End ‘corporatocracy’
If Congress can afford $12 billion a month to kill people in Iraq, it surely can afford to extend Medicare to every person in the United States and to repeal Part D, the prescription drug law, which is corporate welfare for pharmaceutical companies.
We have taxation without representation in the United States and the chance to nominate or elect a president or congressmento represent us is impossible presently.
We have to admit that the system is broken before we can fix it. The American dream is a nightmare.
Ralph Nader spoke on Democracy Now! last week and told it like it is. He said we have a corporatocracy that runs our country and that owns our government lock, stock and barrel.
Albert B. Dawkins, Firestone
"If Congress .. can afford to ..."
I can afford to buy a St. Bernard puppy but the cost of feeding and caring for it would rapidly exceed what I can afford so I would be forced to starve the dog or give it away.
Just as we might have enough money for the idea and the beginning concepts of socialized health care we will, in the long run, lack the money and other resources necessary to pay for it. There would then be a real divided system where those who can pay for it will get the best health care, the lower portion of which will be part of everyone's cost of the system, and the rest will get the rationed and limited bottom half.
For example...
My current insurance is Kaiser where I was given rapid service recent heart surgery but had to wait five days for approval for a pacemaker to be implanted and then had to fight to get them to pay for the pre-operative care and an emergency visit caused by post-operative drug difficulties. Seems that Kaiser won't approve the best drug for my situation because it is too expensive even though I am unable to take the common drug due to complications caused by a recent amputation and diabetes. The surgeon also wanted weekly follow up checks but Kaiser requires a fifty dollar co-pay which is too much for us to afford. I can have a monthly visit with my regular doctor, but I must schedule that visit two weeks or more in davance, who will co-ordinate with cardiology, for the normal thirty dollars and then have a phone consult with the heart surgeon. For any complications I will have to go to the emergency room instead of the heart doctor preventing them by seeing me in a weekly visit.
That is what I get with insurance! Imagine how much worse it will be if the government is the one making such judgements!
We CAN'T afford to let the government be in charge of our health care because such an approach will make it certain that my experience will be an example of the BEST kind of care available to the majority.
Posted by momma y on July 19, 2007 02:20 AMsorry about your health problems and I do agree that having the government run health care will give us something much worse than what you have now.
Posted by on July 19, 2007 05:00 AMGreat letter, momma y. You complain that a private company is mistreating you so that, ergo, we need to keep the private companies in control.
Posted by Truth on July 19, 2007 07:19 AM"Ralph Nader...told it like it is."
Socialists, displaced communists and those who have a 50-year history of hating corporate America and American capitalism are totally incapable of "telling it like it is." Ralph would be better-off telling his Karl Marx inspired story to an audience in Havana.
In short, Nader fights against corporate profits, dividends, corporate expansion, capitalism, free market enterprise, new product development, economic growth, new jobs, higher incomes, globalization, wealth creation, the efficient allocation of capital, consumption and prosperity. His sorry message is as obsolete as communism itself. Its amazing that Nader still manages to get a few holdovers from a failed yesterday to listen today.
Posted by hank on July 19, 2007 07:47 AM"The American dream is a nightmare."
Give me a break. Why is it a nightmare? Because our health care system is not perfect? Because someone else won't pay your medical bill?
What ever happened to America's spirit of rugged individualism? Now it seems to be the spirit of effeteness and lachrymosity.
Posted by John II on July 19, 2007 07:49 AMTruth
I am the person most of the Socialize Medicine Now crowd points to as needing the govenment's help.
I complain that a private company is misteating me. I know that a governmental system will be worse for everyone including me.
I want the problem solved by letting the individual take control of health care.
Of course I must be wrong because only the rich want to keep the govenrment out of healthcare and I'm not rich.
Keep looking. Someday you will understand why we are in agreement on the core problems of both systems:
bureaucratic thinking and problem solving replacing the individual medical care provider's thinking and problem solving.
