Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHealthcare Hypocrites
How do you spell "hypocrisy"?
Try this: "H-Y-P-O-C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S." The hypocongress consists of those Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who have risen up on their hind legs in recent weeks to snarl and howl at any mention of a government role in meeting America's health care needs. "Socialism," they bark — we won't allow Barack Obama and the liberals to create a Washington-run, big-government intrusion into the hallowed private market. Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, even pledged to fight so ferociously that the health care battle would be Obama's "Waterloo."
What a stand-up guy for free enterprise! What an ideologically correct appeal to laissez-faire principle! And, let me add, what a crock!
What these bellicose market-purists hope you don't discover is that they are closet socialists. As members of the congressional elite, they and their families are governmentally blessed with their very own gold-plated, taxpayer-financed, Washington-run health care system. And, they loooove it.
Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up — even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you.
Actually, they happily take a double dip in the soothing waters of public health care. First, they enroll their entire families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program — and you probably would, too, if it were available to you, for it's the Rolls Royce of health plans.
For example, while even the best employer-provided health policies offer only one or two types of coverage, FEHBP is a Chinese menu, offering dozens of coverage choices that allow its lucky members to assemble a plan that meets their unique needs. Members also need not worry about being denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition — once sworn into office, lawmakers and their families are immediately and fully insured, with total access to a national network of doctors and hospitals.
But here's the sweetest part of their Rolls Royce ride: up to 75 percent of the premiums are paid for by taxpayers, many of whom are lucky if they can afford to buy an old Yugo-level of health coverage in the vaunted private market.
Well, snaps the hypocongress crowd, even if FEHBP is essentially government-paid insurance, at least it's not socialized medicine, with doctors working for the government — so, technically, we're still pure.
Ah, that raises the second bit of secret socialism that lawmakers have mandated for themselves.
Right under the Capitol dome, conveniently situated between the Senate and House chamber, is the Office of the Attending Physician. Inside are more than a dozen navy doctors, nurses, medical technicians, pharmacists and other health professionals, all employed by the government solely to attend to a select clientele: the 535 members of Congress.
Let's say that, after giving a fiery speech on the floor assailing the evils of government-run health care, a lawmaker gets gaseous or has a tongue cramp. He or she can pop right into the OAP for — yes! — some government-run health care. No appointment needed, no pesky insurance forms to fill out, no co-pay — just care.
For this, members pay a flat fee of $503 a year. A year! You and I are taxed to cover the real costs of this elite service. And that's not the end of public health benefits for lawmakers — if they need a specialist, an operation, therapy, rehab or other pricey procedure, it's all free at the government's Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval hospitals.
If it's good enough for them, why not us? The public deserves what the Congress has, and any member who opposes extending it to us should automatically be stripped of their privileges.
For a model of integrity, they might look to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis. — both of whom have rejected taking congressional coverage until everyone in America has coverage of equal quality. I don't think the noisy naysayers are looking for integrity, however — not as long as they can get away with their abominable hypocrisy.
71 Comments so far
Show All"If it's good enough for them, why not us? The public deserves what the Congress has, and any member who opposes extending it to us should automatically be stripped of their privileges".
It is single-payer health care that Congress and Obama enjoy.
Jim Hightower is correct. Any Senator or Representative or President not fighting for single-payer health care for all should give up their privileged $500. a year all expenses paid health care, period.
The government is supported by our tax dollars. If anyone wants to make the argument that their health care is employer-funded, WE are their employer and are entitled to the same benefits.
They STILL with have this gold plated system and the rest of us will have care similar to Barbara Wagner from Oregon or Ann Marie Roggers in the UK. The elite will have hospitals that are 5 star resorts will will get stuck in Stafford Hospital in Staffordshire. We saw how well universal care does with Natasha Richardson earlier this year. I don't want any one between me and my doc, neither government or insurance bureaucrats.
In what way do you personally benefit from the existing system?
"The rest of us will have care similar to Barbara Wagner from Oregon or Ann Marie Roggers in the UK."
I spent 20+ years in the United States Military, and thought that I was going to be covered for life after I retired. I sure found out that was a pie in the sky pipe dream. Mr Empty Suit Raygun saw to that, he managed to get all us retirees stuck in some sort of purgatory, where we were on Deers or some other silly crap. I had immigrated to Tahiti before he had taken office and I was placed on CPS the French System here in Tahiti, I paid for my Doctors visits and meds until I was 65, but was reimbursed every month 80% of what I had to pay out for myself and my family. When I became age 65 I no longer had to pay for anything. I am now 71, and all doctors visits, Hospitalization, Medicines, and Checkups etc, are done with no cost to me. That includes trips to Papeete, and any expenses I may have, whether it be meals, transportation, or lodging are covered also.
