F*$K You, You Got Yours
Posted on
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
I have many times in the last year and a half written or tweeted about healthcare reform, an issue I am very close to for many personal reasons that have nothing to do with this article. I have harangued critics who want no real change to the healthcare landscape at all, for being badly-misinformed puppets of monied special interests and the puppets they employ in our government. Today, with the apparent impending passage of a weak sauce insurance industry handjob of a healthcare bill in the Senate, a bill so watered down as to be almost completely useless, I want to take this momentous occasion in history to thank every one of you ignorant cocksuckers out there that made this limp-wristed pile of monkey shit inevitable. To those of you who have continually criticized any sort of public option or single-payer healthcare, especially those who complained about it for no other reason than it was "socialism," I want to give an extra special thanks in the form of this statement.
Fuck you, you got yours.
This thank-you statement is, of course, what we as a nation should now adopt as our national motto, the creed, the very philosophical foundation on which we will build the future we deserve. Why? Nothing says ignorant bag of self-destructive cockgobblers like the attitudes we have taken towards providing basic goddamn healthcare to anyone without the means to pay than "Fuck you, I got mine." So for each individual in the following groups, I want to offer this saying.
Fuck you, you got yours.
To all you motherfuckers on Medicare who screamed at town hall meetings that Obama was a fascist who wanted "death panels" and that a public option was socialist, fuck you, you got yours. Your continued health, your very fucking life is entirely dependent on a "socialized" system that every working American pays into their entire working lives, and by all accounts works with more cost efficiency than private insurance, including the Medicare plans administered by private companies. And how do they do that? By negotiating lower rates with doctors, which according to most of the free market cocksuckers out there, is an abject sin.
To all those veterans who have given their lives and limbs to our country but complain that we might give public, socialized medicine to people regardless of their ability to pay, fuck you, you got yours. Before President Bush and the Neocon Parade drove our military straight into the ground with a useless fucking war in Iraq and overloaded it, the VA medical system was as efficient and well-run as Medicare. It was also completely funded by taxes that we all pay. It's not even a remotely equitable trade - you give up your lives for our freedoms and we give you healthcare. It's the least we can do. But don't complain when we want similar care paid for with our taxes.
For all of you with employer-provided healthcare, fuck you, you got yours. Yes, you most certainly do pay your premiums - but your employer pays more. Not only that, but both you and your employer's purchase of that insurance is subsidized by the government, which means its partly paid for by our taxes. These subsidies are in the form of the tax breaks for premiums (since they are taken out pre-tax) on individuals, but also tax breaks on employers. Incidentally, I am in this group myself - my employer pays most of my individual premium, and we both get tax breaks for it. The fuck me will come when I have to use this insurance and it's fairly large deductible and varied procedure schedule - something that will hit me directly in the pocket book at times when I can't work. I actually have to pay another premium for supplemental insurance to help cover those costs when I do get sick. As good as my subsidized plan is, I still could face serious financial ruin if I get deathly ill. And I can't afford the high premium to cover my self-employed wife with that, so fuck me twice.
To every motherfucking one of the Senators and Representatives currently bitching, moaning and complaining that ANYTHING that restricts the health insurance industry in the slightest is potentially passing through Congress, a huge fuck you, you got yours. You currently suckle at the best government healthcare teat imaginable, paying fuckall for a Cadillac insurance plan funded by the taxpayers, complete with your own fucking at call doctors and nurses in the same goddamn building. They don't even charge a co-pay. Their fuck you also covers anyone working in a government job using government health insurance who doesn't want to extend that coverage to the rest of us.
In short, YOU ALL GOT YOURS, and fuck the rest of us. Thank you very much for torpedoing any sort of real healthcare reform in favor of vague, idiotic worries about a political system you don't even understand, a knee-jerk buzzword taught you by vapid cuntwhistle pundits like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, used repeatedly to bludgeon the fear of anything that might hurt their master's bottom lines into you. These bastards don't even deserve the courtesy of a fuck you. They got theirs years ago have are merely fattening their larders on your sheep-like stupidity.
And finally, I'd like to direct a special fuck you, you got yours to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, both of whom did everything in their power to ensure that real healthcare reform never made it into the bill being considered now. Lieberman appears to have done so simply to be pissy, while Nelson whored his vote for full Medicaid funding for his state and no one else. Congratulations, citizens of Nebraska, you are now the welfare state. Fuck you, you got yours.
I only hope when the clusterfuck that this bill creates comes crashing down around all our ears in five to ten years, all you bastards will be without the socialized care you currently enjoy. Maybe then you'll start to realize that every other fucking country in the world does healthcare for everyone in their country better and cheaper than we do with that evil socialism you ignorantly harp on about. Until then, wake up every morning and say the new national motto.
Fuck you, I got mine.
Fuck you, you got yours.
This thank-you statement is, of course, what we as a nation should now adopt as our national motto, the creed, the very philosophical foundation on which we will build the future we deserve. Why? Nothing says ignorant bag of self-destructive cockgobblers like the attitudes we have taken towards providing basic goddamn healthcare to anyone without the means to pay than "Fuck you, I got mine." So for each individual in the following groups, I want to offer this saying.
Fuck you, you got yours.
To all you motherfuckers on Medicare who screamed at town hall meetings that Obama was a fascist who wanted "death panels" and that a public option was socialist, fuck you, you got yours. Your continued health, your very fucking life is entirely dependent on a "socialized" system that every working American pays into their entire working lives, and by all accounts works with more cost efficiency than private insurance, including the Medicare plans administered by private companies. And how do they do that? By negotiating lower rates with doctors, which according to most of the free market cocksuckers out there, is an abject sin.
To all those veterans who have given their lives and limbs to our country but complain that we might give public, socialized medicine to people regardless of their ability to pay, fuck you, you got yours. Before President Bush and the Neocon Parade drove our military straight into the ground with a useless fucking war in Iraq and overloaded it, the VA medical system was as efficient and well-run as Medicare. It was also completely funded by taxes that we all pay. It's not even a remotely equitable trade - you give up your lives for our freedoms and we give you healthcare. It's the least we can do. But don't complain when we want similar care paid for with our taxes.
