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
Just A Boy And His Dog
It comes to this, then: the dog is better served than the man. Perhaps this is as it should be, considering the relative amounts of mischief and mal-intention we might fairly assign to the account of each species in the operation of its affairs. Maybe this is fair and proportionate and those of us who find ourselves built of Homo rather than Canis DNA should accept the rightness of such a world. But it looks to me more like I'm being buggered by my fellow man than punished by god or nature or blind chance.
I took old Prince to the vet's Monday. He'd been feeling poorly for several days and showed no likelihood of just puking on the rug, purging himself of whatever had come over him and getting on with life. His discomfort disturbed my conscience enough that I took an hour off work, collected dog and checkbook, and set out to see Dr. Mugnai, DVM.
We waited about fifteen minutes after walking in unannounced. On those occasions I've felt similarly sorry for my suffering children and made a specific appointment with an MD we've been forced to cool our heels among the copies of Us, People, Good Housekeeping and Travel (very sharp minds and deep interests, these physicians!) for seldom less than half an hour and sometimes much more than an hour. But I did not come here today to complain about doctors.
After we discussed Prince's symptoms and she listened to his heart for a few seconds, we had a diagnosis, a prognosis and a treatment plan. Symptoms: Labored breathing, runny eyes, edema, lassitude, weakness and a lack of his usual desire for cheap, vile smelling food. Diagnosis: congestive heart failure. Prognosis: fatal, irreversible. Treatment: Lasix, 12.5 mg and Enalapril, 5 mg, morning and evening; give him extra water, expect him to pee frequently.
This probably closely parallels the prescription for the same condition in people, accompanied of course by the standard exhortations to lose weight, stop smoking, exercise frequently, avoid stress and always wear a seatbelt and a helmet. It may seem an imperfect and inadequate response to such a grave illness, but it's what you can do-it's palliative care intended to make the last weeks or months or years of man or beast more comfortable before Old Shep goes "where the good doggies go" and you and I begin our regimen of eternal and unrelenting hellfire.
The whole business cost us forty-nine dollars and ninety-six cents. Now, I won't tell you I haven't felt screwed by veterinarians in recent years. Some bills are laden with needle and medical waste disposal fees and charges for all sorts of laboratory diagnostics that a reasonable person might expect would be covered by the office visit charge. I do not mean to imply that veterinarians as a class are less motivated by money or less inclined to extract it from their suffering patients than people doctors, however pleased I have been with the ministrations of our Doctor Mugnai.
But you can see that for just under fifty dollars we received what we needed, including a two-week supply of the drugs that are the best chance for a return to a good quality of life for this geriatric patient. What we did not get was a demand that we present our insurance card so the office ladies could piss away most of their working hours filing massive amounts of paperwork and arguing with representatives of insurance companies about the propriety and cost of our care. There will be no chance that some cubicle-dweller in Milwaukee or Mumbai will consult his or her computer and pronounce our treatment or our medications not covered.
It was a clean, decent transaction between the afflicted and his health care provider. Not dissimilar from my several visits to Dr. Matt G. Boname in Oxford New York for tonsillitis treatment (and once for wound closure) in the late nineteen-fifties: Dad handed over full payment from his wallet.
But of course medicine is more expensive and complicated now than then. Ordinary persons cannot afford to pay from their stagnated incomes for service. Now we routinely pay (or our employers pay) insurance companies far more than we ever likely would have had to pay to doctors and hospitals for all but the gravest of illnesses. For these thousands of dollars a year we get policies that then require us still to hand over a co-pay when we get doctoring or drugs; we accept deductibles, according to our desperation, of five or ten thousand dollars which means, effectively, we still pay out of pocket for almost all our health care.
Then, when we get truly, seriously sick, we discover our condition is not covered or only partially covered or some parts of the protocol are not approved or some drugs our doctor thinks are good our insurer doesn't like. Every year our premiums increase. Every year fewer of us can afford even a crappy, overpriced policy that will abuse us the greatest when we need it most. For those still, in President Obama's words "happy with what you have", we may be pleased that our employer is paying most or all of the cost but we may still find he has bought a defective product in our name.