Being an ex-Oregonian, I know what my blood family has to suffer through and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy...
Personally, I am very happy with European Socialism, its too bad that the americans are deathly afraid of something that benefits all, and just not a very few...
No wonder so many women jump down the point scale of attractiveness to have sex with a Congress pervert. They just want health care. I didn't think standard hooker pay and lobbyist subsidy would be enough to bang these sick bastards, especially the 30 pro- gang rape wing of the Republicans.
This even gives me some sympathy for the wives of Congress bathroom gay stalkers, hooker patrons, staff buggerers, page humpers, but not much. These wives enable the activity and lend the thin layer of respectability to the worst of these guys by staying on the campaign trail with a smile.
This article says what I've already been saying for some time and said in an article I wrote and got published.
AD
Not that any further proof of the blatant hypocrisy that members of Congress seem to have cultivated, a knack for likening providing equal access to health care for all Americans to socialism and continuing to deny the disgusting facts of how this inaccessibility of nearly 48 million Americans continues to result in bankruptcy, homelessness and death, they seem to have no moral dilemma whatsoever enrolling themselves as well as members of their family for plans which just might make the staunchest Socialist green with envy.
If now is not the time to make such hypocrites answer for such an abhorrent double-standard, when will Americans do what is necessary such that our country is no longer the only industrialized country where private insurance companies continue to dictate which lives are more meritorious than another? How much longer will we content ourselves as being the only one of these countries where all citizens have equal access to health care?
Efforts for achieving universal health coverage in the United States began earnestly in 1912 with efforts made by Franklin Roosevelt. Even then, for myriad reasons, that attempt failed. Our country is now at the most opportune time since then to provide all Americans equal access to quality health care.
As proof of their unabashed support of inequality, I offer the following:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2008/12/20/us-congress-gives-itself-a-pay-raise/
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090101/NEWS/901010995?Title=Congress-enjoys-an-automatic-pay-rais...
Although I don't know how to stop it, I oppose in principle federal lawmakers (congresspersons) right to create their own compensation.
I don't necessarily oppose congress doing so for the Prez/VP, USSC justices, and federal district/circuit court judges, and, in any case, believe that all other, non-constitutionally-provided-for federal employees should be free to individually or collectively bargain for their respective compensation[s], directly with congress. Just like clerks in a supermarket.
But back to congress compensation, specifically: You could reason it this way:
Since the constitution allows, but does not compel, congress to directly legislate its members' compensation (Article I, Section 6 stating tersely and only that "... reps and senators shall receive compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the US"))--- the legal authority for determining congressional compensation could, within constitutional parameters, be allowably delegated by enabling legislation to the electorate.
The object presumably being to allow electors to 'incentivize' their reps/senators good performance (within a periodically re-established base salary), sans having to otherwise vote them out of office entirely for what might only be an episodic poor performance.
One, cumbersome but legally-viable version of a such a delegated mechanism goes something like this:
A citizens' congressional compensation commission, established by federal election (congressional) law, and open to all qualified federal electors nationwide, would first allow for pre-selection of that commission's administrators by prior citizen petition nominations, such nominees to be voted-in or eliminated during the next (2yr) federal election cycle.
As periodically selected thus, these commission administrators would in turn place baseline congressional compensation options on the federal election ballot, every 2 yrs, for citizen determination.
Actually, citizen-based, salary oversight mechanisms like this have been proposed by various reformers of congress since the beginning of the republic, and always ultimately rejected for easily-argued reasons:
....Psychologically, they implicitly challenge the integrity and honesty of any sitting congress to police itself apart from itself --which no sitting congress, by definition, is ever gonna do
...Constitutionally, they're redundant of citizen controls already provided-for in the popular-pulse-reflective, 2yr election terms of the House of Representatives.
This is why I say that, short of a structurally new government (like a parliamentary system with mandatory public financing of elections), the power of a well-organized, loud citizen shaming of piggy/corrupt lawmakers' salaries/perks is not something sensibly dismissed.
"Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up — even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you."
-------------------
Something tells me they're not necessarily losing sleep over this...or anything else for that matter.
sierra7
Until we have universal agreement on realigning our priorities in this country we will not have any "progressive" achievements such as, Universal Single Payer Health Insurance.
First we have to define, "progress." When we do we will have a better idea of where we want to go.
Second, we have to understand that it costs money.
