article comes from Business Week. In other words, even the capitalists realize that this is a farce!
BusinessWeek can be surprising sometimes. I've seen their people completely destroy conservatives' talking points on economic policies several times on Fox Business. I believe one of them even argued quite well for a single-payer system, but it was a while ago and I can't be sure.
Serious question: Can anyone tell me why people who are being disruptive to the point of making dialogue at a town hall meeting impossible aren't simply given the choices of:
--yielding the floor,
--leaving the meeting, or
--being arrested for disorderly conduct?
I'm fine with noisy protest and disturbing the peace. I'm also fine with being arrested as one of the prices of being a noisy and disruptive protestor.
Believe me, if they were loudly promoting left views - such as promoting single-payer, they would have been arrested before they finished their first sentence. In my District, some single payer activists were arrested for politely trying to deliver a Medicare birthday cake to my Republican Congressman Tim Murphy's (R-PA) field office.
You mean, them yield the floor to others? How can they prevent dialogue if they do that?
Of course they don't want to leave the meeting until they made it end.
And some are being arrested, and since they're mostly old white guys, the old white guy conservative media raises hell every time that happens.
But some of them are calling on others to start bringing guns and shooting anyone who tries to shut them up. It's getting bad out there.
arkitekton, this is the way we SHOULD be. Unfortunately I agree with the others who have replied to your post. Sad and frightening that we don't always do as we SHOULD.
@ arkitekton August 8th, 2009 7:55 pm: It is a shame these town hall brown-shirts don't have a copy of Robert's Rules of Order under their arm, and have probably never heard of it. Of course, their twin goals are to 1) stop health care reform from actually being discussed rationally, and 2) attract media attention disproportionate to their numbers. At a recent meeting in -- I think it was -- Florida, there were only about fifteen 'protestors' out of a couple of hundred attendees, but you wouldn't know that if you only saw the clips aired by the Big Media of oldsters waving anti-tax signs and bleating Glenn Beck talking points. To the average viewer, it appeared that a majority of the assemblage was against health care reform, which is exactly the impression the Astroturf groups want to leave with that portion of Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public that doesn't watch Fox News. "Gee, there must be something wrong with this health care thing if so many people are against it." Mission accomplished!
So far, I have not read of even one of these 'Teabaggers' being arrested, but some have been escorted out of meetings and then released in the wild.
BTW, I'm wondering why the Dems are not calling the GOP on NOT having open town hall meetings to discuss health care reform -- the Republicans obviously aren't taking the chance of a noisy 'protest backlash' happening to them.
Hey, whatever happened to 'Free Speech Zones' for protestors? I guess that's a convenience solely reserved for Republicans to avoid facing angry mobs.
To paraphrase John Cage, the ignorant, misinformed teabaggers have nothing to say and they're saying it -- but they are loud and angry enough that it seems they must have a legitimate gripe. At least that's the impression the health care industry wants to leave with the general public.
Aready won? Won what? Was there some kind of contest that was previously in doubt?
OK, how about a national ins market w/o control by ind state ins commissions.
A list of coverages, deductible amounts, HSA's, PPO's, HMO's Coops's uname it's (not prepackaged)to be chosen from to suit ind needs on a yearly basis.
Any qualified Ins co could offer any or all of the coverages on a check-off basis with costs listed.
The more options, the more offerers, the better the pricing.
From http://crush.typepad.com (emasculation-blues)
http://apocalypse-blues.typepad.com/
I hope all those opposing single-payor (government-payor) insurance SOON experience hospitals without enough staff and NO nurses’ call-buttons. And they believe they are going to drown in their saliva and secretions at 3 a.m.
This is what happened to a guy we'll call Bob:
One day a cold hit. He went to the office, but everybody told him to go home. He laid in bed Sat and Sun and returned to the office on Mon at 9 a.m. That’s the last thing he remembers.
Fellow employees tell him he sounded like a gravel truck and finally started a gaspy, wheezing, drooling cough. They rushed him to the hospital. They tell him he walked into the ER on his own, his eyes open. He remembers nothing. Finally his buddy told ER personnel that “Hey. This guy can’t breath.” And he was put on O2 and taken to ICU. The buddy left to get a sandwich and returned to find Bob on a ventilation machine with a tracheotomy and in a drug-induced coma.
