The First Casualty of Health Care Reform

Here an excerpt from an open letter to the American people written recently by my brother, Jeff:

“In the US, you pay more, get less, and die younger than we do in Europe. What part of that don’t you understand?

“My fellow Americans, you have nothing to fear except those who would use fear to keep you enslaved to the myth of the might of the American health care system.”

Jeff Degan

What can I tell you, the guy is a communist. Not only does he live in France, he actually likes it there! Go figure.

http://​www​.tomdegan​.blogspot​.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

I dispute the comment that, “The first casualty of war is truth.” The first casualty of war is, and has always been, whatever warfighting plan you thought you had.

Is Government Preparing Us for Censorship?
[May 2, 2009]
by Tibor R. Machan

In a series of articles on climate change the villain is gradually being
identified as, you should have guessed it, freedom of thought! 

One Jon Gertner of The New York Times Magazine wrote the other day that
“What makes CRED’s work [the Center for Research on Environmental
Decisions] especially relevant … is that various human attitudes and
responses – How can there be global warming when we had a frigid January?
What’s in it for me if I change the way I live? – can make the climate
problem worse by leaving it unacknowledged or unaddressed. Apathetic and
hostile responses to climate change, in other words, produce a feedback
loop and reinforce the process of global warming (4/​19/​09).”

The idea that thought and speech are major obstacles to doing what is
right isn’t new at all. As recently as the 1980s the one liberty that
liberal statists could be counted on defending, at least in the United
States of America, is the one spelled out in the First Amendment to the
Constitution. Alas, this was challenged some time ago by Professor
Catharine A. MacKinnon of the University of Michigan school of law, in her
short but prominently published book, Only Words (Harvard University
Press, 1983). In it the good professor argued that words do not deserve
the legal protection afforded them by the Constitution since insults and
put downs, including jokes, can injure people good and hard. And such
injuries should not be protected. The victims would have to pay too high a
price for the fact that the law treats such injuries as “only words.”

We have heard a good deal lately about how President Barack Obama is a
pragmatists, how he eschews ideology. The most sensible rendition of this
sound bite is that he refuses to be bound by principles and when it comes
to something as vital as containing climate change, why not toss the First
Amendment and censor those who show skepticism? Professor MacKinnon wasn’t
recommending tossing the principle underlying the First Amendment, only
suggesting that we should not be ideological about our embrace of it.
Maybe the same should be expected from President Obama when it comes to a
central elements of his political agenda, namely, to contain pollution. 

This pragmatism isn’t across the board for Mr. Obama, of course. As with
all loyal pragmatists he, too, is willing to stick to a select few
principles and refuse to give them up even in times of emergency.
Consider, for example, that according the Obama & Co. there is never any
excuse for using torture! I will not speculate on why in that instance
pragmatism is inadequate – various suggestions present themselves and some
of them aren’t pretty at all. Suffice it to note that Mr. Obama seems to
be perfectly willing to toss jettison the principles of the free
market – the right to private property, the right to enter into binding
contracts, the right to due process. And here we have evidence that like
minded folks, too, appear not to be very worried about banning certain
kinds of inconvenient conduct such as speaking out against the
doctrine – the ideology? – of climate change.

We should be prepared, I believe, for some movement in this direction.
Apathy toward climate change isn’t tolerable, nor is skepticism. Leaving
the climate problem unacknowledged or unaddressed would also count as
something we ought not to tolerate – so if I speak out against recycling,
for example, maybe I ought to be muzzled since not doing so will “produce
a feedback loop and reinforce the process of global warming.”

Just as Professor MacKinnon’s abandoning of the First Amendment seemed to
her fully justified, given how that Amendment made it possible to insult
and intimidate women, so it should come as no big surprise to anyone that
laws will be passed that prohibit global warming skepticism. Such
dangerous conduct on the part of citizens must be arrested, or so some of
the climate change fanatics could well believe now, quite seriously.

”
“gag order,” you got it.

After Humana’s expression of First Amendment rights, the Department of Health and Human Services told all insurers participating in Medicare Advantage to zip it, stifle themselves, express their thoughts in no way about any proposed reform to their policyholders — even if all such expression amounts to is a list of facts.

Penalties include both fines and jail time.

Yes, folks, this is what unlimited government means. Increase government’s role and “hasta la vista” to some very basic freedoms.

Just as government micromanagement of markets leads to shortages and rising prices, so increased government has predictable consequences. We pay for big government in lost freedom as well as dollars.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
”

Shaeth Up
!

Or else
!

Free speech a casualty of health care reform? This is the biggest lie I’ve ever heard yet about essentially needed health care reform, other than the insipid “death panel” charge – which many Republican congressmen voted FOR in the previous Medicare bill.

Before you accuse, do research. Has there been any examiniation of this Humana letter for lies, inaccuracies or misinformation? For agency rules violations re: consumer rights? Or is this a knee-​jerk reaction that bypassed all reasoned thinking?

Does every corporation tell the absolute truth every time? (Well, look at advertising for a clue. Any 11-​year-​old can sift corporate bullcrap claims from the reality they see every day.)