For all of you with employer-provided healthcare, fuck you, you got yours. Yes, you most certainly do pay your premiums - but your employer pays more. Not only that, but both you and your employer's purchase of that insurance is subsidized by the government, which means its partly paid for by our taxes. These subsidies are in the form of the tax breaks for premiums (since they are taken out pre-tax) on individuals, but also tax breaks on employers. Incidentally, I am in this group myself - my employer pays most of my individual premium, and we both get tax breaks for it. The fuck me will come when I have to use this insurance and it's fairly large deductible and varied procedure schedule - something that will hit me directly in the pocket book at times when I can't work. I actually have to pay another premium for supplemental insurance to help cover those costs when I do get sick. As good as my subsidized plan is, I still could face serious financial ruin if I get deathly ill. And I can't afford the high premium to cover my self-employed wife with that, so fuck me twice.
To every motherfucking one of the Senators and Representatives currently bitching, moaning and complaining that ANYTHING that restricts the health insurance industry in the slightest is potentially passing through Congress, a huge fuck you, you got yours. You currently suckle at the best government healthcare teat imaginable, paying fuckall for a Cadillac insurance plan funded by the taxpayers, complete with your own fucking at call doctors and nurses in the same goddamn building. They don't even charge a co-pay. Their fuck you also covers anyone working in a government job using government health insurance who doesn't want to extend that coverage to the rest of us.
In short, YOU ALL GOT YOURS, and fuck the rest of us. Thank you very much for torpedoing any sort of real healthcare reform in favor of vague, idiotic worries about a political system you don't even understand, a knee-jerk buzzword taught you by vapid cuntwhistle pundits like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, used repeatedly to bludgeon the fear of anything that might hurt their master's bottom lines into you. These bastards don't even deserve the courtesy of a fuck you. They got theirs years ago have are merely fattening their larders on your sheep-like stupidity.
And finally, I'd like to direct a special fuck you, you got yours to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, both of whom did everything in their power to ensure that real healthcare reform never made it into the bill being considered now. Lieberman appears to have done so simply to be pissy, while Nelson whored his vote for full Medicaid funding for his state and no one else. Congratulations, citizens of Nebraska, you are now the welfare state. Fuck you, you got yours.
I only hope when the clusterfuck that this bill creates comes crashing down around all our ears in five to ten years, all you bastards will be without the socialized care you currently enjoy. Maybe then you'll start to realize that every other fucking country in the world does healthcare for everyone in their country better and cheaper than we do with that evil socialism you ignorantly harp on about. Until then, wake up every morning and say the new national motto.
Fuck you, I got mine.
Labels: Corporate Corruption, Government Corruption, Government Idiots, Health Care, Things I'd Like to Fire Into the Sun
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 11:31 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
A Tangled Mess of Incompatible Motivations
Posted on
Friday, September 04, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
The healthcare debate in the U.S. has been THE hot topic of the summer of 2009. My Twitter posts have been hammering on that particular drum like a shaggy Muppet. It's time to step back and logically examine the motivations of four of the current players in the upside-down craziness we call our for-profit healthcare system in this country, if for no other reason than to figure out why they act as they do. The four players are care providers (doctors and hospitals), insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the patients, and each wants something slightly different from the healthcare system. It is these different desires that are at odds with each other, and that opposition is contributing to the declining quality of healthcare in our country.
In a for-profit system, three of the four players compete for the attentions of the fourth and most important player, the patient. The patient is the ultimate source of profit for those three players, though not always in the most direct manner. The patient's motivations are easy enough to decipher, because we all share them. No matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, no matter what race or creed, religion or sexual preference, you access the healthcare system for one reason only: you want to be healthy. That's it, you want to be healthy. Unfortunately, the for-profit system has added a qualifier to that desire. Everyone wants to be healthy, and will do everything within their means in order to achieve that health. The for-profit system restricts that health based on the financial means of the patient. Everyone wants to be healthy, but no one wants to go bankrupt doing it. After all, if your cancer is cured but you lose your home and can't afford to feed yourself, the cure is akin to burning the grass to mow your lawn. Yes, your grass is indeed controlled, but it looks like the aftermath of Hiroshima and smells like gasoline. People want their health so they can enjoy their life as it is, not so they can move into a van down by the river. I'm sure most patients could care less who treats them so long as the end result is health without financial ruin.
The other three players have entirely different motivations, and it becomes most apparent when you consider what type of patient these players desire the most. Care providers, such as hospitals and doctors, are paid based on the services they render, whether that be an MRI, 20 minutes in consultation with a patient, an X-Ray, a surgery, or a hospital stay. Their most profitable patient is likely someone who is just sick enough to need plenty of care but not terminally ill. This ideal patient is also someone with the financial means to pay every time services are rendered, whether they pay directly or through an insurance provider. Healthy patients are no good to them because they don't need that many services. Poor people can't pay, so in addition to the costs of providing care and the time they take away from patients who can pay, poor people cost more because the provider often has to pay for collection agencies to extract as much money as they can from the non-paying clients.
Pharmaceutical companies want patients that are very similar to a hospital's ideal patient. As long as you're just sick enough to need constant medication but not sick enough that the medication is only delaying the inevitable, you are manna from heaven if you have the means to pay. In addition, if you need help for a condition that doesn't threaten your life like impotence, you are even better. No one NEEDS Viagra - it could go away tomorrow and the patients who use it wouldn't die. These drugs are very similar in my mind to things like alcohol or tobacco without the deadly side effects. Get the patient hooked on the euphoric feeling the drug provides, and they will keep coming back so long as they can pay. But people who can't pay for even the basics of care without significant hardship? Like care providers, pharma doesn't want them either.
Insurance companies, however, want a completely different type of patient. Their ideal patient isn't a patient at all, it's a healthy customer with the financial means to pay premiums. Premiums are revenue, revenue leads to profit. But the minute a patient needs to use the insurance product, they are a drain on the insurance company's revenue. Paying claims is a loss. The most profitable patient is the one that never uses the service.
With that in mind, it becomes obvious that providers and pharma are at odds with the insurance companies. Hospitals and pharma need patients that use their services, but insurance companies need patients who do not need those services. When those services are used by patients, it is in the best interests of the insurance companies that the prices for each service are as low as possible, while the care provider and the pharmaceutical companies want to charge as much as the market will allow. The patient wants to be healed with minimal financial loss and minimal interference.
How do you reconcile such conflicting desires? As a matter of policy, which desire should the government pay most attention to when discussing reforms? Is it the care providers, who want patients to use as many of their services as possible? Is it the pharmas, who want patients to use as many drugs as possible? Is it the insurance companies, who generate huge profits from not providing their services? Or is it the patient, the people part of the whole "We the people" form of government?