The United States of America has the worst, most unfair, most immoral system of health care funding of any modern, wealthy nation in the world. It enriches insurance companies, their executives, the lobbyists they hire and the Senators and Congressmen they buy. Right now your representatives and your president are working very hard to buttress and extend that system.
If health care (not health insurance-health care) is a basic human right, not a privilege of wealth or circumstance, it ought not involve a third party that siphons off profit. Civilized persons and nations everywhere agree. The solution, the answer, the system in universal application (with local modification for the historical and cultural particularities and peculiarities of each nation) is called by the annoying and unwieldy name of single-payer. In this instance "single" means government, means paid out of general revenue similarly as roads, parks, police and fire protection and national defense.
Turn off your radio. Do not listen to the lunatic ravings of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Do not try to make sense of the right-trending, middle-of-the-road-proclaiming coverage of this issue by network or cable television or the mild-mannered apologists at Public Broadcasting (except for Bill Moyers who with his frequent guests tells you pretty much what I'm telling you here). Do not, please, consider nine out of ten members of Congress other than fully complicit in the maintenance of the status quo, however much their rhetoric assures you they're seeking "reform."
Senators and Congressmen want the insurance companies to continue to make immense sums of money. They are not troubled by the waste, by the cost, by the inadequate care, by the deaths of thousands. They get all the doctoring they want and for free. President Obama told us before he turned the affair over to Congress that single-payer was not under consideration. Candidate Obama of course was very clear that it was the only acceptable solution, but then we have all been disappointed at the evaporation of hope and audacity since he's been breathing D.C. air haven't we?
The "public option" never amounted to much, but it upset the insurance executives so even that lame half-measure was abandoned. There is considerable salivating over the notion that everybody might be required to buy the expensive and inadequate products of the insurance industry. I suppose if the National Association Of Lawn Furniture Manufacturers contributed as many millions to our representatives as the insurance boys do Max Baucus and Olympia Snow would see that we must all be forced to buy flimsy plastic chairs and three-legged tables, too.
A small number of representatives, almost exclusively Democrats, who receive no time on the interview shows and are ignored or reviled by their party leadership and their president, say they support government funding of health care through Medicare or a parallel plan. I expect when the deal finally goes down most of them will climb abord the president's bug-ridden, bloated, status-quo-or-worse express. Nobody who is a player as the game goes on wants anything remotely resembling a fair and honest system because that would make life difficult or impossible for their friends in the insurance business. President Obama has not "lost control of the debate" as they opine on NPR. He is getting the debate he asked for when he cozied up to your insurance man in those secret White House meetings of which he refuses to release the attendance roster.
When (don't hold your breath waiting for this) you hear of a bill, a proposal, a plan that will render private insurance obsolete, support it. Otherwise, don't waste your time writing letters or attending meetings or contributing money to the cause. And please, try not to get sick. Nothing good will come of that. Unless, possibly, you're a dog.
Mr. Cooper lives out his uninsured days on a quiet, potholed road in Alna, Maine. He continues to chip away at the bills for his detached retina surgery of 2008, which he finds greatly preferable to handing over thousands annually to useless, inefficient, corrupt, evil insurance companies. Prince the sheltie succumbed to his heart disease Tuesday afternoon. Dogs die. They all do. He still has the white shepard with the old gunshot wound, the raggedy wheaton terrier and the dachshund who bit his daughter's baby and was exiled to live with the equally curmudgeonly old man. And don't forget the pair of cats. He sometimes answers particularly challenging or provocative or appealing mail sent to him at coop@tidewater.net.
Another brief note for my CommonDreams readers: No hard facts here, no inside secrets, no shocking revelations. Not, in fact, worth your while to read, I'd say. So don't, please, read it and then complain that it seemed shallow and obvious. I write to annoy and disturb and provoke and inform and delight my neighbors, a good many of whom still fervently believe "private enterprise will do it better." I ask CD to reprint me here only so one more voice may be hurled out into our national wilderness of ignorance, perhaps to be forwarded here and there to a somewhat open mind.
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...