A parade of the town’s people came to his bedside for four weeks while he lay there, full of tubes--so many that personnel couldn’t turn him--and his friend could see bed sores, pressure ulcers on his back, sacrum, head and even the outsides of his ankles.
The month of inactivity had withered his muscles into uselessness. All he could move was his right foot, up one inch and down one inch.
He fought the panic. Often he tried to use his left arm which had the most motion to leverage himself over the side railings (He was sure he could land on his hands and knees and crawl out of the hospital) He hated the good-will “counselor,” an oh-so-cute lady of 70 or 80, meant to cheer him up. She said, “keep moving” even though he could only barely move one arm and three toes. “I was in your position and look at me.” “If I can do it, you can do it.” He soundlessly screamed “I need physical therapy” but the “good-will” lady couldn’t read lips.
The tracheotomy to insert the ventilation machine into his throat had shunted air away from his vocal cords and he was noiseless. He had only the energy to mouth two-word requests: “Ice chips” (For his dry mouth, when the build-up of mucous filled the mouth’s roof) “New channel” (There were only three channels on a TV he couldn’t reach) On top of that, the muscles in his throat were down to nothing and he couldn’t swallow. His mouth was parched, but no one—except for his friend, a Mormon missionary and one of his kinder doctors—would hold a glass of water to his lips and let him drink until the parchness was relieved.
After a few days of needing suctioning every hour via his trach to remove fluid from his pneumonia-flooded lungs—and having NO nurses’ call-button, and believing he was going to drown in his saliva and secretions at 3 a.m., simply because staffing was low due to budget cuts—he, one night rolled his head to the left as his doctor checked his feeding tube and, catching her eye, mouthed the words: “Poison me.” She was one of only 3-4 people who could read his lips adequately. He knew she understood. But she just smiled and shook her head, “No.”
Bob’s experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) had left him leery and weary of life. Five years afterwards he still shuffled along because his feet still hurt from their oxygen deprivation. Tendons had been severed by UNCARED-FOR bed sores a centimeter deep developed by his feet hanging over the too-short bed and on top of the metal railing during his one-month medically-induced coma. And he no longer trusted his heart, although he could climb nine flights of stairs without too much trouble. The problem is that his pulse had been recorded at 170 or more beats per minute during the crisis. And doctors had placed him on heart medication –something designed to slow his heart rate.
Now that's what a living will is for, damn.
Well GG. how do you get to Single Payer/No Recourse program being better?
Your friendly career GS10 will not care at all budget cuts or not.
Medical care delivered by USPS, get real.
I'll take mine from a UPS or FDX.
@ Cran Shaws August 8th, 2009 10:28 pm, oh, yes, the private for-profit system is so much better, isn't it?
Here's a UPS story for you: Ten years ago I ordered a guitar and paid extra to have it shipped UPS. Not only did the delivery take three days longer than UPS said it would, but the UPS guy tried to deliver it to an address completely different than mine several blocks away, even though the correct street name and number were clearly listed on the label. It was only due to the people at the house who let the driver use their phone that I was able to direct him to the proper address. The people he attempted to deliver my new guitar to said the UPS guy was pressuring them to just sign for the package -- what if they had? I would have been out a guitar with a signed shipment notice from UPS that said it was delivered. It would have been an unholy mess to straighten out -- especially if the driver refused to reveal where he had actually delivered the guitar. So much for the infallibility of UPS.
I also know people who work in government-paid health care for the VA and other venues -- they are anything but the uncaring GS-10 bureaucrats of your fantasies.
Obviously, Cran Shaws, you have never dealt with the faceless bureaucrats in our for-profit health care industry -- they are monsters. The difference is, if a private bureaucrat doesn't provide you the health care you desperately need, he's rewarded by his company -- he just saved them money. If a public bureaucrat does that, you can at least put pressure on him by contacting your elected representatives.
You'll appreciate that difference if you're ever laying in a hospital bed recovering from surgery and your insurance company suddenly drops you because you've become too expensive and a drain on their profits. Then you can experience the rare, uniquely American joy of trying to figure out where to get the tens of thousands of dollars required to pay for your recovery, plus your expensive medications and other fees.
Trust me, if that time ever comes, you'll wish you had been born a Canadian.
Insurance giants cozying up with congress and feeding them actuarial data, advising them on health care program options, proposing programs where insurance companies would advise people on how to take care of their health...etc... etc.