Have we not learned what the wealthy can do to our country thru the so-called, "free markets?" If anything we have learned they are totally corrupt and more dependent on the public "dole" than the ordinary folk.
Our congress (and senate) are totally corrupt...with very few exceptions like Bernard Sanders, Barbara Lee, etc.
I giggled when I read about the bloggers here that have problems with their families when it comes to agreeing on anything between "conservative" and "liberal" concepts!!
I too have had humungous arguments, alas to no avail!!
That's the other basic problem. There are so many Americans who believe we cannot possibly afford to pay for a single payer system, but have no problem whatsoever paying for the corrupt political system, the corrupt "defense" systems, the bailout of corrupt Wall Street financial houses......There seems to be a distinct disconnect when it comes to those issues.
I agree, Obama will "go with the flow." Unfortunately.
We are at a crisis; our economy is in crisis; our health care system is in crisis; we need a "new external enemy" (like the war on terrorism) to focus the American mind on other than "progressive" achievements such as UHC, and a total revision of our decrepit financial system.
Will we be successful? Not until a good portion of the population realizes the historical record and what has brought true progressive issues to the forefront and what kinds of struggles were needed to achieve success.
Not until then.
Until then we will continue to vote politicians that are only concerned with their own home states, will genuflect to money, and continue to lead this country down the path to self-destruction.
We need popular rage to outrace Congressional (and Senate) greed.....
No change comes easily.
I just read an excellent comment which pretty much covers the situation in congress at Buzzflash:
Submitted by TheSkepticalCynic on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 12:20pm.
I could pass a kidney stone the size and texture of a farking mature pineapple with greater ease than what this Congress of oligarchy-loving lap dog suck ups; paleofascistic, homophobes; pederasts; microcephalics; reptilian brained; racist misogynists; closet fellators; cretins; twisted-minded, twittering twhits and twhats and run-of-the-mill misanthropes called Congress will pass the truly meaningful comprehensive healthcare legislation deserving of any civilized society.
Corporate personhood is a crime against humanity!
The Skeptical Cynic hath spake!
It is truly written in the sands of time...
One must never spit in a man's face.
Unless, of course his mustache is on fire...
Guess this means that "Congress Critters" actually are "Hypocritters"
Public shaming of lawmakers' elitism isn't quite dead yet as a tool to compel better, fairer laws from them.
Most people sense that it's rank hypocrisy and illicit privileging, all by itself, just for their reps (public servants) in congress to use taxpayer funds to give themselves Cadillac health insurance.
Most people also sense that it's doubly outrageous for their public servants to privilege themselves in this way, while refusing to fix the so-called market HI system -- a system that's become totally broken due to those same lawmakers' representing industry-donor agendas over citizens' needs, again and again.
Obviously, ethically legit public shaming doesn't have the power it once did. Unfortunately, that's the nature of all decadent political cultures.
But I still think that, on this issue, which touches so many people directly and painfully, shaming can be a form of raw power if enough people focus and hammer on congress's hypocrisy and elitism.
Short of there being enough public consciousness to change the country's basic governing system, the mass shaming of our corrupt officials is one of the few tools we citizens have left.
Do you object if the union representing your local grocery store workers uses their colective bargaining power to make the employer "give themselves" a "cadillac" health care package - which comes out of your food bills?
I just want you to be clear here - pending a future universal health care plan, are you opposing the FEHB system for just Congress people, or all federal employees? Congres people represent just a tiny, tiny fraction of the federal workforce.
Another pesky little fact 'they' don't want 'us' to grasp:
The CBO reports a 'public option' would cost $1 trillion over 10 years.
That's $100 billion/year. Divide that by 300 million Americans and you get about $330/year.
About a dollar a f@#king day! And our 'leaders' are blathering about how 'we' can't afford... a dollar a f@#king day for cheap gov health 'insurance'???! And 'we're' buying this total bullsh*t?
How's this - I'm willing to cop for $2 bucks a day - and, at those rates, I'll cop for my entire f@#king staff, too. Across the board - dollar-a-day raises!
Hey - you know who else gets 'universal health care' for about a buck of taxpayer money per day? The largest prison population on the planet...
"And 'we're' buying this total bullsh*t?"
And that IS the problem ....
Am I the only one who cringes when he sees an elderly person holding a sign that says ...."Keep your government hands OFF my Medicare"....?
When the insurance companies and thier "representatives (R)" in Washington can convince someone already enroled in a 'government run program', that a government run program is bad for America, the media campaign is lost.
I personally enjoy the ability to 'choose' from the FEHB program, but pay several hundred dollars a month for my premium. IF the money I spent on 'premiums' went into a 'health tax' fund, my family and other families would be much better off (IMHO).