38 Comments so far
Show AllWell, sorry Chris - if you're going to get it published here on CD, you can expect replies, retorts, analysis, dumb comments, and return annoyances. I'll leave it up to you as to which mine consists of.
First, senators and congresspeople do not get free health care - that's a myth. They can visit the House doctor for free, but they pay for an insurance plan to cover themselves and their families just like most other Americans. Now, that plan may well be the Sterling Plan compared to ours, but hey, it's good to be King!
Second, sorry about your dog. I have an old man too and he won't be around much longer.
Third, you're right about Moyers. He's been hammering away at the health care issue for the last few episodes. Unfortunately, the thickwits who communicate via AM radio do not watch Moyers, what with NASCAR and football vying for their attention. It's amazing how often the American public joins hands with their abusers without even knowing they are doing so. Don't know what to do about that other than to just watch...and wait. That which is unsustainable will not be sustained.
Finally, of course, you're absolutely right. Our "representatives" are in fact, not our representatives. Oh, they do represent someone, just not the people. What we do about that has been the subject of many a discussion here on CD...with no resolution.
In the end, we haven't felt enough heat yet. As a foreigner once quipped: Americans will do what is right once they have exhausted all other options. We can only hope...
I have a solution to the problem of what to do with our representatives----line them up against the wall and shoot them. It could be televised, to satisfy our lust for blood and violence. Unfortunately, I have few ideas on how to accomplish this house cleaning. It would probably take the help of the armed forces, but these people are the most brainwashed of the population, and most of them are good 'patriotic' fundamentalist Christians, or their Catholic or Jewish counterparts who are so obsessed with ridding the world of 'terrorist' and making it safe for 'democracy' that they can hardly pause to shit.
Ted Markow September 4th, 2009 10:14 am.........Yes, they pay for their healthcare......last I checked, $300/month for the reps and $600/month for the Sinators with the American taxpayer picking up the slack. Would not the average American like a deal such as that? You may nthink they are Kings. I think they are greedy, power-crazed pigs feeding at the taxpayers trough.
nevergiveup,
You are wrong on the details. Congressmen and senators are part of the same health benefits syatem that all US government workers get, from GS-5 clerk to SES-5 agency head. I don't think the employee share on any plan is as high as $600 per month. I have one of the higher ones, and it is about $360 per month. Or, if I was a postal worker, it would be about $220 per month because of their union contract.
Yes, USPS mail carriers get a better deal on their healthcare than a senator - but not as good a deal as, say the union trash collectors or transit authority bus drivers in my city. Thanks to their union, their health insurance is free.
SINCE WHEN, for crying out loud, is $300 per month employee share for employer-provided health insiurance considered a good deal?
You piece illustrated a big part of the problem - the low, cowed, serf-like expectations of average USAn workers nowadays. I've had people who are clearly struggling to make ends meet on $8.50 an hour and no health or other benefits, call themselves "middle class". I wanted to tell such guys: "Sorry to say, buddy, but you are not "middle class", you are called "poor". And the sooner you start calling yourself that, the sooner you will organize with your fellow workers to improve things!"
Re pjd412 September 4th, 2009 12:46 pm, who nails it in the third paragraph.
The "middle class," like "race," is an invention of the ruling elites, always anxious to divide the working class against itself. It's been a roaring success, one which continues today based on my observations at a recent town hell meeting.
The shouters have been convinced that health care is a zero-sum game in which the insurance behemoths are the only thing standing between them and wretched poverty, soon to be followed by an agonizing, incontinent, probably state-mandated death.
Whatever they deem to be "middle class," they see themselves as part of it, and they sense it shrinking. Doubtless some tie this directly to the election as president of a man who is NEW (Not Entirely White).
This is why I believe the fight for HR676 is more important than the transient political fortunes of a few incumbent Ds. It's a way to reframe the argument so the shouters might see that the interests of insurance corporations are not the same as theirs---that in fact they are diametrically opposed.
Your points are well taken, but that isn't what I was writing about. Most of the shouters at the town hall meting are comfortably well-off suburbanites.