Foxes? Henhouse?
Ingrained bad habits are notoriously hard to change. It doesn't matter whether they're labeled 'collective habits,' since all bad habits can only be individually expressed in the end.
The individual habit of millions of us Americans doing nothing more than verbally whining, whenever we manage to perceive that our ruling institutions are screwing us, is stronger than any counter impulse to take stronger than verbal action against the screwing.
'Anomie' is what some of the ancient Greek and Roman Republic philosophers called this phenomenon, back in their times -- so it's clearly nothing unique to the present age. But it's notable how some modern artists have treated the subject.
I remember once seeing an amazing French film, written and directed (if I recall correctly) by the outre director Luis Bunnel (sp-?), entitled The Exterminating Angel.
In it, a group of self-absorbed, moneyed-class types gather for a party at a small elegant chateau. But as the jabbering pompous party winds down, the guests find themselves, inexplicably, unable to pass through the door to leave and go home.
This unexplained individual cum collective paralysis goes on for several days - no one can leave -- during which time there are several mental breakdowns among the gathered elite and even a stress-caused death or two. The chateau's telephone still works, so someone inside has early-on called the police, who dutifully arrive but who are, contra-likewise, unable enter the chateau from without.
During the final scenes, all of the captive party goers, who are by this time ragged, filthy, starving and nearly insane with fear and incomprehension, suddenly see appear through the windows a white goat on the outside courtyard, near the equally paralyzed, and by then equally bedraggled, waiting police.
The goat's out-of -the-blue arrival - a meta bizarre animal presence that still somehow, seems like a normal-looking, mindlessly chewing blinking goat, within a few seconds breaks the paralytic spell over the humans. The aristocrats suddenly are able to open the chateau's front door, and they all begin to rush out into the hands of the similarly, suddenly unhexed, now confidently approaching police.
As the final frame freezes and the credits begin to roll, the viewer is left with the unacceptable gut feeling, a feeling equal to the unreality of the human predicament just shown, that neither these well-to-do party folks nor the police who couldn't help them, will have any further interest in fathoming the meaning of incident. And that, therefore, it may well recur again. But next time with less saving grace.
That pretty much captures the situation. I get the feeling we're just experienced a certain legislative convulsion that's not going to change a single damn thing and will quite possibly make matters worse. Everyone powerful enough to have a stake in the matter might be placated; Obama will be able to say that he's "done something," but the people will be as bad off as ever. If the public option that everyone either places their hopes on or fears actually had teeth there would be more opposition to it, and fighting for it, than there is. Outcomes have become predictable; the moneyed interests will always win.
Of Course the Ins types will fight for their existence with everything at their disposal. Did you seriously think thay would fold their tents and slink away?
If you have a pension or mutual funds etc they are probably in part invested in Ins Co equities. Ins Co's employ people all over the country rather than their home states (CT, MA, PA, etc etc)
Is there nothing Progressives would fight for other than the non-right to other-peoples-money (read property)
Organize a Med Coop. Gather Progressive Dr's Rn's, Lpn's to work for a pittance so you have something 'free' What do you have to contribute to the well being of the Coop?
Such stupid comments on your part.
Only in the US is healthcare a privilege, not a right.
Only in the US is healthcare a profit-making enterprise, and where those who can't afford it can die.
And then we have goofballs like you who equate healthcare with Wall Street profits. And goofballs like you who still haven't figured out that not one person is asking for "free" anything. And goofballs like you who think that everyone working in the predatory health insurance industry is somehow more important than dying or ill people. Who gives a crap if health insurance people lose their jobs? I sure as hell don't.
So stupid. You are so stupid.
It's true I see a lot of articles referring to it as "free healthcare" not nationalized not taxpayer-supported not government debt healthcare not even single payer healthcare. This is a misleading way to refer to it, nothing is free. Have we found doctors and nurses willing to work for nothing or something? Not to mention all the engineers who develop the technology? The costs of running a hospital? It is not "free healthcare" whether you support the idea or not and people should stop calling it "free."
doomed animals committed to Exclusion and vicious about it. You can relax Cran Shaws, by the time the HMO's and Big Pharma are finished raping you, your parents, your children and your grandchildren to death, only the Overseers will have health care, but not as good as Master's health care of course. I guess you still have a job....hold that thought for as long as you have it, after that, when you are discarded, when you are thrown into the teeth of this abattoir, you may have other thoughts. For now your belly's full and your mind is filled with gafla, that will change...Master doesn't need you or your job for him to rule with impunity...not when he has millions of Cran Shaws left to devour...munch munch...demons are coming for you Cran Shaw but its not us, it's the men you worship - they are the ones who will rape you and your children to death, not us. Continue believing in your invincibility for as long as you can. Let it comfort you.