We can only afford hypocritical wars and wall street welfare. There's always plenty of magic money for those things.
As far as I know, by far the single largest socialist program in the United States of America is the Pentagon.
I have never heard of a penny of private funding paying FOR the military monstrosity, but there are huge amounts of dollars which are used to pay for all of the Pentagon's secret projects and their "private contractors" FROM our public coffers.
So, yes, in the perverse "thinking" in Washington, Socialism (as they proudly practice it every day in the District of Corruption) can be lethal.
There is a pesky little thing call the constitution and one thing that it says in clear language that the government has to protect the country. I did not see an amendment to the constitution requiring that every one has to get their health care from the government.
Protecting the country has little or nothing to do with most of what the military does.
There are two types of people in the world--those who know they're socialists, and those who don't know they're socialists.
Very good, and the ones who don't know they are socialists, get it for themselves while the ones who know they are socialists spend their time arguing about what socialism is.
That's good.
Or there purists who opt out of receiving anything from government: police, fire, park, library, transportation, clean water, food, etc. And when they come down with a life threatening illness in their cave refuse the help of the medivac team which appears in a helicopter out there in the primal wilderness. That is, if they truly abhor "socialism."
This whole column is based on a complete misconception about the Federal Employees Health Benefits system (FEHB). To use his folksy Texas language Hightower is barking up entirely the wrong tree here.
The FEHB system covers Congressmen the same as a GS-1 clerk. It is just an ordinary, employer-provided, employee cost-shared health care plan - and the employee share is pretty high - I pay about $360 per month - and it will probably go up 10% next year.
There are private employers - especially unionized ones, with better plans.
And the much hyped "preexisting condition" exclusion almost never applies to any group plans government or private employer.
The "Open Season" feature does allow, the employee to shop between various plans - mostly private-for-profit except the postal workers union plan. But it is not nearly as useful as it would seem. The cheaper plans have awful coverage, and changing plans usually means changing doctors.
But yes, the employer-share of the cost does come from tax revenue, but how is this different from a supermarket employee's health plan coming from the grocery consumer's pocket?
I look forward to Jim Hightower savaging the health plans that UAW Autoworkers get, UFCW Safeway employees get ATW transit workers get. How dare they get this lavish healthcare paid by the hard-working consumers and fare-payers pocket!
Come on, Jim! Attack those greedy unions and the lavish health care plans they extort from their hard working entrepenurs who are the real source of the nations wealth.
(for the clueless, I'm being sarcastic)
"But yes, the employer-share of the cost does come from tax revenue, but how is this different from a supermarket employee's health plan coming from the grocery consumer's pocket?"
The difference is that YOUR SALARY also comes from the taxpayers. Therefore, ALL of your insurance benefits come from the taxpayers, including the portion that you pay.
Exactly, and so does the salary of an employee of your local food store - their employee share (if they have any) comes from their paycheck, therefore your wallet as well.
You are falling for the right-wing, libertarian argument of characterizing the public sector as just a black hole into which hard working people's taxes fall into. but when you give a big corporation your money for necessities, it is never thought of that way.
Government provides services - including hopefully some day health care for all, and a generous social-wage package of services for all. Provision of these services requires employees, and under the current syatem, employees require healh insurance.
I am a full supporter of single payer - I'd trade my FEHB for that in a minute. But I think attacking those people who do have employer provided insurance is the wrong way to go. You may as well be attcking unions who have bargained a good health care package as well.
pjd
card-carrying member AFGE-NCFLL Local 644
Department of Labor - MSHA
All health care should be paid for by tax dollars, not just yours. No health care insurance should be paid for by employers. In your case all of your health care insurance is paid for by the taxpayers, including the share that you pay since the source was tax dollars. Medicare for all. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
What I am trying to point out is that Hightower (and many posters here) are using a false analogy. The congresspeople who are critical of government health care for all citizens are not receiving health care in their capacity as citizens, they are receiving as part of their compensation as employees (albeit well paid and well treated ones) so the accusation of hypocrisy isn't valid.
That the funds come from general tax revenue (taxes always go to gov. employee pay and benefits) is immaterial as my grocery worker analogy was an attempt to point out.
When you fuss about your taxes going to gov. employee benefits, you are, perhaps unconsciously, falling for the right-wing "government just steals our money" mode of thinking - and unwittingly hurting the cause.
pjd412: FWIW, you've made this point repeatedly, and it made sense to me the first time.