Government policy must put the needs of the whole community first in a system founded on the principles in the U.S. Constitution. All four of the players in this drama have financial motivations as a component of their desires. Is it more important for hospitals to make a profit than for insurance companies? Since hospitals provide the care that saves patients' lives, I would lean towards the hospitals. Should pharmaceutical companies be more important than hospitals? They are likely to be co-equal if not slightly less important than the hospital itself. In all this, insurance companies are the least important - after all, their function is that of a facilitator of payment. While their function can certainly ease the burden of the sick, are we any better off for having a third party extract a fee for shuffling paperwork instead of dealing with direct payment for services rendered?
But what should become readily apparent in all of this is that none of these entities exist, none of their profits are possible without the patient. If no one gets sick, the providers do not get paid. If no one needs to pay for treatment, insurance companies have no function. If all the patients die off, no one gets paid. The source of all the profit in the system is ultimately the patient. And since every single last one of us will be a patient at some point in our life, the patient IS the most important element in the entire healthcare system. Government policy must absolutely center on the patient, and the patient's desire for health without financial hardship must absolutely take precedence over any other desire.
There may well be room for profit in a patient-centric system. We can argue over the amount of that profit, or the recipient, as there are valid arguments to be made on all sides. But those arguments must never, ever forget that without caring for the patient, there can be no profit.
In a for-profit system, three of the four players compete for the attentions of the fourth and most important player, the patient. The patient is the ultimate source of profit for those three players, though not always in the most direct manner. The patient's motivations are easy enough to decipher, because we all share them. No matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, no matter what race or creed, religion or sexual preference, you access the healthcare system for one reason only: you want to be healthy. That's it, you want to be healthy. Unfortunately, the for-profit system has added a qualifier to that desire. Everyone wants to be healthy, and will do everything within their means in order to achieve that health. The for-profit system restricts that health based on the financial means of the patient. Everyone wants to be healthy, but no one wants to go bankrupt doing it. After all, if your cancer is cured but you lose your home and can't afford to feed yourself, the cure is akin to burning the grass to mow your lawn. Yes, your grass is indeed controlled, but it looks like the aftermath of Hiroshima and smells like gasoline. People want their health so they can enjoy their life as it is, not so they can move into a van down by the river. I'm sure most patients could care less who treats them so long as the end result is health without financial ruin.
The other three players have entirely different motivations, and it becomes most apparent when you consider what type of patient these players desire the most. Care providers, such as hospitals and doctors, are paid based on the services they render, whether that be an MRI, 20 minutes in consultation with a patient, an X-Ray, a surgery, or a hospital stay. Their most profitable patient is likely someone who is just sick enough to need plenty of care but not terminally ill. This ideal patient is also someone with the financial means to pay every time services are rendered, whether they pay directly or through an insurance provider. Healthy patients are no good to them because they don't need that many services. Poor people can't pay, so in addition to the costs of providing care and the time they take away from patients who can pay, poor people cost more because the provider often has to pay for collection agencies to extract as much money as they can from the non-paying clients.
Pharmaceutical companies want patients that are very similar to a hospital's ideal patient. As long as you're just sick enough to need constant medication but not sick enough that the medication is only delaying the inevitable, you are manna from heaven if you have the means to pay. In addition, if you need help for a condition that doesn't threaten your life like impotence, you are even better. No one NEEDS Viagra - it could go away tomorrow and the patients who use it wouldn't die. These drugs are very similar in my mind to things like alcohol or tobacco without the deadly side effects. Get the patient hooked on the euphoric feeling the drug provides, and they will keep coming back so long as they can pay. But people who can't pay for even the basics of care without significant hardship? Like care providers, pharma doesn't want them either.
Insurance companies, however, want a completely different type of patient. Their ideal patient isn't a patient at all, it's a healthy customer with the financial means to pay premiums. Premiums are revenue, revenue leads to profit. But the minute a patient needs to use the insurance product, they are a drain on the insurance company's revenue. Paying claims is a loss. The most profitable patient is the one that never uses the service.
With that in mind, it becomes obvious that providers and pharma are at odds with the insurance companies. Hospitals and pharma need patients that use their services, but insurance companies need patients who do not need those services. When those services are used by patients, it is in the best interests of the insurance companies that the prices for each service are as low as possible, while the care provider and the pharmaceutical companies want to charge as much as the market will allow. The patient wants to be healed with minimal financial loss and minimal interference.
How do you reconcile such conflicting desires? As a matter of policy, which desire should the government pay most attention to when discussing reforms? Is it the care providers, who want patients to use as many of their services as possible? Is it the pharmas, who want patients to use as many drugs as possible? Is it the insurance companies, who generate huge profits from not providing their services? Or is it the patient, the people part of the whole "We the people" form of government?
Government policy must put the needs of the whole community first in a system founded on the principles in the U.S. Constitution. All four of the players in this drama have financial motivations as a component of their desires. Is it more important for hospitals to make a profit than for insurance companies? Since hospitals provide the care that saves patients' lives, I would lean towards the hospitals. Should pharmaceutical companies be more important than hospitals? They are likely to be co-equal if not slightly less important than the hospital itself. In all this, insurance companies are the least important - after all, their function is that of a facilitator of payment. While their function can certainly ease the burden of the sick, are we any better off for having a third party extract a fee for shuffling paperwork instead of dealing with direct payment for services rendered?
But what should become readily apparent in all of this is that none of these entities exist, none of their profits are possible without the patient. If no one gets sick, the providers do not get paid. If no one needs to pay for treatment, insurance companies have no function. If all the patients die off, no one gets paid. The source of all the profit in the system is ultimately the patient. And since every single last one of us will be a patient at some point in our life, the patient IS the most important element in the entire healthcare system. Government policy must absolutely center on the patient, and the patient's desire for health without financial hardship must absolutely take precedence over any other desire.
There may well be room for profit in a patient-centric system. We can argue over the amount of that profit, or the recipient, as there are valid arguments to be made on all sides. But those arguments must never, ever forget that without caring for the patient, there can be no profit.
Labels: Health Care, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 8:37 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The Jesus Co-Pay
Posted on
Monday, July 13, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
After some interesting Twitter discussions about healthcare reform last week, I began to think about the conservative right position against universal/socialized/single-payer/public-option healthcare in America. Since the Republican party has so inextricably linked itself with the increasingly odious politically evangelical Christian movement in order to win elections, I'm rather insulted at the hostile reaction our Republican political establishment has shown towards any option that doesn't allow private insurance companies to bankrupt ordinary Americans with high premiums and denial of coverage on financial grounds. No one in favor of some form of public option for healthcare is under any illusion that the program won't be costly. I personally feel that it should likely be expected to cost the country a metric fuckton. If there was ever a government program for which deficit spending is a necessary evil, it's providing healthcare to every citizen regardless of ability to pay. Better to lose a dollar saving a life than to spend fifty cents taking a life in war. But the argument I'm so often hearing against healthcare is the "I shouldn't have to pay so some lazy bastard without a job can get healthcare."