I trust my government less because of the revolving-​door policy Bush and his cronies had with industry. But I trust Obama’s people-​oriented administration more than I trust any corporation. (Van Jones, where are we now that we need you! Fight the power!)

Also, let’s have some full disclosure: Mr. Jacobs, what are your ties – previous and current – to the insurance industry? 

Do you hold lucrative investments in insurance or those tied to health insurance or health care? 

Do you dare put your mouth where your money is so we can transparently see your motives here?

Clues that Mr. Jacobs’ fears are hogwash:

Clue 1) The phrase “effects of new reforms on their coverage would likely be.” Likely means this is conjecture and opinion.

Opinions by corporations are put out to influence their customers. They are pushed only for the profit motive, since that is what corporations live for. 

Often they amount to fear-​mongering with little regard for facts. If Humana is being punished for violating consumers rights to the truth, more power to the HHS!

Thank God the Obama administration has some backbone and/​or enough separation from the industry enough to not suck up their handouts at every turn! 

Slap Humana silly if they break the rules! But before you castigate them, Jacobs and Wall Street Journal, let’s examine the rules, and their purpose. (Something Bush never did – was it out of stupidity or corruption? I’ll never know.)

No corporation or anyone else for that matter should lie and mislead in order to gain more profit. But it’s a typical corporate tactic that happens every day.

The main fear Humana faces is that it won’t be able to compete against a public option in health care. That’s because there is too much waste, bloat and quite possibly corruption – surprise! not in government – but in corporations! It’s part of why our health care costs so much.

Clue 2) Jacobs won’t publish this letter from Humana. 

Why not let us read the letter, instead of pushing disinformation second and third hand? Jacobs’ claims are called “hearsay,” and as such they are not allowed in courts of law as evidence for obvious reasons. 

2) Jacobs won’t publish the letter from Humana. 

Why not let us read the letter, instead of pushing disinformation second- and third-hand? 

Jacobs’ claims are “hearsay,” and as such they are not allowed in courts of law as evidence for obvious reasons. You should not believe them without independent research for the same reasons.

“Big” government vs. bloated corporations:

Your claim: “increased government has predictable consequences. We pay for big government in lost freedom as well as dollars.”

Never was this more true with Bush and the bloated Iraq War, in which billions went to Halliburton with the infamous no-​bid contract. (Oh, Cheney “happened” to be Halliburton’s ex-​CEO.) Also with billions going to Blackwater, whose mercenaries, unchecked by military rules, got rich while beating and killing innocent Iraq civilians, including women and families.

This is why Obama’s open government is so vital – to protect us from the cronyism and facism of Bush-​Cheney and “Crook” Rumsfeld, perhaps the biggest inside operator ever in government history. (This greedy sicko pushed through aspartame approval even though 3 of 6 government scientists on the review panel said “no way!”)

If big government is as wasteful and inept as conservatives often charge, why is a profitable corporation afraid of an alleged red-​tape-​strewn mess of an organization running away with their customers?

Because the customers would be far better served, at a lower cost, with less red tape, and better coverage for all! 

That is what Humana fears: the public option will be a virtual copy of Medicare/​Medicaid – which runs very well as operated by the government, with much less overhead than insurance companies and little cutting of the services people need.

If capitalism has so much to fear from government-​run agencies, doesn’t that mean the capitalist companies are so bloated and slow, with such poor service that that the government will outrun, out-​serve and outperform them? 

There’s the death blow to capitalism, which serves 1% of the population VERY well, and the rest of us – well, good luck!

Conclusion: the main thing we have to fear is big corporations, including Humana. This is especially true in health care and insurance, where sicker is better because it makes even sicker (in the head and heart) people lots of money. 

These vampires care more for profit than people, don’t want a lean mean government operation taking away their business and want to keep feeding their CEO his millions while cutting people off from the health care they need – so that they can make their bloated blood-​soaked profit. 

That is sick.
And we should all oppose it where-​ever and whenever we see it.

See Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” for an inside look at the bloated, sick capitalist system so many insipidly, causelessly revere, like so many sheep headed to slaughter.

YOUR job is probably next on the chopping block, and if you lose it, so goes your health care.

Oh – but not Mr. Jacobs’, whose job is secure so long as he keeps pushing fear over analysis and sucking in your conservative dollars like a…a…vampire? a corporation?

I do not know how real people can stand it: Mr. “ThinkLife” has a corner on drivel and pure psychological projection. He does not ThinkLife, but he sure needs to get one.

Russell,

Hmmm…let’s analyze our social-​political-​economic system for a minute. (Just a minute.)

Auto deaths:
Due to rampant pursuit of profit…resulting in destruction of America’s mass transit systems in the 1950s…and resulting in inadequate safety regulations (they sell cars with 3‑out-​of-​5-​star crash ratings, no?)…and allowing younger, less experienced drivers the responsibility of guiding a 1‑ton “mobile assault weapon”…and pursuit of profit in alcohol sales…resulting in a “drinking is cool” advertising sensibility…as well as lower parental incomes – to boost corporate profits…resulting in parents working more hours…resulting in less community involvement with youth…and less mentoring and contact with responsible adults…and increased access to alcohol in the home for “ecreation”…all resulting in more numerous deaths that happen earlier here than in Europe.