I'm not criticizing you for doing so, just noting sympathetically that this seems to be one of those maddening issues where if one "gets" the point, it's not even that remarkable-- nor controversial. Or complicated.
But it seems to go right by many. It's only a guess, but IMO the rank hypocrisy and all-around unsavoriness of our shameless Elected Misrepresentatives is so powerfully offensive that it angers up the brain cells.
So your point is overwhelmed by the true but fuzzy, problematic indictment that Congresscritters get great health care, but don't want ordinary people to have it! As if the WAY they get it is irrelevant.
It's weird and unfortunate that your sensible clarification doesn't compute more readily. Good luck with your determined efforts, though.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The attack was not against those with employer provided health insurance, but against Legislators who tell you that single payer is evil government provided health care, while at the same time slipping off to get that pesky illness treated at the Capital Clinic (I doubt you have that benefit). And my guess is you are not able to go to Bethesda or Walter Reed for your surgery as did Cheney and all of the other legislators who will vote against single payer. My guess is a vast majority of the public who oppose single payer have absolutely no idea Congress has access to this low cost clinic and don't understand that many Legislators go to Reed and Bethesda for their surgery.
Keeping the public option off the table and making the purchase of insurance mandatory is only stage one. Stage two, which is something that McCain was honest about, but which Obama has not discussed though he belongs to the same pack of dogs, is removing the tax incentive that employers receive for providing health insurance to the employees, and making employer funded health insurance taxable as income. We are only in stage one of the game, which ultimately will place insurance company executives among the growing body of global feudal lords.
There's a difference between those who get healthcare insurance and those who don't.
One of the systemic problems we face is that millions of our fellow citizens are among those who don't. Or who may go bankrupt over hospital bills, or may exhaust the for profit benefits their insurer provides, or may not be qualified for insurance at all because of a "pre-existing" condition. ETC. Horror stories illustrating our current private for profit non-system are abundant.
This is not a problem faced by the members of Congress, who are being asked to expand the safety they enjoy to all Americans. What's more, paying for coverage with tax dollars, rather than private sector dollars, highlights their hypocrisy because they refuse to cover those citizens who pay for their coverage with their taxes, modest as these may be.
In other words, the Congress does not share this problem with millions of fellow Americans. And those who stand in the way of universal coverage are not thinking of the needs of the American people. But they accept the healthcare advantages the people pay for with their taxes.
How anyone can defend the private healthcare insurance industry is beyond me. They put profit first, not our needs first. Why should we put their interests ahead of ours?
But lack of health insurance is also not a problem shared by many other US workers too - especially unionized ones who usually have bargained some very good insurance plans in leiu of pay raises.
Attacking a member of congress for simply having heath insurance as part of his job compensation, like most employed americans, is dangerously like the low-wage workers I meet who are resentful of unions because the union workers higher pay is "unfair".
"Lack of health insurance is not a problem shared by many US workers.... "
But it is a problem shared by many millions of Americans.
It is a problem shared by those who have "pre existing" conditions. Whether employed or not.
It is a problem for those whose benefits max out and come to an end. Even if employed.
It is a problem for doctors, hospitals, and patients struggling over the paper work, attempting to obtain promised benefits from private insurers.
It is a problem created by private insurers who put profit first, and seek ways of not providing promised benefits.
It is a problem for those who pay into their policies for many years and then discover, when they get sick, that due to a technicality which occurred long ago they must forfeit their coverage.
It is a problem for those who lose or change their jobs and become uninsured. Perhaps because of "pre existing" conditions.
And as for your second paragraph, no one begrudges a member of Congress his healthcare benefits. They are paid for, though, by the American people with their tax dollars and claiming universal care is "socialism" and unAmerican is indeed hypocritical. The issue is not denying rights but expanding them. And that is where the problem is.
Humorous but true. Even India has universal healthcare with some of the finest hospitals. Unfortunately, the government sector is often in bad shape and more people there are falling for turning to privatized care. I had a fierce discussion with my greedy relatives abroad about health care. They never get tired of arguing that the big insurance companies are somehow going to be the new saviors. They rail against government run health care and call Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, and others the "justice league". Nothing I can do to try to tell them that the health care system in the USA is completely broken gets into their thick skulls. They even have the nerve to blame my father not putting profit before patient care as the cause for his business not doing so well. Between the politicians and my spiteful relative who are both greedy and rich from crooked means, they both have universal coverage but can't stop shouting against it. Adolf Hitler would love them !
You made interesting comments.