Let's cut the bullshit. For the record, you are already paying for the lazy bastard without a job to get care at the emergency room. The law does not allow emergency rooms to refuse care to anyone. When that "lazy bastard" gets care at the ER, he does so on the hospital's dime if he cannot pay. The hospital passes that loss off to the people who can pay - if you have health insurance, that's you and your insurance company. You pay higher costs at the hospital, the insurance company charges you a higher premium, and healthcare costs continue to balloon well past the normal rate of inflation. Of course, just calling that person who can't pay a "lazy bastard" assumes that the ER isn't the only healthcare outlet for the working poor, who often can't take afford to take time off of work to visit a doctor during banker's hours.
But continue to call anyone who receives any kind of government aid a "lazy bastard" if that's what helps you sleep at night knowing you are condemning working mothers with three kids as shiftless drains on society. Forget the fact that not only do you receive government benefits for paying insurance premiums (it cuts down on your taxable income - so in effect, it's a tax credit) but your employer does as well (who also gets deductions for providing health insurance). We can quibble about the amount of benefit you receive in comparison, but don't act like you aren't sucking at a government teat just a wee bit.
The most galling part about hearing someone who claims to be a Christian criticizing a universal program as forcing them to pay for "lazy bastards" is how dissociated that attitude is from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I'm no Christian - I find organized religion odious. Nor am I a Biblical scholar, but having grown up with Baptist and Assembly of God teaching, as well as having done my own reading, I can safely say that your attitude would make baby Jesus weep.
Jesus did a lot of healing in his short time as wandering prophet. He healed lepers, cripples, whores, the poor - you know, pretty much every shitheel he could find. If you believe the stories, he even cured a zombie (or created one - we don't know if Lazarus developed a taste for brains). I don't ever remember Jesus asking for a co-pay, or checking for an insurance card. He didn't even moralize about your life choices, or refuse to help someone who might have been gay, or had an abortion, or didn't vote Republican. He didn't ask if you were crippled from birth and therefore might not be eligible for MessiahCare™. Perhaps the disciples forgot to mention Jesus easy payment terms, or the fact that he took checks, debit or credit cards for service. No, Jesus healed the sick with nothing more than a few words about his father and a helpful life lesson. Maybe he asked for a loaf of bread or a fish for his posse, but even then, he was the original Discover card - give one fish, get five back in his handy Fish Back™ program.
If Republicans/Conservatives want to claim they are Christians and that our nation is a Christian one, founded on Christian values, it's time to put up or shut the fuck up. Jesus didn't charge a co-pay. Of course, neither the government nor healthcare professionals are Jesus; they can't practice medicine without some costs. Jesus had no drug costs, his time was free and his materials were divine. But the philosophy is what's important here. Jesus wanted to heal the sick, regardless of whether they were "lazy bastards" or working members of society, whether they were moral followers or the dregs of immorality. The government may not be Jesus, but they damn sure should aspire to one of the basic tenets of the founding of America: every citizen has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which is difficult when one has to choose between crippling bankruptcy or crippling sickness.
It's almost like the political establishment expects everyone to get their healthcare from this guy.
Let's cut the bullshit. For the record, you are already paying for the lazy bastard without a job to get care at the emergency room. The law does not allow emergency rooms to refuse care to anyone. When that "lazy bastard" gets care at the ER, he does so on the hospital's dime if he cannot pay. The hospital passes that loss off to the people who can pay - if you have health insurance, that's you and your insurance company. You pay higher costs at the hospital, the insurance company charges you a higher premium, and healthcare costs continue to balloon well past the normal rate of inflation. Of course, just calling that person who can't pay a "lazy bastard" assumes that the ER isn't the only healthcare outlet for the working poor, who often can't take afford to take time off of work to visit a doctor during banker's hours.
But continue to call anyone who receives any kind of government aid a "lazy bastard" if that's what helps you sleep at night knowing you are condemning working mothers with three kids as shiftless drains on society. Forget the fact that not only do you receive government benefits for paying insurance premiums (it cuts down on your taxable income - so in effect, it's a tax credit) but your employer does as well (who also gets deductions for providing health insurance). We can quibble about the amount of benefit you receive in comparison, but don't act like you aren't sucking at a government teat just a wee bit.
The most galling part about hearing someone who claims to be a Christian criticizing a universal program as forcing them to pay for "lazy bastards" is how dissociated that attitude is from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I'm no Christian - I find organized religion odious. Nor am I a Biblical scholar, but having grown up with Baptist and Assembly of God teaching, as well as having done my own reading, I can safely say that your attitude would make baby Jesus weep.
Jesus did a lot of healing in his short time as wandering prophet. He healed lepers, cripples, whores, the poor - you know, pretty much every shitheel he could find. If you believe the stories, he even cured a zombie (or created one - we don't know if Lazarus developed a taste for brains). I don't ever remember Jesus asking for a co-pay, or checking for an insurance card. He didn't even moralize about your life choices, or refuse to help someone who might have been gay, or had an abortion, or didn't vote Republican. He didn't ask if you were crippled from birth and therefore might not be eligible for MessiahCare™. Perhaps the disciples forgot to mention Jesus easy payment terms, or the fact that he took checks, debit or credit cards for service. No, Jesus healed the sick with nothing more than a few words about his father and a helpful life lesson. Maybe he asked for a loaf of bread or a fish for his posse, but even then, he was the original Discover card - give one fish, get five back in his handy Fish Back™ program.
If Republicans/Conservatives want to claim they are Christians and that our nation is a Christian one, founded on Christian values, it's time to put up or shut the fuck up. Jesus didn't charge a co-pay. Of course, neither the government nor healthcare professionals are Jesus; they can't practice medicine without some costs. Jesus had no drug costs, his time was free and his materials were divine. But the philosophy is what's important here. Jesus wanted to heal the sick, regardless of whether they were "lazy bastards" or working members of society, whether they were moral followers or the dregs of immorality. The government may not be Jesus, but they damn sure should aspire to one of the basic tenets of the founding of America: every citizen has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which is difficult when one has to choose between crippling bankruptcy or crippling sickness.
It's almost like the political establishment expects everyone to get their healthcare from this guy.