I'm referring to something I see among a low wage service workers here in the rust belt. These people are poor, but refuse to aknowlege it, instead carrying a sort of perverse pride in working 60 hour weeks without vacation or healthcare for a pittance, think it should be the norm for everyone, and harbor resentment against those remaining unionized workers and others who are better compensated for similar work. Mostly, they are apolitical otherwise.
But yes, this is just same intra-class resentment that the ruling class uses in the same way racism is used, as you pointed out. And low-wage white workers around here certainly harbor plenty of race-hatred too.
pjd,
fanon's observations on the colonized mind would seem to apply to those folks you mention.
as far as their being apolitical, another great thinker, dear abby, had it about right:
"people who say they're not interested in politics are like people who are drowning claiming not to be interested in water."
Foreigner's opinions are usually highly overrated.
To paraphrase Darth Vader, the force of exceptionalist US-nationalism and supremacism is STRONG in this one!
LOL Ur 2 kind, pjd412
>>>>>>>>
Ted - Permit me to make a small correction on your comment - you surely expected one, yes? - the congress critters do rather get free health care because it's your taxes that pay their way.
Yes, and the employees at your supermarket also get free healthcare because the store takes some of your money spent on groceries to pay the way. Unfair!
Point taken.
My point or red baloon's point?
The heart of redbaloon's argument is that when you give money to the government services in the form of taxes, it goes straight into a bunch of corrupt politicians pockets, (politicians are 0.0001% of the government workforce) but when you give money to a capitalist business, it efficiently goes to services without a penny wasted. This viewpoint has nothing to do with reality. I am a US government worker, I earn my pay in the form of saved lives downstream of coal tailings dams in the Appalachians, and part of my pay is in the form of the employer-contribution to my healthcare. No different than a grocery worker. Is it clear now?
It's all pretty obvious to anyone who isn't either brainwashed or a 'get it all for me, me me' asshole (you know, the ones that buy the books or CDs or whatever of the financial 'guru's on TV). But thanks anyway, Christopher Cooper for stating it all again for those who are slow but might have a smidgeon of independent thought left. I don't know if it's our educational system, fast foods, or some inherited gene thing, but the United States has to have more idiots than any other country in the world, except perhaps those places where women are kept in slavery in the name of Allah.
Agreed. Idiots indeed! You should see the calculations for a high-hazard coal slurry dam submitted by licensed, supposedly professional civil engineer in a private firm, properly checked by another licensed engineer in that firm, that I am reviewing at my government desk right now. Frightening!
Just one angle not getting as much discussion. The idea of mandatory health insurance; yes, people note that this will enrich the insurance industry. But we can add the proven experience of similar laws with auto insurance. Haven't we all been in a fender bender, and begged the other person not to report it, just send us the bill? Why? Because we are afraid to use the mandatory auto insurance we pay for. Why? Because, if we use it, they will raise our premiums by more than the amount of our simply paying for the repairs. In other words, if the law forces you to buy a product, that product can be not just "practically" worthless, but "actually" worthless. What a deal for somebody.......
I am not suggesting that this is my preferred solution, but there are a number of countries (Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany and Japan in part) that do successfully use a system of mandatory insurance. But the difference between their systems and anything being proposed here is that the their insurance is far more heavily regulated with set premiums for different income levels, and uniform coverage for all.
It is comparable to a regulated utility (water, gas, electric) in most US states - legal monopolies, but the price of being a monopoly is that rates, and allowed profits are set by the state government and a customer cannot be cut-off for nonpayment without a formal legal process.
And what if you are in a real accident? One that involves serious injuries? Imagine if someone runs into you, or your loved one(s), and causes serious injury: would you prefer that the person causing the accident had auto insurance? Or not? What would you do if the person causing the accident did NOT have insurance and could not pay for the cost of the injuries that you or your loved one sustained? Not to mention the wrecking of your car. At the same time, you don't have auto insurance either.
There is a price to driving on a public road with your car, a public road on which other human beings are also driving on with their cars. The price is some guarantee that in the event of you causing an accident, you can pay for the damages you caused.
I could as easily - and as unjustly - say that there is a price to driving on a public road: you might have an accident.
I've been in two accidents. In one someone ran a red light and blind-sided me. In another, someone crossed the center line of the road and hit me my car head-on.