The problem between us is I trust the individual American to be able to make his own healthcare decisions and you trust the government to do so.
One of us is right and we agree on this too but both of us think the one right is that guy in the mirror.
Posted by momma y on July 19, 2007 07:51 AMHealth insurance denies preemtive teatment to policy holders, waits until they get sick, then heaps on the added trouble of delaying payment or denying it out right. If they would consentrate on paying for medical treatments that help people to stay healthy, they would be doing the right thing. But, the right thing is not profitable enough for them in that if people remain, for the most part, healthy the fear factor proaganda they spew out to the public would no longer be a reason for their increasing premeums.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 19, 2007 09:56 AMI think Truth summed it up nicely. "You complain that a private company is mistreating you so that, ergo, we need to keep the private companies in control."
Momma y - Kaiser is already rationing your health care. You already have waiting lines. You pay through the teeth for services you cannot obtain. You are denied routine checkup visits. On and on and on.
Yet a gov't run system will be much worse? How do you know that? I fail to understand your reasoning.
Posted by Tbone on July 19, 2007 10:08 AMTbone how do you know the Govt can do better and what will be the costs to convert to govt run healthcare? Isnt Govt part of the reason we have a broken healthcare system?
Why not look at root cause and then decide what needs to be fixed and How to fix it? Why does it have to be an Either OR?
BTW Kaiser is a Not for Profit Co.
Posted by bwr on July 19, 2007 11:50 AMCapitalism is the problem with our health care system. Like other services we pay for. Greed is the #1 enemy. If you don't beleive me check out the salaries of today's executives and their bonuses. THE RICH GET RICHER THE POOR GET POORER. This is the Republican way. And don't get in their way.
Posted by larry on July 19, 2007 12:27 PM"THE RICH GET RICHER THE POOR GET POORER. "
AND THE IGNORANT, LAZY, UNEDUCATED, UNACCOUNTABLE AND IRRESPONSIBLE DIE YOUNG.
And that's good for all of America, Republicans and Democrats.
Posted by hank on July 19, 2007 01:14 PMTbone
I know that the government is worse because my husband is a disabled veteran and he has to wait for treatments that Kaiser will provide in good time.
I could have more visits and more healthcare but the cost is prohibitive and part of the reason for that cost is litigation and the medical comunity playing CYA with extra tests, x-rays and treatments. This also increases the costs of treatment for those who don't pay (it is added to our costs) or their healthcare. We can fix the problem but not if the government gets more involved than it it. It would not be so bad but the government hand is never removed from any situation or project.
Capitalisim will work here too. It already is working. Witness the Wal-Mart clinics where health care is affordable, quick and efficient. We will only add another layer of paper pushers and their supervisors if we let the government in.
Posted by on July 19, 2007 01:41 PMYou all know how much a hassle it is at any state DMV.
That and worse is what you will have letting govt control health care.
Is that what you really want?
Posted by Get Real on July 19, 2007 03:00 PMWhat I find most interesting in these posts is the complete lack of compassion shown by conservatives. We are no longer a United States, we are a divided your on your own society. What is the love affair with corporate for profit health insurance? As long as profit is a main concern among the health care industry we will no longer develop cures for anything. There is far too much money in treating the symptoms and not the cause, if we outright cure diseases the pharma's lose billions! Money is the problem, profit is the motive, it has nothing to do with health care. I'm the only liberal in my family and when I vote I vote for what is best for the country as a whole, as said by my family "I vote for what is best for me"! I find this to be very telling when people post about how they aren't going to help pay for someone else's problems. We are here together like it or not, if we here in the US will not even help ourselves we are taking a fast track down!!
Posted by Michael D on July 19, 2007 03:18 PMPlease show me where in the U.S. Constitution that the government must provide people healthcare or for that matter any of the so called social programs/entitlements. I am sick and tired of hearing people whine that the government should provide for them. People of this nation need a reality check, grow up and be responsible for yourself. You whine that the government intrudes into your life, guess what you bring on yourself by asking the government to take care of poor little you.