Gun deaths:
Due to too many guns on the street…rampant pursuit of profit selling guns (a virtue, according to capitalist tenets)…strong demand for guns due to rampant of fear of violent crime and theft…due to increased poverty and desperation that leads some to drugs, theft and crime (we all need money, where to get it when jobs are few? training lacking? parenting, mentoring and career guidance missing? Fill a desire: to feel good”…with drugs – which require cash)…due to inadequate spending and care on parenting, mentoring, education and training…and inadequate opportunities for lower income people and minorities…resulting in domestic frustration, pain, anger and rage…all resulting in crime and greater violent deaths.

So these problems really do come down to stratification of the classes (poorer/​lower, partly educated/​middle, highly educated/​upper – generally speaking), rampant undemocratic capitalism leading to corporate vampirism on society – the very pursuit of which ultimately leads to the extra violence and death.

RE: health care
And – to add insult to injury – those most prone to suffer from the crimes have little or no access to health care, except in nonprofit hospital emergency rooms – the most expensive last resort that sucks the life-​blood from the hospital system, raising costs for all of us.

Solutions:
Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story,” anyone?

Are you ready for the revolution???

I sure as hell am! Sell me a gun, fool – if you want to see the wrong end of the barrel! 

Metaphorically speaking, of course. This is a prediction, not a threat. 

Revolution is coming – but it’s up to all of us whether it turns violent or not. SHARE, rich brothers, and it won’t be!

And of course, this speaks to the point again: 

The fallout of capitalism is pain, onerous struggle, poverty, crime and even death for too many–and vast riches beyond that of any ancient sultan for less than 1% of the population.

Lotsa luck becoming one of the VERY few!

Must Corporations Be In Bed With Government?

[A column on point]

For Karl Marx one reason laissez-​faire capitalism would not last is that he believed big corporations would always subvert governments. The idea in support of such an economic system is that government can and must stay out of economic affairs. Economics, for champions of the fully free market, should be like religion, completely separate from government. Only that way would there be a level playing field in the economy, at least as level as that is realistically possible. (Clearly some people are born more talented, of parents with more resources than others, with physical advantages others don’t have – so the idea of a completely level playing field is ridiculous.) 

But critics of capitalism maintain that this level playing field is impossible to obtain when big corporations can appeal for support from governments. After all, even the most fair minded politician in a democracy requires support so as to get elected to office. And big corporations are in a better position to supply such support that small shops, universities, or other special interest groups. Which means big corporations will always be able to gain unfair advantages from governments. And so there really is no hope for a system of pure laissez faire capitalism, a fully free market such as advocated by libertarians. Business will always have the government on its side with all the powers it can offer to help out.

And this does sound like a good point. It is made these days by the likes of Ralph Nader, Michael Moore and others who claim that capitalism is inherently corrupt. Except for the fact that such a system is not actually a free market capitalist one, they are right. Once the government is legally allowed to accept favors from the citizenry, it is no big wonder that the richest of those citizens, mostly corporations, will be favored by governments. The task for those who support the idea of a genuine – bona fide free market, laissez faire – capitalist system is to establish legal bans against government and business coziness. Again, this is in principle akin to the ban on cozy church and state relations

Is this some kind of pie in the sky aspiration, to have a system in which it is illegitimate for business and government to get into bed together? Well, it would appear to be difficult, of course, since corporations do have the resources to seek out government favors – although so do some other institutions, such as unions and universities. But just because they can, it doesn’t follow that they have to and will. Quite possibly laws and public policy can be established that make the ties between business and government illegal. What this requires is vigorous education, plain and simple, just as do all the provisions that make a political system less and less corrupt. Corruption is always a temptation and there is never any guarantee against it. All that is available to guard against corruption is citizenship vigilance and intelligence. 

But many difficult objectives have been achieved throughout human history, so why not this? Slavery, which is so tempting for some, got abolished. The military draft is gone, at least in America. There is a first amendment in the USA that prohibits government censorship and any religious influence in government. Such improvements, and many others that rendered legal systems more and more just, could be accomplished and have been, despite enormous resistance. So why not the separation between business and government? 

There is much to be said for such separation, even for big corporations – leaving them all to compete in a genuine free market without special help from government would seem to be something desirable all around. Yes, some will try to defeat that kind of system, thinking they can gain advantages not available to others. But over the long haul this is a myth. Corruption tends to undermine the whole system and produce harm to all those who are part of it, at least intermittently. So the case for cleaning up the system, for vigilant opposition to favoritism even when big powerful moneyed interest are vying for it, is a good one.

So while it is undoubtedly true that freedom is always susceptible to being undermined, in the last analysis there really isn’t any better alternative. Such modern thinkers as John Maynard Keynes have tried to deny this – check out Keynes’ little 1926 book, The End of Laissez Faire – but they could present no alternative, nothing but the myth of the educated ruling elite. Yet throughout history this alternative has proven to be even more vulnerable to corruption than capitalism has ever been.