It's probable that Cran Shaws is a paid insurance troll. Unfortunately the deep pocketed ins companies are scared as hell and fighting back in any way possible. Profit is not the dirty word, it's "waste," and the insurance middlemen have created a system so fattened with waste that we're all suffering from it. Why do you think they're resisting an all-age streamlined public option with such vehemence? The cash cow must be kept alive at all cost.
I don't need to read the article or any of the comments - and I mean no offense to anyone - because I know that in the long run we will not get the reform we want as long as the 17th amendment stands and for-profit corporations are allowed to finance "political speech".
Victories are partial and temporary.
No Elliott, healthcare is not a "right".
Since profit is a four letter word to you, we can assume you forgo all that results resulting from profit making Co's like aspirin etc.
You must be part of a non profit enterpise and probably are personally responsible for their unprofitable operation. So much so you think somebody else should pay for your care.
Please affirm your refusal of all fruits of a free society. Hate to think you are yet another hypocrite .
Non sequiturs & ad hominems.
-- Condemning for-profit healthcare does not equal condemning for-profit business.
-- Condemning for-profit business does not equal condemning profit.
-- Condemning profit does not equal repudiating all benefits of a system that one has not yet managed to defeat.
For example, much agriculture developed during periods of slavery. Assuming as I do that you repudiate slavery, why would you refuse to incorporate the benefits that people managed under it? I'll assume you are not a fascist. If not, does that mean you feel the US military should retroactively remove the advances contributed to their technology by Werner von Braun & others who made their contributions under fascist leadership?
What about the contributions of the American Founding Fathers? If you discount the Native Americans, the founders all received their educations and wealth from royal support.
For what it's worth, I think it makes as much sense to say health care is a right as education and more than property. But I see no sense to your arguments here either way.
I agree that in the US, health care is not a right. I disagree that it can't be one.
We don't only have rights like free speech that don't depend on others to provide. We also have the right to an education. We've made this a right. By the same token, there's no good reason that we can't make access to decent health care a right (independent of the ability to pay). This right is something citizens take for granted in Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Cuba, Japan...
Plague the Blue Dogs if you live in their districts and if they still vote against a decent health care system expose all their corrupt dealmaking until they are driven out of office or die of old age.
Payback, even the people can dish it out right?
or are most on common dreams unwilling to engage in such vindictive action?
They aren't.
Agreed. Not just the Blue Dogs; ANYONE who refuses to vote for ANYTHING less than full single payer!
A 'Right' can only be singular, i.e. Free Speech doesn't include being listened to.
HealthCARE as a Right requires others to provide it, therefore compelling service from another (slavery?)
Again, the question of completely open national ins market w/o the corrupting influence State ins commish. The Swiss provide vouchers for lower income people to purchase only the ins they want.
yes, I'm subject to M'care and SS which would make me a hypocrite but my income was subject to involuntary deductions implying a contract of sorts.
Interesting that the nature of SS & MD contracts would be a fraud if issued by a private ins'r.
bardamu - Slavery is a remaining scourge of 3rd worlds. Slavery as practiced in in preCW US was an economic loser as well as a unforgiveable stain on our country. Any society (Muslim)that precludes any of its people (women) from equality is reprehendsible and destructive to their progress.
luckylefty - What, coherence please!
Ins is a pooling of risk. Gv't healthINS will be a pay-as-you-go system dipping into the treasury as medicare/medicaid do now. Where is there any incentive for efficiency?
If Ins Co are so evil where is the rage against, auto, home, personal items, liability insurance. Would you all prefer Uncle Sugar being the single payer for them?
I lived in New Orleans during katrina. FEMA was/is disgrace. Pvt ins co's came thru big time as did other pvt efforts like teh Salvation Army. etc.
Your a bunch of whiners. Get off your duffs and do better if you can.