Posted by Chris on July 19, 2007 03:21 PMChris,
If this is truly how you feel, please discontinue access for yourself of all government-funded institutions, including police protection, fire protection, public schools, etc. After all, Chris, if your house catches fire, why should my tax money go toward putting out your house? You should have practiced fire safety. I say let it burn.
Regardless of how self-centered you are, you live in a country that does not toss the poor out onto the street if they are sick and dying. Regardless of the Republican myth that all poor people MUST be lazy and/or retarded, some people do work very hard, are well-educated, and yet find themselves in a tough position in terms of paying for their health care, and saying "oh well, sucks for you" is a sick, callous, and remarkably un-Christian outlook for a party that claims itself to be the party of Christians and the "party of morals".
We are NOT in a position to deny healthcare to the poor, so get over it. The real question is what system do we put in place to fund it that is fair to the entire populace? Personally, I can't see why we can't have both systems. A national healthcare plan for those that want it, and an opt-out for those that choose a private plan. That way people like Chris can continue with his private healthcare and not feel like the government is fleecing him, while others can elect to pay into a national system and not pay money into corporate profits. Win-win for libs and cons. After all, the Republicans were pushing for something very similar with Social Security-- I can't see why they would be adverse to it in healthcare.
Posted by Dan on July 19, 2007 04:05 PMDan - How about a system that isn't mandatory for all to pay in to?
Posted by KW on July 19, 2007 04:25 PMKW,
That's what I just said. What part of "opt-out" didn't you get?
Sorry Dan, musta misread that sentence.
You mean we agreed twice today???
Get on now!
Posted by KW on July 19, 2007 04:49 PM"If this is truly how you feel, please discontinue access for yourself of all government-funded institutions, including police protection, fire protection, public schools, etc."
Dan,
Chris was referring to the constitutionality of federal funded health care. The government programs you listed are run by state and local governments, not the federal government. Read the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The federal government does not have the authority to dictate to the States how each State should run it's health care system.
Posted by John II on July 19, 2007 04:56 PM
Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution that the government must provide people healthcare or for that matter any of the so called social programs/entitlements.
Posted by Chris on July 19, 2007 03:21 PM
I live in the city and can walk or bike to anywhere I need to go. If I need to go out of state, I can take I cab to DIA. So by your logic Chris, why should I have to pay for roads if I don't drive?
Posted by on July 19, 2007 04:56 PMok, now that I can work with. If you want to opt in for the government plan, you can get all the people who are willing to do this and you can fund your own insurance through the Government with none of my cash going to it. I will continue to use my private insurance which I pay for.
Now, here is where it will fall apart. The .gov is inneficient and the people attracted to a single payer system are generally leaches on the system. They do not have the resources to pay for this system and therefore will want you to pay for their share. As long as I can opt out and you pay for them, I am all for it.
Posted by Dravur on July 19, 2007 04:58 PM4:56,
You missed Chris's point. He didn't say he opposes federal programs just because he doesn't use them. He opposes programs that are unconstitutional. Roads are covered in the Constitution under Article I, Section Eight.
Posted by John II on July 19, 2007 05:00 PMI keep asking that same question Dravur but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
I guess all the backers of universal coverage won't be happy unless they can force you to participate.
Posted by KW on July 19, 2007 05:27 PMJohn II,
My point to Chris wasn't about federal vs. state funding. My point was a rebuttal to Chris on his gripe that he has to pay for poor sick people, and that there are times in a functioning society we have to pay into a public good.
KW,
I know... the cosmos may implode now. ;-)
Dravur,
Then this will be a grand experiment then to see which is truly more inefficient, government or private? My contention is that private enterprise is not as efficient as its backers claim it to be. As far as those paying into the public system being a drain on the public system, would they be any more of a drain than the CEO perks, private jets, marketing and advertising, etc. that are some of the overhead costs we would be paying into the free-market system? I don't have the answer for that, but my contention is let the market figure that out.