Labels: Corporate Corruption, Government Corruption, Government Idiots, Health Care, Politics, Religious Corruption
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:30 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Getting a Head Start on the Angry Mob
Posted on
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
What do I see in the New York Times online edition? Some promising news about the upcoming battle to provide Americans with healthcare, of course. It seems that the major health insurers are now ready to drop their objections to covering people with pre-existing conditions. How big of them to show a readiness to work with Congress after decades of obstructing any progress on universal healthcare based on the objection that people with chronic conditions were unprofitable and thus unworthy of coverage.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the insurers softening their stance. This country needs universal (GASP SOCIALISM!) healthcare in the worst possible way. Our economy has suffered greatly for it, our businesses are getting gang-raped by the onerous cost of making sure their workers are well enough to come to work, and families are one goddamn disease away from total financial ruin. But make no mistake, this was not the insurers being magnanimous, nor is it a signal they are really ready to give up the gravy train fed from the bone marrow of cancer patients.
This is an industry realizing that their customers have had enough and they aren't going to take this shit lying down anymore. Well, the ones that can still stand, that is. For whatever his flaws and failings may be, Pres. Obama is committed to providing every American healthcare, and the amount of public hostility towards insurers as well as the shift in Congressional party makeup makes the writing on the wall clear in gigantic, 90-point Helvetica type. Your money-siphoning days are over.
Of course, these insurers are still opposed to a government-run health care system. They are opposed because if a government system is run in competition to their own, the chances are they will lose most of their business. Not because the government system will automatically be better (though it certainly couldn't be much worse) but because that system will likely be CHEAPER, and these companies have never really had to compete on price to individuals. Sure, they'll offer group discounts to businesses, because that money is guaranteed. But individuals? They've never wanted to have to compete for individuals, because those are nickel and dime customers. It's harder to please them, the margins are terrible and the industry has spent almost 40 years pissing them off. I can almost guarantee that if offered a chance between a cheaper government-run system and a private insurer, the cheaper option would win out for 70% of the population. With that kind of competition, what are insurers going to offer customers for the higher premiums?
All they would have at that point is better doctors (very subjective), lower wait times and... well, what else do they have? Their entire business model would have to change, and they might actually have to market themselves. It's a lose-lose proposition.
But within their willingness to work with Congress on dropping the pre-existing condition restrictions is a fun little poison pill. They only want to do it if Congress can mandate that every American must be covered by insurance. That means they want to pull the same crap the auto insurers did years ago - i.e. make everyone have to buy coverage from the insurers. At that point, their pool of healthy customers is large enough that it offsets the need to help the deadbeats with Parkinson's. And of course, they would resist any government intervention in pricing policies.
Let me be blunt, health insurance industry. The free ride is over. In whatever form it finally comes, you will not be able to keep things going as they are. Whether it takes 20 years and goes through three Presidents and multiple changes of Congress, the American people are fed up with your bullshit. You'd better get a head start now, because there's an angry mob right the fuck behind you and they won't stop until they get what they want.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the insurers softening their stance. This country needs universal (GASP SOCIALISM!) healthcare in the worst possible way. Our economy has suffered greatly for it, our businesses are getting gang-raped by the onerous cost of making sure their workers are well enough to come to work, and families are one goddamn disease away from total financial ruin. But make no mistake, this was not the insurers being magnanimous, nor is it a signal they are really ready to give up the gravy train fed from the bone marrow of cancer patients.
This is an industry realizing that their customers have had enough and they aren't going to take this shit lying down anymore. Well, the ones that can still stand, that is. For whatever his flaws and failings may be, Pres. Obama is committed to providing every American healthcare, and the amount of public hostility towards insurers as well as the shift in Congressional party makeup makes the writing on the wall clear in gigantic, 90-point Helvetica type. Your money-siphoning days are over.
Of course, these insurers are still opposed to a government-run health care system. They are opposed because if a government system is run in competition to their own, the chances are they will lose most of their business. Not because the government system will automatically be better (though it certainly couldn't be much worse) but because that system will likely be CHEAPER, and these companies have never really had to compete on price to individuals. Sure, they'll offer group discounts to businesses, because that money is guaranteed. But individuals? They've never wanted to have to compete for individuals, because those are nickel and dime customers. It's harder to please them, the margins are terrible and the industry has spent almost 40 years pissing them off. I can almost guarantee that if offered a chance between a cheaper government-run system and a private insurer, the cheaper option would win out for 70% of the population. With that kind of competition, what are insurers going to offer customers for the higher premiums?
All they would have at that point is better doctors (very subjective), lower wait times and... well, what else do they have? Their entire business model would have to change, and they might actually have to market themselves. It's a lose-lose proposition.
But within their willingness to work with Congress on dropping the pre-existing condition restrictions is a fun little poison pill. They only want to do it if Congress can mandate that every American must be covered by insurance. That means they want to pull the same crap the auto insurers did years ago - i.e. make everyone have to buy coverage from the insurers. At that point, their pool of healthy customers is large enough that it offsets the need to help the deadbeats with Parkinson's. And of course, they would resist any government intervention in pricing policies.
Let me be blunt, health insurance industry. The free ride is over. In whatever form it finally comes, you will not be able to keep things going as they are. Whether it takes 20 years and goes through three Presidents and multiple changes of Congress, the American people are fed up with your bullshit. You'd better get a head start now, because there's an angry mob right the fuck behind you and they won't stop until they get what they want.
Labels: Corporate Corruption, Health Care, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:34 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Congressional Democrats Need a New Agenda
Posted on
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
This story from the LA Times gave me a brief moment of hope, which was quickly dashed by political pussyfooting. Presidential candidate and noted leprechaun Dennis Kucinich filed three articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives against Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday, proving that this diminutive Ohio Democrat has more balls per square inch than the entire Senate put together. The articles were, of course, doomed to failure, much like the tiny Congressmidget's presidential campaign, unfortunately. But it was a statement by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer that got my tits in a twist.
According to the article:
That's great, Steny. What exactly is the agenda, then? Is it upgrading S-CHIP? That's already been vetoed and you couldn't muster the votes to override the veto. Is it the war in Iraq? You've already rolled over like whipped dogs and let Bush scratch your belly, giving him every cent he asked for without holding him to any of his own benchmarks. Is it the U.S. Attorney firing scandal? Nope, you've pissed that one away by refusing to actually hold administration officials in contempt for not answering your subpoenas, and let Alberto Gonzales get away with lying directly to you under oath. Is it exposing fraud in Iraq war contracting, or Bush's private militia Blackwater's actions, raising the minimum wage or the fuckups of FEMA during Katrina? That's right, you've done fuckall with those issues as well.