The ghosts of Rand and Reagan are really stalking India. The Bollywood movies make India look like all it's citizens are as affluent as the Swiss. Yet, this is a country with a UNHDR ranking of 135! That's in the same league as Honduras, and a bit ahead of Haiti. Surely, one doesn't go a day anywhere in India without seeing deep poverty and having to deal with beggars, right? Are the well-off poeple that callous? And as the star-pupils of Central America show, neoliberalism will only accentuate the poverty of India. Only bottom-up socialism will ever bring the vast majority of Indian poeple a way out of grinding poverty.
And, the way of Gandhi is obsolete. Under the modern media propaganda model Gandhi today would be sitting in a prison cell, or maybe just ranting on a street corner, ignored and in obscurity - as all latter-day would-be Gandhi's and Dr. King's are - and I'm sure that are more than a few around the world right now.
I was an Indian, I would join the Naxalites.
Bollywood I totally despise but I came from South India. Most people are nowhere like that. The weather is too hot to dress so tight and trashy and then there's potential rapists everywhere. People are more cut throat just like the West but change has only gone so far. I haven't been to India in years but some time back, Sioux and I had a conversation about her trip to India and she has confirmed what I feared which is western capitalism making the poor poorer and the rich richer as if the regular caste system didn't do enough harm.
There are no true socialists in India. Most are the fake ones using the Christian and Muslim groups to play divide and conquer. Gandhi wouldn't be in a prison cell today in India although he would be in the US. That's not to say that politics isn't corrupt there either. They still use their old tricks of bait and switch. Before, candidates could bribe voters with free pots. Nowadays, it's TVs. In the end, nobody wins. Comparing the politics of India and the USA, in some ways the USA is more corrupt than India and vice versa.
Sioux Rose
RANJIT: When commondreams first opened the forum to comments, there was a very astute poster, an astute individual learned in many arenas who was employed as a professor (he went by the screen name of AYMON) who posted frequently. He became very upset with me on account of my observations on India. He may have been from this region and didn't resonate with my impressions at all.
I visited the Taj Mahal in 2004 when I could not get a seat (bed really) on the 40 hour train ride between New Delhi and Bangalore. I wanted to see where US computer jobs had caused a pocket of nouveau riche citizens to spring up. Due to the delay, the travel agent (quite a fellow) convinced me to see the Taj. He got me a private driver and a decent hotel, however, the image of so much poverty along the way, the families living under cardboard boxes near this architectural wonder, the women walking long distances with containers (for water) on their heads... it made me feel guilty for having the money to stay as a tourist. I would have easily shared my daily bread, but not equipped with Jesus' capacity to multiply the fish and loaves, I had to be content to offer a little to some families road side.
During my dinner at the hotel I was attended to by several very handsome young Indian male waiters. I asked them about arranged marriages and so forth. I have often thought about the combined effects of the caste system and arranged marriages, what it costs a society when mercantilism impedes the call of LOVE to bring about unions forged in the name of Mammon, rather than Venus. It's not that different in other lands, the caste system is just more covert, arranged marriages, as well.
In all humility, being myself divorced, I had to admit that the quest to, for, and about love did not always lead to a happy outcome. Still, I am grateful I was not forced into an arranged union. India is a Capricorn nation, as is Mexico, and Capricorn, the Zodiac's 10th sign sits at the TOP of the dial. Capricorn tends to support hierarchical societal structures, a top-down model of authority. This may factor into why Capricorn as a sign is so linked to status, its symbol the mountain goat that against all odds works its way to the summit. This premise of status, success, and hard work is not a bad thing, but when it is brought to the premise of marital union, I think it taints the mix. As too much of our world expresses homage to Mars, his Divine partner, Venus, is left in deficit. From my perspective, mankind's central mission is to rediscover the great balance, and I think it starts with relationships based on mutual respect and if not love, then consideration & admiration. The template of life itself, has been battered and broken... and the wars, the depravity, the lack of kindness everywhere are indications of this collapse.
Sioux, those computer jobs shipped to India are just scraps. Even with outsourcing, unemployment and job related injuries due to increased stress and stroke attacks have been going on. That's what a friend of mine who watches SUNTV told me at various times these past 5 years.
A friend of mine, also a South Indian but born here, and I are each not sure where to go on marriages but your idea strikes a good balance between love and arranged. I'm sorry to to hear about love marriages not going well. A lot of that is happening in North India. The proponents of keeping arranged marriages as the norm never stop pointing to the rise of divorces that they blame on love marriages even though it's equally from arranged marriages.
When you speak of Venus, you remind me of what I learned about women in India being oppressed ever since the Vedic Era ended. I too yearn for female leadership and I'm not referring to Sonia Gandhi who's a weak example.