If we can have a choice between public and private systems, and we are promised that neither system will eventually have to bail out another if one system fails, then I think we may have a workable solution that would make everyone happy.
Posted by Dan on July 19, 2007 06:10 PMIn general, countries with universal health care systems that are rated to be better than our health care system fund their systems at around half of the funding health care gets in the United States. To me, that is amazing. To the opponents of universal health care, it is irrelevant. because they are motivated by fear, not reason.
What do you think would happen to health care in America if we cut the funding by half?
While there are many universal health care countries which are rated as being better than our system, how much even better do you think they would be if they doubled the funding?
It obviously is worthwhile to look at those systems and see how they do it. But the opponents of universal health care have no interest in that. Instead, they look for excuses to avoid looking at those systems for fear of what they might find.
Posted by Truth on July 19, 2007 07:41 PM"What do you think would happen to health care in America if we cut the funding by half?"
Truth,
What point are you attempting to make? Do you want the US to cut health care spending in half?
Posted by John II on July 20, 2007 09:16 AMJohn II, I presume you think it is quite irrelevant that some countries can provide better quality health care than we do at half the cost. You are certainly entitled to that opinion.
Truth,
What do you base "better quality health care" on? How about the WHO ranking? Here's WHO's responsiveness measurement on health care quality:
" Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider).""The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden."
Yes, that's the United States ranking in first place. It seems we get a good return on our money after all.
Posted by John II on July 22, 2007 12:48 AMJohn II believes the reason why Americans pay about twice as much for health care as many nations with better quality systems is that he thinks we are "an enormous nation of smokers, drinkers, drug-users, couch potatoes, reckless drivers, and criminals".
John II claims that the other nations simply have better lifestyles than we do.
And he has proof of that. His proof that the United States is in the lead in "smokers, drinkers, drug-users, couch potatoes, reckless drivers, and criminals"?
Easy. Japanese lives on the average four years longer than Americans. Surely that proves his point, doesn't it? I mean if the Japanese live four years longer on average than Americans doesn't that show conclusively that we smoke, drink, drug, drive recklessly, commit crime, and watch TV more than any of those thirty-seven nations that rank ahead of us, many of which have life expectancies very close to ours?
John II's "reasoning" is clearly absurd.
First of all, John II knows little or nothing about the lifestyles of those countries.
Second of all, it simply escapes John II that the main means for improving the lifestyles of people is the health care system.
A good health care system will aggressively encourage people to forgo the lifestyles which John II describes. Clearly, universal health care nations have done a much better job of this than we have.
Why is that? Well, you make money in the health care business by treating people, not by helping them to avoid treatment.
A good health care system will have a preventative health care program. The Business Week survey I have posted states that the United States lags far behind the universal health care countries in preventative health care programs.
Why is that? Well, you make money in the health care business by treating people, not by helping them to avoid treatment.
It would be an enormously expensive and time consuming effort to try to quantify the medical costs attributable to the myriad of lifestyles in each of the various countries. Yet, John II glibly, and naively, comes along, and with practically no knowledge of what he is talking about, and gives his encyclopedic answer.
Ridiculous.
Posted by Truth on July 22, 2007 12:50 PMTruth,
America ranks 24th in murders per capita. Japan ranks 60th. If a person is murdered, he lowers his country's average life expectancy. Yet, what did his murder have to do with health care?
I could go on and on with many other categories. Shall I?
Posted by John II on July 23, 2007 07:50 AMI love this line:
"Yet, John II glibly, and naively, comes along, and with practically no knowledge of what he is talking about, and gives his encyclopedic answer."
You say I have no knowledge of what I'm talking about and then immediately compare me to an encyclopedia. I'm glad you appreciate my wealth of knowledge, Truth.
Posted by John II on July 23, 2007 08:05 AM