In the first, neither driver had insurance. In the second, I had liability, as legally required. Paramedics and doctors were quick and efficient, but could nothing for a broken sternum. The doc told me I could take the wheelchair to the end of the lot. A few friends gently ladled me into a car and upstairs to my home. I learned to stand very gradually, in balance, so my chest wouldn't start to separate.
The collection notice came in the 1st envelope the next day by noon.
The other driver was one of about 16 people living in a 1-bedroom apartment. I dropped by once, they told me that they had never heard of the woman in question, and I decided I could take care of myself.
In the second, I requested of the paramedics that they take me home. They refused and took me to the hospital instead, but performed commendably otherwise and understandably in this. The hospital gave me a neck brace and a bed for about 27 hours.
The bill was $22,000. Neither insurance company covered it, but it turned out to be negotiable - it cost 17,000 less after they worked out that I had no insurance and that the state of my accounts was such that I could pay about $5,000.
Of course I paid that with compliments out of pocket, along with the ambulance charges and a few thousand dollars of assorted specialists totalling around 10k.
Had I been more seriously injured, their services would have likely been quite valuable, and I'm sure the diagnostic equipment and the crews on call all cost a lot.
Frankly, I don't see that the purchaser of insurance as it exists today stands to gain much without planning a scam of some sort. As long as insurance is done for profit and one genuinely discloses information to the company, one bets against the odds. In a work or union-run program are betting with the odds.
Of course, it's worth a little more money to have money there in an emergency. It's nice to know one has that. But no one can know that. No legitimate guarantee exists that the money will arrive. Whether a person gets coverage depends on the company's assessment of its chances in court. And when I was seriously ill, I was far better off without car insurance and without health insurance, simply paying the doctors all I could.
There were years when I had to choose between living in an insured car or paying rent and driving an uninsured car. I'd have been glad to not drive had a couple companies not purchased - "privatized" we say now, right? - the light rail system in my home town.
I'm glad I no longer have to make that decision, but if I did, I wouldn't think twice.
I was long embarrassed by failing to pay my excellent doctors and their staffs all that they decided to charge once I got hauled in. But I have finally decided that this is the path of least injustice. It's one thing that my insurance money goes to pay the staff, the exec, the building, the largely false advertising, the records keeping, even the lawyers that fight against the rights of my fellow plaintiffs. Of course a company that did not defend itself would cease to exist.
Of course, since the company does not really guarantee payment, I do not guarantee payment to someone else in the event of an accident. In fact, the money I pay to insurance to avoid going to jail also goes to pay the bribes to my Congressman and Senator and President, to assure that they deny healthcare to others, many who need it more than I at least appear to.
After being hit twice by uninsured motorists, I would certainly risk being hit a third time rather than have compulsory health insurance. Of course that's not the best solution. It's the closest thing to a solution available under the current system.
If you don't want that accident, friends, lay down the bottle, hang up the phone, pull over when you're tired, allow a count of 3 before the next car, pull over if you're sleepy, and write your representatives about systemic lunacy.
Neither the responsibility nor your security has much to do with what's in the next guy's pocketbook.
I could as easily - and as unjustly - say that there is a price to driving on a public road: you might have an accident.
I've been in two accidents. In one someone ran a red light and blind-sided me. In another, someone crossed the center line of the road and hit me my car head-on.
In the first, neither driver had insurance. In the second, I had liability, as legally required. Paramedics and doctors were quick and efficient, but could nothing for a broken sternum. The doc told me I could take the wheelchair to the end of the lot. A few friends gently ladled me into a car and upstairs to my home. I learned to stand very gradually, in balance, so my chest wouldn't start to separate.
The collection notice came in the 1st envelope the next day by noon.
The other driver was one of about 16 people living in a 1-bedroom apartment. I dropped by once, they told me that they had never heard of the woman in question, and I decided I could take care of myself.
In the second, I requested of the paramedics that they take me home. They refused and took me to the hospital instead, but performed commendably otherwise and understandably in this. The hospital gave me a neck brace and a bed for about 27 hours.