Speaking of wars, I'm already worried that Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill into India. If Obama goes as planned, Iraq will pale in comparison.
I have noticed double standards about how the US treats certain nations in terms of basic defense. On the one hand, they ok Israel going extreme and using defense as an excuse to invade whereas if India, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan are attacked by terrorist groups, they're supposed to do nothing and be used as examples to keep wars going. I have come across people saying "Israel defends itself while India cannot" and accepting that lie. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It turns out that the militant terrorist groups attacking civilians are paid CIA hacks attacking regardless of religion. It's a lot to explain than what I can write but it's as if they're trying to create a weakened Venus and make fun of her while defending Mars at all costs. If you would like, I can email you and discuss this some more. Thanks.
I find it intersting that Mr. Hightower mentions Steve Kagen as one whom gave up his govt health care. Although I applaud the efforts of my representatives Mr. Kagen and Russ Feingold, it must be mentioned that Steve Kagen DOES NOT support HR676 or any sigle payer type of solution. He is an allergy doctor who runs a clinic in Green Bay WI and has a tremendous financial stake in rounding up hundreds, if not thousands of new patients and their money with a market/greed based solution. He does not want universal health care because it would force him to take a pay cut. Get used to it Steve, the hoi polloi have been taking pay and benefit cuts for years. Time for you essential professionals to catch down to us.
Interesting point and well said.
My father was a doctor who believed in patient care above profits and was under the knife from the system as a result. Maybe I can convince him to move to Richmond, VA and run for Eric Cantor's seat and put Kagan to shame. This nation is shamelessly filled with greedy doctors who side with the drug and insurance corporations shamelessly even when there are no sustainable benefits to doing so.
Thank you for stating the truth about the far too many greedy doctors.
And here is an example of their Free Market at work:
Doctors start up dialysis units, first to serve their patients, and secondly to make money. A corporation buys out those units associated with doctors' groups and hospitals. The corp becomes "one of the biggest junk-rated borrowers this year" (2008, per Bloomberg) with some $3.7B in debt. In other words, this publicly traded company is paying big bucks in fees to create junk bonds to buy a monopoly in a critical healthcare service. But this company has some questionable business practices and has multiple investigations and even a Corporate Integrity Agreement on a previous entity. An arrangement that I found odd was that this publically traded company is obligated to buy its equipment from a private non-US company - it gets complicated. Anyway, point is, that almost all of the funds for this adventure in The Free Market come from you and me, aka the taxpayer.
Then Obama has the nerve to place a member of this company's board in the very agency that supposedly regulated this business, and will set how much Medicare pays for these services. Per the SEC filing: "The bundled payment rate will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will have discretion to determine the base payment rate based on the goods and services included in the bundled rate."
In other words, the existing Free Market is a maze of profittering based on exploiting government payments via a revolving door between government and industry.
"...exploiting gov't payments via a revolving door between gov't and industry"
This does not sound like a free market at all. If we had a free market in health care, the FDA would not ban low cost effective treatments "...because patented pharmaceuticals can't compete" (see: pyridoxamine); Low cost effective treastments could be advertised as long as they have been demonstrated to be safe and made truthful claims; doctors would only lose their licenses for harm to patients and ethical violations rather than curing their patients with "unapproved" methods; everyone would pay cash for primary care, including setting up accounts for Medicaid recipients (wherever this happens, costs fall 30-50% and doctors make as much or more money). Probably other things I haven't thought about. Then a single payer system makes sense for major expenses.
The people need to own ALL the facilities associated with medicine.
We only pay for the doctors!
Just in case you missed it Jim, according to all the reports Ive seen, Obama does not have the resolve for a public option any more than the Blue Dogs. In other words, Obama's idea of leadership is go along with the crowd. If a public option gets in the final Bill fine, if it is expunged from the final Bill, or morphs into a watered down Bill without bite, that is fine too.
You lost all credibility with me. Another apologist for the Obama presidency.
Bill Clinton said Obama has to pass a bill for he re-election efforst in 2012. Obama cannot fail, who cares what is in the bill. All about party!
Democrats, Republicans all lock step with "the party" so where is the surprise here? I do not see either part of our sham two party oligarchy caring much about the people in any case.
Alas, the power to shame people by revealing them as hypocrites can now reasonably be pronounced dead. This conflict is about crude power, and accusations of hypocrisy against forces armed with huge wealth and a nuclear arsenal is an exercise in futility. That said, we all love Jim and his wit and moral clarity.
"Alas, the power to shame people by revealing them as hypocrites can now reasonably be pronounced dead."