@ Cran Shaws August 10th, 2009 9:52 am. At one time, people thought there was no 'right' to free speech, nor anything else, except for those in the aristocracy. Our government, of, by and for the people, established those rights for every American, and allowed our rights to be expanded as needed. Health care wasn't very expensive and not much of a factor in 1776, but it is today.
Nobody is asking anyone to provide health care for free, anymore than than cops, soldiers, firefighters, highway workers, judges, or anyone else in a government job is asked to work for free. There just won't be a corporate middleman between you and your health care provider. Or would you prefer a system where a for-profit bureaucrat determined whether or not you deserved to have law enforcement respond to your 911 call, or a fire truck come out when your home is burning down, based on whether it is profitable to their company to do so?
Every day you drive on roads and bridges others pay for by their taxes who will never use that particular road; would you like to privatize that system so that some corporation can then charge whatever they want in tolls to use their stretch of road? Seems to me that would limit your freedom, or make it damn expensive to take a Sunday drive. Some toll road systems -- such as in Indiana -- have already been sold to private interests and the tolls are going up much to the dismay of the locals. Is this the kind of 'free' system you had in mind -- endless gouging without restraint?
You mentioned 'auto, home, personal items, liability insurance' -- these are not life and death situations -- health care is, and that's why it should be a right.
You ask "Where is there any incentive for efficiency?" Most people who use VA and Medicare don't want to give it up. There has been no institution in human history that does not have its problems, but, generally speaking, the people at VA do a good job when properly funded, and usually a much better job than HMO doctors. The incentive for medical personnel is contained in the Hippocratic Oath -- if your sole reason for becoming a doctor or nurse is profit, maybe you should consider a different line of work.
FEMA was a disgrace during Katrina because it was run by incompetents who didn't believe that government could help anyone. Would you go to a doctor who didn't believe that medicine could cure anyone? BTW, a friend of mine who lives in NOLA is still waiting for the insurance company to pay for her house being burned down that had nothing to do with the hurricane damage and they are still refusing to pay claiming it was part of Katrina's flooding and therefore exempt from recompensation. Her fire happened six months after Katrina and had nothing to do with Katrina, but some of her neighbors who were flooded out were never reimbursed for the damage done, so don't tell me how private insurance companies moved in to alleviate the suffering post-Katrina -- it's a lie. Walmart delivered some water and food, but that was about it.
It seems to be the people who are against health care reform are presently whining the loudest -- those who want to reform the system are just trying to make sure everyone has health care so when they're sick, they don't have to go bankrupt or deal with a greedy health insurance corporation, a corporation strictly in business to make a profit and not to provide decent health care.
It's a shame you see something wrong with that.
BTW, since you deplore government involvement so much, why don't you refuse your Social Security check and Medicare benefits?
RSJ -
You are mistaken about organizational response to Katrina. You should have been there rather past on second hand info.
A "right" can only singular, stick with proper definitions. Access to healthcare is proper but not a 'right'.
The argument seems to be confusing whether we are talking about affordable ins v care.
Many of the commentaries indicate a disolutionment in 'O's, betrayal of the Progressive movement. Yet faith in Gv't solutions runs in parallel w/disappointment.
The anger at Corp's is reflective of consolidation and lack of meaningful competition. Nobody condemns say Papa Johns v a family owned shop as Papa Johns doesn't enjoy a near monopoly position.
Gv't is an absolute monopoly! The various bills in the House preclude pvt ins from offering plans as offered by Gv't.
Do any of you seriously think the Gv't you distrust will suddenly be trust worthy!?
Consider, during daily life's transactions, how many are with a Gvt ofc? - gas, coffee, lunch, groceries, clothing, etc - none. All the choices you have compel those choices to respond to you to earn your transaction!
As to SS & M'care, that is a faulty compelled/involuntary contract between earners and monopolistic Gvt, they arean obligation to be by gvt thru payroll deductions that continued to be deducted as my working life is not over by choice.
The hard reality of a single payer CARE program is that revenues will never equate to potential/desired outlays. Therefore rationing will be instituted and there will be an ongoing political fight amount groups make sure the ration applies to other groups.
Nationalized CARE will result in some older providers will retire sooner than thought, beginning/mid career may elect other endeavors, etc.
What does BTW mean?
"Gv't is an absolute monopoly! The various bills in the House preclude pvt ins from offering plans as offered by Gv't."