The bill was $22,000. Neither insurance company covered it, but it turned out to be negotiable - it cost 17,000 less after they worked out that I had no insurance and that the state of my accounts was such that I could pay about $5,000.
Of course I paid that with compliments out of pocket, along with the ambulance charges and a few thousand dollars of assorted specialists totalling around 10k.
Had I been more seriously injured, their services would have likely been quite valuable, and I'm sure the diagnostic equipment and the crews on call all cost a lot.
Frankly, I don't see that the purchaser of insurance as it exists today stands to gain much without planning a scam of some sort. As long as insurance is done for profit and one genuinely discloses information to the company, one bets against the odds. In a work or union-run program are betting with the odds.
Of course, it's worth a little more money to have money there in an emergency. It's nice to know one has that. But no one can know that. No legitimate guarantee exists that the money will arrive. Whether a person gets coverage depends on the company's assessment of its chances in court. And when I was seriously ill, I was far better off without car insurance and without health insurance, simply paying the doctors all I could.
There were years when I had to choose between living in an insured car or paying rent and driving an uninsured car. I'd have been glad to not drive had a couple companies not purchased - "privatized" we say now, right? - the light rail system in my home town.
I'm glad I no longer have to make that decision, but if I did, I wouldn't think twice.
I was long embarrassed by failing to pay my excellent doctors and their staffs all that they decided to charge once I got hauled in. But I have finally decided that this is the path of least injustice. It's one thing that my insurance money goes to pay the staff, the exec, the building, the largely false advertising, the records keeping, even the lawyers that fight against the rights of my fellow plaintiffs. Of course a company that did not defend itself would cease to exist.
Of course, since the company does not really guarantee payment, I do not guarantee payment to someone else in the event of an accident. In fact, the money I pay to insurance to avoid going to jail also goes to pay the bribes to my Congressman and Senator and President, to assure that they deny healthcare to others, many who need it more than I at least appear to.
After being hit twice by uninsured motorists, I would certainly risk being hit a third time rather than have compulsory health insurance. Of course that's not the best solution. It's the closest thing to a solution available under the current system.
If you don't want that accident, friends, lay down the bottle, hang up the phone, pull over when you're tired, allow a count of 3 before the next car, pull over if you're sleepy, and write your representatives about systemic lunacy.
Neither the responsibility nor your security has much to do with what's in the next guy's pocketbook.
"I could as easily - and as unjustly - say that there is a price to driving on a public road: you might have an accident."
"Neither the responsibility nor your security has much to do with what's in the next guy's pocketbook."
Yes accidents happen. In that case, since the price of driving on public roads is getting hit in an accident, there should be some guarantee that the person causing the accident can defray to some extent the costs of the accident.
What do you propose then? A free for all system where basically anything goes?
"If you don't want that accident, friends, lay down the bottle, hang up the phone, pull over when you're tired, allow a count of 3 before the next car, pull over if you're sleepy, and write your representatives about systemic lunacy."
And what if you happen to do all of this, and some drunk driver who has no insurance who has consumed 12 cans of beer runs still hits you?
Like or not, not every driver, nor everyone in society in general, is conscientious and thoughtful and caring and socially responsible. That is why like or not, some laws are necessary, to govern interactions between individuals in a society, to ensure such interactions are conducted in a civil manner.
In the case of auto insurance, the fees for an uninsured driver clause could easily be made mandatory, paid at the gas pump.
The law to insure obviously has not resolved these problems. I don't see much reason to believe that they have mitigated them. A drunk hits you or doesn't regardless of the laws.
Of course I don't propose a free-for-all or certainly not "no laws." I'd have loved to have seen the folks who bought up the public transport punished more adequately, for instance.
I propose public transport so that people who cannot drive well need not drive. The drunks, epileptics, upset or overtired motorists that I have known to drive did not do so because they thought it was clever. In all cases but one, they did it because it was the only otherwise reasonable way for them to carry on otherwise normal activities.
Next, there's nothing wrong with insuring everyone. It just makes no sense to insist that the public purchase insurance, then do nothing to regulate prices. It makes no sense to privatize anything people are required to purchase by law. It just amounts to a tax paid not to government or some public function that helps people, but to a corporation.