So what is the agenda? From where I sit, you've been stymied at every opportunity by procedural shenanigans, or by Republicans in Democrats' clothing like Joe Lieberman. You've been made to look like complete pussies by the Republican noise machine's framing of all the important issues as failings of your party. Is there some other agenda, maybe like not rocking the boat too much and avoiding nuclear showdowns so you can sneak a Democratic president into the White House next year and get a rubber stamp Democratic Congress?
Look, I understand the political reality of the impeachment situation. I realize that you believe impeaching an obviously criminal, lame-duck president during a war would make you appear to be partisan hacks, just like the Republicans in 1998. I realize you believe the backlash would lose you seats in the Congress. Only, that isn't what happened to the Republicans. By 2002, they'd won a majority in Congress despite the supposed backlash over the trivialities of the Clinton impeachment. I realize you feel it would deadlock the Congress with a process that most likely would not result in the removal of Cheney or Bush from their positions of power.
But at some point, the Democratic leadership in Congress has got to wake the fuck up and realize this President has no intention of compromising on anything. He is the ultimate child king, an immature demagogue holding his breath until he gets his way. His way means the lives of troops in Iraq will be wasted, health insurance for poor kids goes unfunded and the pillaging of this country's treasury by corporate raiders with no sense of responsibility to the country that has made them rich beyond measure. He is not willing to work with you no matter what you offer. He is not willing to end the war in Iraq, he's not willing to stop torturing detainees whether innocent or guilty, and he's not willing to do anything that might make him anything less than an absolute ruler.
It's almost certain that impeachment would fail. It would be a terrible, ugly scene with sniping back and forth, partisan politics juiced to their most ugly spectacle. But it would be the right thing to do. And it would finally expose some of the nastiest political tricksters this country has ever seen as the devious shitheels they really are. It would serve as a warning to future Presidents that such evil will not be tolerated, an example that apparently Watergate did not provide to someone like Dick Cheney.
The Congressional Democrats need a new agenda, and fast. The one they've got is based on faulty logic and the misguided hope that a Democratic President will fix all the nation's problems. Without the precedent of an impeachment against the Executive, it will only serve to embolden future power-hungry assholes, and this country has shown a startling desire to elect such power-hungry assholes, and then re-elect them.
According to the article:
"Impeachment is not on our agenda," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer(D-Md.). "We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those."
That's great, Steny. What exactly is the agenda, then? Is it upgrading S-CHIP? That's already been vetoed and you couldn't muster the votes to override the veto. Is it the war in Iraq? You've already rolled over like whipped dogs and let Bush scratch your belly, giving him every cent he asked for without holding him to any of his own benchmarks. Is it the U.S. Attorney firing scandal? Nope, you've pissed that one away by refusing to actually hold administration officials in contempt for not answering your subpoenas, and let Alberto Gonzales get away with lying directly to you under oath. Is it exposing fraud in Iraq war contracting, or Bush's private militia Blackwater's actions, raising the minimum wage or the fuckups of FEMA during Katrina? That's right, you've done fuckall with those issues as well.
So what is the agenda? From where I sit, you've been stymied at every opportunity by procedural shenanigans, or by Republicans in Democrats' clothing like Joe Lieberman. You've been made to look like complete pussies by the Republican noise machine's framing of all the important issues as failings of your party. Is there some other agenda, maybe like not rocking the boat too much and avoiding nuclear showdowns so you can sneak a Democratic president into the White House next year and get a rubber stamp Democratic Congress?
Look, I understand the political reality of the impeachment situation. I realize that you believe impeaching an obviously criminal, lame-duck president during a war would make you appear to be partisan hacks, just like the Republicans in 1998. I realize you believe the backlash would lose you seats in the Congress. Only, that isn't what happened to the Republicans. By 2002, they'd won a majority in Congress despite the supposed backlash over the trivialities of the Clinton impeachment. I realize you feel it would deadlock the Congress with a process that most likely would not result in the removal of Cheney or Bush from their positions of power.
But at some point, the Democratic leadership in Congress has got to wake the fuck up and realize this President has no intention of compromising on anything. He is the ultimate child king, an immature demagogue holding his breath until he gets his way. His way means the lives of troops in Iraq will be wasted, health insurance for poor kids goes unfunded and the pillaging of this country's treasury by corporate raiders with no sense of responsibility to the country that has made them rich beyond measure. He is not willing to work with you no matter what you offer. He is not willing to end the war in Iraq, he's not willing to stop torturing detainees whether innocent or guilty, and he's not willing to do anything that might make him anything less than an absolute ruler.
It's almost certain that impeachment would fail. It would be a terrible, ugly scene with sniping back and forth, partisan politics juiced to their most ugly spectacle. But it would be the right thing to do. And it would finally expose some of the nastiest political tricksters this country has ever seen as the devious shitheels they really are. It would serve as a warning to future Presidents that such evil will not be tolerated, an example that apparently Watergate did not provide to someone like Dick Cheney.
The Congressional Democrats need a new agenda, and fast. The one they've got is based on faulty logic and the misguided hope that a Democratic President will fix all the nation's problems. Without the precedent of an impeachment against the Executive, it will only serve to embolden future power-hungry assholes, and this country has shown a startling desire to elect such power-hungry assholes, and then re-elect them.
Labels: Bush Administration, Corporate Corruption, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Habeus Corpus, Health Care, Iraq, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:26 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Republicans Who Hate The Working Poor
Posted on
Friday, January 26, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Thanks to BobGeiger.com, I now have a list of Republican Senators who hate the working poor with all their widdle hearts.
These are the 28 Republican Senators who voted FOR legislation that would completely eliminate the Federal Minimum Wage. To do so would mean that each state could set its own minimum wage at whatever level it wanted, or eliminate the concept completely. So we wouldn't even need to worry that businesses which hire illegal immigrants were doing so at a level below the minimum wage, since there'd be no minimum wage to come under. You'd just get paid whatever your boss thought you were owed, even if that meant he gave you magic fucking beans and told you to be thankful for that.
And of course, the two Republicunt Senators from my state, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, of fucking course these douchebags of the highest order voted FOR this bill. I mean, it isn't like Mississippi isn't currently one of the poorest states in the nation.
For fuck's sake, the people who benefit from the minimum wage aren't criminals or deadbeats. These are people, young and old, married and single, with children and without, who are WORKING to feed themselves and their families. These are people who are actually employed, taking part in the economy and buying their small pieces of the American Dream. These are the same people who can't afford fucking health care, and you want to make sure that employers will now start paying them less? Do you really hate poor people that much? Are you really such a fan of feudalism and no-wage slavery that you want to remove such an important protection from the working poor?