Actually, they set minimum standards of coverage for all insurance plans that want to participate in the exchange system that's being set up. You're thinking of single-payer, which is different, and is not in any of these bills you're talking about.
"Consider, during daily life's transactions, how many are with a Gvt ofc? - gas, coffee, lunch, groceries, clothing, etc - none. "
Gas: the government-run military keeps the sea lanes open for oil imports, protects oil fields from disruption, and the roads the gas is burned on were built by the government.
Coffee: available through trade agreements between ours and various other governments.
Lunch: made (usually) safe by the FDA, USDA, etc.
Groceries: same as above.
Clothing: government laws prevent (in this country, anyway) your clothing from being made by slaves or children.
"As to SS & M'care, that is a faulty compelled/involuntary contract between earners and monopolistic Gvt, they arean obligation to be by gvt thru payroll deductions that continued to be deducted as my working life is not over by choice."
How is your stock portfolio doing?
"The hard reality of a single payer CARE program is that revenues will never equate to potential/desired outlays. Therefore rationing will be instituted and there will be an ongoing political fight amount groups make sure the ration applies to other groups."
Rationing is currently instituted by insurance companies. That is how they are profitable. And none of these bills currently being debated have anyting to do with single-payer.
"Nationalized CARE will result in some older providers will retire sooner than thought, beginning/mid career may elect other endeavors, etc."
So you want people to be slaves to some crappy job just for the health insurance? Very non-freedom and liberty loving of you.
"What does BTW mean?"
By the way. You must have grown up before the AOL era, I'm guessing.
@ Cran Shaws August 11th, 2009 2:09 pm: Just to add to Zmann's response.
You wrote: "You are mistaken about organizational response to Katrina. You should have been there rather past on second hand info."
I am depending on info from someone I've known for over forty years, and she doesn't lie. Were you everywhere in NOLA post-Katrina, or just in those 'white' areas that were rebuilt?
You wrote: "A "right" can only singular, stick with proper definitions. Access to healthcare is proper but not a 'right'."
I have no idea what you're getting at here, but we have a Bill of Rights which is definitely plural, and health care can become a right if Congress added an amendment to the Constitution making it a right.
You wrote: "Yet faith in Gv't solutions runs in parallel w/disappointment."
Are you disappointed in law enforcement, your firefighters, your road crews, your court system, and your troops? They are all government-run and paid for by the taxpayers.
You wrote: "Do any of you seriously think the Gv't you distrust will suddenly be trust worthy!?"
I distrust government run by people who don't think government -- that's us, BTW -- can do anything right. As I said, would you go to a doctor who doesn't believe medicine can cure you? Would you hire a contractor who doesn't believe his tools can build a house? Would you hire someone to run your business who doesn't believe in your business? Would you hire a coach for your team who doesn't believe your team can win? This is essentially the Republican conservative attitude toward government -- they ideologically believe government can't work so, when they assume power, they make sure it doesn't work.
You wrote: "Gv't is an absolute monopoly! The various bills in the House preclude pvt ins from offering plans as offered by Gv't."
Our form of government is of, by and for the people, so we are an 'absolute monopoly' of ourselves, and it was established to protect our rights and do those things which we cannot individually do for ourselves. The various health care bills simply offer a cheaper public option, they do not preclude private insurers from competition. Perhaps private insurance companies will tighten their belts and stop paying multi-million dollar salaries to their executives to compete with the public option. Are you saying we should not have open competition to bring prices down for the consumer? Isn't that the essence of free market capitalism? Or are you saying the government should be in the business of protecting the stockholders of health care corporations from outside competition that might lower their dividends? Is that what you conceive of as a proper role for government -- to protect private companies from competition?
You wrote: "The hard reality of a single payer CARE program is that revenues will never equate to potential/desired outlays. Therefore rationing will be instituted and there will be an ongoing political fight amount groups make sure the ration applies to other groups."
That's not true in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Japan, nor any other country where there is a single-payer universal option or a government-run program that competes with private insurers. The rationing is taking place right now as 47 million Americans have been 'rationed out' of health care entirely by the high cost of private care and millions more are under-insured. I personally know several people who were cut off by their private insurer for contracting a long-term illness that's expensive to treat, and a few couldn't get Medicaid supplements even after they were completely bankrupt. If you sat down and tried to design a worse, more cruel, more complicated, health care system than ours, I doubt you'd be able to do it.
Yup, I know what AOL stands for, but what BTW?