I deem this line to be "Post of the Day!". katfish thank you for your thoughtful insight.
Yeah, Let's hear it for one upmanship!!!
Here is the equation, ...
INSURANCE = SOCIALISM
Practically no person in the US can now pay for health care out of pocket save for anything beyond a cold. Thus, the free market paradigm does not work, cannot work, for medicine in the US. Society at large has to pay. The cost can be distributed by private insurance companies, or by the government. The principle is the same, from each according to his ability, or a fixed rate, and to each according to his needs.
Insurance, i.e. socialism, is becoming increasingly important in keeping capitalism functioning. Instead of socialism managed by the government, we have socialism managed by private insurance companies. Thus, we have health insurance, car insurance, and homeowners insurance. These are all forms of socialism, all necessary in our current system, and they're taking an increasing bite out of income.
You seem to be making what I would consider to be an unwarranted assumption--that most health care is actually worth paying for.
Not Allan sez: "Instead of socialism managed by the government, we have socialism managed by private insurance companies."
***
There's a word for what you describe, and it's not 'socialism'.
You might even call it an 'F' word.
Private insurance has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism. You may as well say the Fortune 500 are all socialist organizations. If socialism is how capitalism is now kept functioning, why bother calling it capitalism at all? In your Bizzarroworld where up is down and black is white, capitalism and socialism are the same anyway, so why bother making a distinction?
Insurance is "socialized" healthcare financing but it is not "socialism," which is classically defines as state ownership of the means of production.
q
The right wing nut jobs think everything is "socialism" and "Obamacare".
The taxpayer pays a lot more by making people go to the emergency room for treatment.
No preventative medicine.
Yep, cost a lot more to do it the way we do it now, but the bill still gets paid.
As Jim Hightower notes, the Congress members in Washington have their choice of many different health care plans to choose from. But as T.R. Reid points out in his must-read book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, some countries like Germany and Japan have their choice of over hundreds of health care plans to choose from. Yet Obama and the Democrats refuse to seek the advise and help of other countries which have greatly benefited from employing Universal Health Care.
Awesome piece, Jim. Thank you.
I think every sick American should go straight to the office of the attending physician and get some healthcare.
We've paid for it.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
WE all know this already Jim and frankly were all sick of hearing about it. The fact that most of the DC establishment are hypocrites is OLD news! Add to this list the millions of other Americans that also get taxpayer financed medical care and maybe that's not old news. Right now the biggest supplier of health care in this country is Gov't both to it's own employees and the pols that run Gov't and to various other groups. Millions also access free care through Gov't by showing up @ the Emergency room whenever they get sick because they have NO Ins. and under law they must not be turned away. ( this is not a bad thing) However, for us to go on pretending most of the health care in this country is Privately supplied is nonsense. I'd love to have a City, County or State job complete with in many cases Golden health Ins. but unless your politically connected where I live forget about that ever happening.
SEAGLASS;
Indeed, this is old news - very old news. Do you know why it is old news? Because it still hasn't been fixed.
The magnitude of this nation's political ignorance is exceeded only by its social pathologies.
The emergency room care argument is a total sham. No emergency room will perform a needed heart bypass, administer chemotherapy, or any other life saving treatments for a slower moving death threat. It is long past time we started calling out those who proclaim that emergency room treatment somehow passes for proper medical care. I have been writing to my senators, congressperson, and President Obama every day reminding them that another 122 Americans died today because they could not pay for health care. I will send another 4 e-mails everyday to them until everyone who wishes to can go see a doctor free from interference from profit motivated sociopaths and the fear of financial ruin.
Define Freedom
Very well said. I have a brother who believes that anyone who needs be seen by a doctor can simply stroll into the emergency room and that charity care will pick up the bill. When I attempted to tell him basically the same thing that you had written he accused me of not engaging in critical thinking and of being a radical wild-eyed liberal, as if that were something that I was supposed to be ashamed of. But trying to speak coherently to extreme conservatives like my brother is like shouting into the wind.
All you get doing that is your own spit in your face.
I have two Nephews, one just like me, the other like your brother. I love them both, but never ever try to talk sense to people like your brother.
"WE all know this already Jim and frankly were all sick of hearing about it."
Speak for yourself. It's the hypocrites who presumably represent us that I'm sick of hearing from. This is a current, hot issue, and I love this article. I have a dozen people I want to email it to.
Yes, Unless I eat Maalox, I can not open the monthly rags my US Senators e-mail to me. The BS is way too deep.
Does the fact that something is "old news" mean that it should be ignored or swept under the rug? Get serious!