Fuck you, you fat bag of asses. Get a real goddamn job.
These are the 28 Republican Senators who voted FOR legislation that would completely eliminate the Federal Minimum Wage. To do so would mean that each state could set its own minimum wage at whatever level it wanted, or eliminate the concept completely. So we wouldn't even need to worry that businesses which hire illegal immigrants were doing so at a level below the minimum wage, since there'd be no minimum wage to come under. You'd just get paid whatever your boss thought you were owed, even if that meant he gave you magic fucking beans and told you to be thankful for that.
And of course, the two Republicunt Senators from my state, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, of fucking course these douchebags of the highest order voted FOR this bill. I mean, it isn't like Mississippi isn't currently one of the poorest states in the nation.
For fuck's sake, the people who benefit from the minimum wage aren't criminals or deadbeats. These are people, young and old, married and single, with children and without, who are WORKING to feed themselves and their families. These are people who are actually employed, taking part in the economy and buying their small pieces of the American Dream. These are the same people who can't afford fucking health care, and you want to make sure that employers will now start paying them less? Do you really hate poor people that much? Are you really such a fan of feudalism and no-wage slavery that you want to remove such an important protection from the working poor?
Fuck you, you fat bag of asses. Get a real goddamn job.
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Health Care, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 2:36 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Bush Says Health Insurance Isn't for Poor People
Posted on
Saturday, January 20, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
George W. Bush, Jr. and his crony administration don't want you to have health insurance. Oh sure, they want to appear as if they care about average Americans and the astronomically-rising cost of health care. But it doesn't take an economist or a genius to see through his latest health insurance legislation to the true disdain for working-class Americans at the heart of this bill.
For the first time, Bush wants to give a tax deduction to citizens who purchase their own health insurance instead of having it provided by their employer. Now that part of the program I can get behind. After all, people who are self-employed don't have employers to provide health care, and it would certainly be a help to have a tax break for such necessities.
That sounds great. But it's the next part that really pisses from a very great height on working class Americans, especially the middle class that has been such an over-abused fuckpuppet of the Bush Administration.
And that's where the knife gets twisted. Those people who work for a living, but get their insurance through their company get penalized for picking the top-tier insurance plans. It's ok if you get the cheap plan with the giant deductible, but if you want to have your family really protected without having to pay out the ass in deductibles, you should be punished by having your taxes raised.
But look further. The really rich folks who choose not to buy health insurance through their employers, and can afford the top-tier of health insurance, the people I call the idle rich, those folks actually get a tax break. It's a small one, certainly. But these are also the people who benefited most from previous Bush tax breaks like capital-gains tax breaks, people who already likely have plenty of tax breaks and shelters and ways to hide their income with investments. So what might at first glance look like an aid to American families is just as much of a giveaway to the idle rich as all other Bush tax changes.
Anything to avoid the stench of socialized medicine, right, Shrub? Those damned entitlement programs are evil, unless they are aiding the people with the most money to donate to the campaign fund. Let's not forget that the insurance companies likely do not have to provide the same kind of bulk discounts to regular customers that they do to businesses who purchase blocks of plans for all their employees.
Yes, entitlement is evil, until it rewards you and your business friends.
For the first time, Bush wants to give a tax deduction to citizens who purchase their own health insurance instead of having it provided by their employer. Now that part of the program I can get behind. After all, people who are self-employed don't have employers to provide health care, and it would certainly be a help to have a tax break for such necessities.
Bush's proposal would for the first time allow people to take a tax deduction -- similar to the one used by homeowners for their mortgage costs -- when they buy health coverage on their own instead of through an employer.
That sounds great. But it's the next part that really pisses from a very great height on working class Americans, especially the middle class that has been such an over-abused fuckpuppet of the Bush Administration.
The program is intended to have no effect on government revenues because
the cost of the tax breaks would be offset with other tax changes, according to
a senior administration official who described the proposal to reporters.
Currently, employees who receive health coverage through their jobs do not
pay taxes on the benefit. Bush would set a cap on the amount of coverage that
would be considered tax-free. Anything above that would be taxed as income.
The limit for deductions would be $15,000 for families and $7,500 for
individual, one administration official said. The average cost of family health
coverage is $11,500....Bush said the tax code unfairly penalized people who want to buy health insurance on their own while offering incentives for people to use expensive, "gold-plated" coverage.
At least one senior lawmaker in the new Democratic Congress raised objections to Bush's proposal."This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured," said New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee...."We must address these rising costs, so that more Americans can afford basic health insurance. And we need to do it without creating a new federal entitlement program or raising taxes," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
And that's where the knife gets twisted. Those people who work for a living, but get their insurance through their company get penalized for picking the top-tier insurance plans. It's ok if you get the cheap plan with the giant deductible, but if you want to have your family really protected without having to pay out the ass in deductibles, you should be punished by having your taxes raised.
But look further. The really rich folks who choose not to buy health insurance through their employers, and can afford the top-tier of health insurance, the people I call the idle rich, those folks actually get a tax break. It's a small one, certainly. But these are also the people who benefited most from previous Bush tax breaks like capital-gains tax breaks, people who already likely have plenty of tax breaks and shelters and ways to hide their income with investments. So what might at first glance look like an aid to American families is just as much of a giveaway to the idle rich as all other Bush tax changes.
Anything to avoid the stench of socialized medicine, right, Shrub? Those damned entitlement programs are evil, unless they are aiding the people with the most money to donate to the campaign fund. Let's not forget that the insurance companies likely do not have to provide the same kind of bulk discounts to regular customers that they do to businesses who purchase blocks of plans for all their employees.
Yes, entitlement is evil, until it rewards you and your business friends.
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Health Care, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 4:46 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The Dread Specter of Socialized Medicine
Posted on
Thursday, November 09, 2006
by Gary A. Ballard
Now that the Democrats have taken back both houses of Congress (or as good as with the Webb/Allen fight still not ultimately decided), I'm hoping that the Democratic platform will include at least a cursory stab at health care issues. My wildest dream is that they will somehow magically produce a "universal health care" plan that is workable and passable. Of course, the moment such a plan is announced, the same grousing politicians who have fought health care legislation for almost two decades will begin the shrill whining alarm bells about the dangers of socialized medicine.