Medical providers - Dr's Rn, Lpn's ya de ya - may retire or otherwise leave medicine whether single ins or care or not. The exchange idea will incorporate price controls. And yes "single" is very much in discussion.
Equity portfolio is just fine and improving. I enjoy work for the money and continuing involvement in the fun of commerce. How's yours? SS is joke as to ROI.
All your comments about structure provided by Gvt do not equate to many commercial choices you make daily.
Militaries were organized early on to replace pvt security for the good of all citizens and ensure the free flow commerce not to market it.
Surely you do not advocate return to days of the open seas piracy? Even "O" realized the need to step up to it in the Gulf of Aden.
Gvt has a role setting standards and establishing a level playing field. I'm not an anarchist.
Gvt does not have a role in determining which product/service is available nor the pricing of same. Nor choosing winners/losers. What motivation to get it right comes from knowing the customers you failed will be compelled to bail you out
The end goal of all the dust up about health ins or care is headed toward a single payer system and the question still remains do you trust the monopoly gvt any more than you would even a non-profit pvt single payer option.
"Yup, I know what AOL stands for, but what BTW?"
I already spelled it out for you, so whatever.
"Medical providers - Dr's Rn, Lpn's ya de ya - may retire or otherwise leave medicine whether single ins or care or not. The exchange idea will incorporate price controls. And yes "single" is very much in discussion."
Uh people are constantly retiring. People do grow old you know. And price controls are exactly what's needed, unless you soon want to be paying 100% of your income for your health insurance premiums alone, nevermind co-pays, deductibles, and whatever it decides not to cover. And no, single-payer is a seperate bill, try to understand that.
"Equity portfolio is just fine and improving. I enjoy work for the money and continuing involvement in the fun of commerce. How's yours? SS is joke as to ROI."
Good for you, and I don't have once, since I just graduated college a few months ago.
"All your comments about structure provided by Gvt do not equate to many commercial choices you make daily."
Yes they do. Each day, I choose to take the bus instead of drive a car, for instance. And the $2.50 daily fare for my ride to and from work is subsidized by government in infrastructure, not to mention the road that was built by the government too that the bus uses.
"Gvt does not have a role in determining which product/service is available nor the pricing of same. Nor choosing winners/losers. What motivation to get it right comes from knowing the customers you failed will be compelled to bail you out"
Yes, it pretty much does. Government subsidies to gigantic agricultural corporations determines the price of nearly all the food you eat. And it does choose winners and losers this way...processed junk wins, organic loses, when it comes to price.
@ Cran Shaws August 11th, 2009 4:44 pm: I understand you have a problem with absorbing simple concepts, and you're so busy you have to abbrieviate words to the point of obscuring your meaning, but 'BTW" is shorthand for 'By The Way.'
Most of your questions have already been answered by Zmann or myself, but just to comment on a couple of your new items:
You wrote: "Militaries were organized early on to replace pvt security for the good of all citizens and ensure the free flow commerce not to market it."
Right -- the military is organized for the commonwealth or common good of the nation. Health care should be likewise organized. It's one thing to have a 'free market' where optional items are concerned; quite another when it comes to a good or service that literally means life or death.
You wrote: "Gvt has a role setting standards and establishing a level playing field."
Glad you agree that government has a role in regulating the marketplace. Currently there is almost no regulation of the health care industry, and there is no 'level playing field' for the consumer -- we are at the mercy of greedy health insurance corporations and Big Pharma.
You wrote: "Gvt does not have a role in determining which product/service is available nor the pricing of same."
Then why can't American consumers buy prescription drugs at Canadian prices? Why? Because the 'free market' Republicans sponsored and passed a bill preventing us from buying drugs at lower prices. And why should corporations have the right to determine which medical services they'll refuse to pay for that you need? Why do they have the right to cut you off from recompensation if you have an illness they decide they won't pay for, after you have faithfully paid your premiums for 20 years? Right now, I can't afford a prescription medicine because it's just too expensive, and I'm not old enough for Medicare. I could afford it if I lived in Canada, though. Isn't that a private corporation, licensed by the state, determining which product/service is available to me?
You wrote: "Nor choosing winners/losers. What motivation to get it right comes from knowing the customers you failed will be compelled to bail you out."