As a direct result of these things, people still drive uninsured. Loads of people are still drunk and still driving.
Among other things, that is a failure of laws which do not govern interactions between individuals in such a way that such interactions are conducted in a civil manner, but instead provide openings for graft and payola.
The proposal, then, is not to eliminate law, but laws structured for graft.
Mr. Cooper sees right through this sham of a proposal and the people that propose it. Good for him.
"And don't forget the pair of cats..."
Yes; here's to cats!
The longer I have my two wonderful cats, the more I find the submissive ways of whiny, wimpering, dogs (except when they are barking loudly over some completely imagined threat) rather annoying.
My cats can be pretty demanding for attention too, but cats don't demand things is the wimpy supplicative manner that dogs do...
It is no wonder that the Anarcho-Syndicalist IWW adopted the black cat as its symbol.
Ooooh, pj, you are going to piss off a lot of dog lovers! I was so happy to be able to get a dog again when we moved to the farm. Being the spoiled baby of two retired "parents" makes him one of the most clever creatures to walk the earth. In my humble opinion. He barks once only when he wants in or out, and he says I love you (Ow woo woo) when he wants a rawhide chewie. No sniveling for him, he thinks he's an equal.
Back to the topic, however, I have often said I would rather be treated by my dog's vet than a "people" doctor. I had the misfortune of living next to a hospital for 14 years and I hated it so much that when I needed a few stitches we drove 25 minutes away to a different hospital. Partly it was the old "familiarity breeds contempt" factor, but it was also because I knew that the ER would be full of pregnant immigrants and others looking for basic health care.
With that atmosphere it's hard for the staff to devote time to the actual emergencies. I had already been mis-diagnosed once there by some 12-year-old resident and my insurance wouldn't pay for it. Neither would I and as far as I know that may still be on my credit report. Just another reason why single payer would make medicine better.
P.S. I love cats, too!
Dogs are Mark Twain. Cats are e.e.cummings.
Ah, Christopher, sounds like you're living the good life, even with all its trials and tribulations.It was great reading. Thank you. Sorry about your dog. It's rough losing a dear companion. I lost my fourteen-year-old cat to a stroke about five years ago and I still miss her. She'd let me know when someone called while I was out, or when there was a big spiders crawling on the ceiling above my chair, and so many other things that kept me informed and aware. All the things these companions do for us that we take for granted. They're so much more than just a "pet."
You make me long for "the good old days" when the birth of a baby and subsequent week of hospital care for baby and mother cost only $50. Now you probably pay more than that for just the disposable syringe you've gotten a shot with. We won't get into how much the shot itself cost, nor the cost of administering the shot.
What amazes me is that you Americans meekly put up with the barbaric private insurance bureaucracy that stands like an iron hospital curtain between you and medical care.
Why do you continue to vote for the two parties that are killing you?
Sanctuary - It's embarrassing to be an American.
When I consider the curious habits of dogs
I am compelled to admit that man is the superior animal.
When I consider the curious habits of man
I confess, my friend, I am puzzled.
--Ezra Pound
"So don't, please, read it and then complain that it seemed shallow and obvious."
Let's see, you don't want others to tell you what to write, so you have decided to tell them what to write.
Do reading comments make you blind? Cause convulsions? Or just bruise your ego?
Seriously, what is the point of your comment?
BTW, in spite of being obvious (or perhaps because it is) you've still written a good article.
ahhh...now i get the old joke:
Q:"how many progressives (or feminists, or lesbians...insert fav oh so serious person/group) does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
A:"that's not funny!"
do we fail at grokking 'tongue in cheek?'.
lighten up, we will all live longer. for myself, i can't laugh at THEM any longer, they have officially gone too far for that! so, i (we) gotta keep laughin at myself (ourselves).
"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."
Chris, I'm so sorry about your old dog Prince. My old beautiful girl (an English Setter mix I adopted from doggie death row 15 years ago) is also winding down here and this may well be her last weekend with me. My heart goes out to you. - Anne
The hippies had things well figured out.
The hippies had things well figured out.