The word socialized in the mouth of these politicians has come to mean something completely different from what it should, something similar to the word liberal. To this bunch of corrupt, corporate-pandering, lobbyist-coddled lazabouts, it is meant to evoke images of the great Soviet Communist Empire. Combined with medicine, the words are supposed to conjure images of incompetent doctors with as much passion about saving lives as an assembly line factory worker has about riveting sheet metal, of long lines at free clinics with the unwashed masses of lazy mendicants and welfare recipients, and of stacks of paperwork in triplicate as a requirement to get an aspirin. You are supposed to think that giving in to socialized medicine in this country would tip us over some mythical line in the sand that would eventually destroy our freedom, where every step on the street would be dogged by soldiers asking for your papers. I only wish I was exaggerating, but that truly is the images these Cold War relics have skillfully attached to the word socialized.
But there is nothing in the idea of socialized medicine that makes any of those outcomes a certainty, provided those crafting such legislation deassify their heads long enough to think beyond what pork barrel corporate handout they want to give to the drug and insurance industries next. Government programs don't have to be waste-ridden shitpiles of inefficient, heartless automatons filling out paperwork instead of helping people unless there is no commitment from the top down for the program to be a success.
Do you want to know my image of socialized medicine, what I think of when those words are presented? I think of a hard-working mother of three making minimum wage being able to take her kids to the doctor when they get the sniffles. Instead of choosing between food or antibiotics, she gets both in a timely fashion. I see that working mother missing only three days of work when she gets a cold of her own, instead of the five days she might normally miss. I see the middle-aged steel worker getting regular checkups instead of waiting until his arteries harden and he has his first heart attack at the age of 39. I see the struggling middle class office worker finding cancer a year before the lump forms on his testicles, and getting treated for it without going bankrupt in the process. I see expectant low income mothers getting prenatal care for their babies, leading to higher birth rates and healthier babies.
And I see people who already have the money to afford good healthcare getting the same level of treatment that the lower income people do, and getting better care because they can afford even more coverage. And I see people with more money than they can ever spend actually paying another .01% of their goddamn fortune to provide this for everyone.
See, that's the thing about social programs. They aren't there to take money from people who don't have money to give. They are there to provide vital services to people who might not otherwise be able to avail themselves of those services. I'm not talking about Bentleys in every garage; I'm talking about basic human needs being met, needs like antibiotics to fight off colds and cancer treatments to survive to see your kids graduate college. Those are things the American Dream is SUPPOSED to provide, and it isn't doing it. The American Dream doesn't exist to provide millionares with another tax break; it exists to provide opportunities to all men and women regardless of class, race, religion or any other criteria.
As for business, I can't imagine any industry besides the insurance and pharmaceutical industries thinking this is a bad idea. In the scenarios I mentioned above, the minimum wage mother has two less days of missing work, which is two more days of productivity she might otherwise not have provided. The steel worker with the heart attack doesn't miss months of work recuperating. The office worker with cancer doesn't die from undetected terminal cancer, and so gives the office years more of service. These things are all good for business. The most important thing to remember about business is that while executives may provide the ideas, those ideas are worthless without the execution by the workers. Business relationships are social contracts with responsibilities on both sides of the coin.
But I'm sure opponents of socialized medicine will just claim it another handout to the lazy frauds that are killing the welfare system, get in their Bentleys and drive to their doctor, safe in the knowledge they've kept their campaign contributor's fortunes safe. I know better.
The word socialized in the mouth of these politicians has come to mean something completely different from what it should, something similar to the word liberal. To this bunch of corrupt, corporate-pandering, lobbyist-coddled lazabouts, it is meant to evoke images of the great Soviet Communist Empire. Combined with medicine, the words are supposed to conjure images of incompetent doctors with as much passion about saving lives as an assembly line factory worker has about riveting sheet metal, of long lines at free clinics with the unwashed masses of lazy mendicants and welfare recipients, and of stacks of paperwork in triplicate as a requirement to get an aspirin. You are supposed to think that giving in to socialized medicine in this country would tip us over some mythical line in the sand that would eventually destroy our freedom, where every step on the street would be dogged by soldiers asking for your papers. I only wish I was exaggerating, but that truly is the images these Cold War relics have skillfully attached to the word socialized.
But there is nothing in the idea of socialized medicine that makes any of those outcomes a certainty, provided those crafting such legislation deassify their heads long enough to think beyond what pork barrel corporate handout they want to give to the drug and insurance industries next. Government programs don't have to be waste-ridden shitpiles of inefficient, heartless automatons filling out paperwork instead of helping people unless there is no commitment from the top down for the program to be a success.
Do you want to know my image of socialized medicine, what I think of when those words are presented? I think of a hard-working mother of three making minimum wage being able to take her kids to the doctor when they get the sniffles. Instead of choosing between food or antibiotics, she gets both in a timely fashion. I see that working mother missing only three days of work when she gets a cold of her own, instead of the five days she might normally miss. I see the middle-aged steel worker getting regular checkups instead of waiting until his arteries harden and he has his first heart attack at the age of 39. I see the struggling middle class office worker finding cancer a year before the lump forms on his testicles, and getting treated for it without going bankrupt in the process. I see expectant low income mothers getting prenatal care for their babies, leading to higher birth rates and healthier babies.
And I see people who already have the money to afford good healthcare getting the same level of treatment that the lower income people do, and getting better care because they can afford even more coverage. And I see people with more money than they can ever spend actually paying another .01% of their goddamn fortune to provide this for everyone.
See, that's the thing about social programs. They aren't there to take money from people who don't have money to give. They are there to provide vital services to people who might not otherwise be able to avail themselves of those services. I'm not talking about Bentleys in every garage; I'm talking about basic human needs being met, needs like antibiotics to fight off colds and cancer treatments to survive to see your kids graduate college. Those are things the American Dream is SUPPOSED to provide, and it isn't doing it. The American Dream doesn't exist to provide millionares with another tax break; it exists to provide opportunities to all men and women regardless of class, race, religion or any other criteria.
As for business, I can't imagine any industry besides the insurance and pharmaceutical industries thinking this is a bad idea. In the scenarios I mentioned above, the minimum wage mother has two less days of missing work, which is two more days of productivity she might otherwise not have provided. The steel worker with the heart attack doesn't miss months of work recuperating. The office worker with cancer doesn't die from undetected terminal cancer, and so gives the office years more of service. These things are all good for business. The most important thing to remember about business is that while executives may provide the ideas, those ideas are worthless without the execution by the workers. Business relationships are social contracts with responsibilities on both sides of the coin.
But I'm sure opponents of socialized medicine will just claim it another handout to the lazy frauds that are killing the welfare system, get in their Bentleys and drive to their doctor, safe in the knowledge they've kept their campaign contributor's fortunes safe. I know better.
Labels: Bush Administration, Health Care, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:47 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|