Zmann amply answered your first sentence here. The alternative to the bailout was the complete meltdown of the financial and banking markets which means you would not be receiving a paycheck, nor any other kind of check, as there wouldn't be any bank to issue or cash it. The cost of rebuilding the financial markets and banking industry would have far outstripped the cost of bailing them out.
You wrote: "The end goal of all the dust up about health ins or care is headed toward a single payer system and the question still remains do you trust the monopoly gvt any more than you would even a non-profit pvt single payer option."
You should meet people from Canada, Sweden, Norway, Germany and France where they have single-payer universal health care or mixed private/public health options. These nations are all democracies and I have yet to meet any one of their citizens who want to vote out their form of universal health care, nor want to trade their system for ours. What does that tell you? Having been at the mercy of our for-profit health care system, and knowing others who have also been robbed by it, I can tell you our system does not work for the patient, it works solely for its own profit.
zmann - So how's the job/career thing going forward?
You should try to opt out of SS and M'care. What with a college edu you will not need them and you can get a much better return on 6% of your gross income than SS even in a down eco.
If SS had been privatized you would have control of that 6% of the gross. factoring in the time value of money over a productive life would afford you to fund the ideas you would then favor.
What is your deg in? going to grad sch? No, then surely you'll start your own ent since you detest biz as currently practiced.
I imagine your work experience during sch has shown you what you don't want to do so now is your chance to remake society
What do you have to offer that others would value? I wish you well. May you get into the top 5% of earnings so you can enjoy paying your 50% share of income taxes.
You have at lest 5 grocers to choose from in any local and they have numerous sources for their offerings none of which are a gvt warehouse at a gvt collective.
Remember your Soviet/Socialist friends had to buy food from the Capitalist world all the while saying they were going to bury us! Bury us in soviet bullshit.
Oh, news flash - Cuba is doing so well they are running out of TP paper.
@ Cran Shaws August 12th, 2009 3:48 pm: You wrote: "If SS had been privatized you would have control of that 6% of the gross. factoring in the time value of money over a productive life would afford you to fund the ideas you would then favor."
That's not true. If you had been invested in the stock market your investment would have lost at least half its value in the 2008 crash. Your dollars have also been devalued greatly since Bush became president in 2001.
You wrote: "May you get into the top 5% of earnings so you can enjoy paying your 50% share of income taxes."
The United States had it strongest period of economic growth in the 1950s-1960s when the wealthy top 5 percent paid anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of their income in taxes. (Of course, with tax shelters and other scams, most rich folks really paid around 50 percent in taxes.) Today, many of those same people, and corporations, pay no taxes at all or almost none. (GE, for instance, paid no taxes in two of its most profitable years in the 1990s.) The middle-class shoulders the brunt of taxation in this country today thanks to GOP tax cuts for the rich. That's fair, isn't it?
You wrote: "Oh, news flash - Cuba is doing so well they are running out of TP paper."
Blast from the past -- so was America in the 1970s. That's a really meaningless and dumb comment.
BTW, Cran Shaws, have you seen this?
Make no mistake: GOP is paying trolls to "blog attack"
http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2007/07/make-no-mistake.html
An excerpt from the story:
"There's a company called Advantage Consultants that's offering up "professional blog warriors" to "flood the zone" with comments. In short, astro-turf trolls for the blogosphere." [...]
"Incidentally, who are these people? Who is Advantage Consultants? Their president is Doug Guetzloe, a right-wing radio host and anti-tax activist in Florida."
You might also read this:
GOP aide busted for fake blog posts on liberal sites
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_aide_busted_for_fake_blog_0925.html
Gee, Cran Shaws, you wouldn't happen to know any of these people, would you?
Gee RSJ - Nope never heard of any of them. What does BTW mean, do you know
If the eco was so great in 50's and 60's how is it that JFK ran, won, and did reduce tax rates from those highs that did set off the expansion you speak of.
And RR's similar proposals and implimentation set of the greatest period of eco expansion post WWII.
Confiscatory tax rates lead to unproductive tax-dodge investing. Lower rates lead to riskier venture capital investing. Maybe if you had a good idea for product/service you to could attract venture capital when tax rates are lower.
All taxes are effectively paid by the final user. Taxes are a "cost" taht is factored into the price of everything. Raise taxes on biz and price of goods go up. US biz taxes ar what 2nd highest in the world, very anti-competitive.
You can't wish eco realities away behind slogans.