Into the depths of our future unknown, we turn to our inner primal fears. We lash and claw and bite at the very mechanism of our solutions. We live in an unsustainable culture: peak oil, over-population and massive worldwide environmental degradation guarantee the collapse of our society as we know it. There is no avoiding it, there is only delay.
Our current national health care debate is turning into a spectacle of ignorance, fear and brimming violence as the extreme right grows into the bullying fascism perfected by Hitler. One of the keys to understand contemporary American fascism (see Naomi Wolf’s “The End of America” for a good outline) is the insipid relationship between corporations and the American government. Hitler groveled to the German steel industry for their support and their money and the Krupps, etc. quite happily supported his visionary militarism. More guns mean more sales mean more money for the corporate execs. This intertwining of private interests and public policy is a constant throughout American history ever since Shay’s Rebellion taught the framers of the US constitution that government had an important role in protecting corporate interests.
So when we see Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana holding up the health care bill, one must consider the fact that he is the leading recipient of campaign money from the ”health care” industry. Could it be that the $3 million dollars that he has received will influence how he behaves in the backrooms of the Senate? Could it be that his sponsors would use their influence to change his behavior? Does Max Baucus act in the interests of his constituents as well as the rest of America or is he more interested in currying the favors of his corporate donors?
It is true that gov’t programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the VA run much lower administration costs than do private industry. For one, they cannot payout the massive compensation that private industry executives receive. Private industry is designed to do only one thing: make money. Giving healthcare to people is antithetical to their bottom line. They give out only what they have to and they take whatever they can. So while healthcare executives fly around the world in their corporate jets dining on gold encrusted silverware, people are dying from lack of adequate healthcare (see DemocracyNow’s interview with Wendell Potter [http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter]). It is also true that private insurers have a huge influence on what decisions doctors make for their patients, in fact, much more than any gov’t program. We are seeing Republicans and their far right conservative base using misinformation to reach into the depths of our collective primal fears to preserve the status quo of private industry controlling our health care solutions. Which everyone agrees is inefficient and failing. People are screaming to keep the gov’t out of the doctor’s office, but, by God, don’t touch their Medicare. Go figure.
What is their solution? You can only trust a corporate executive to do what corporate executives do: whatever it takes to preserve their wealth and their privileged way of life. The results of their actions among us commoners are not of their concern.
The question for the independent minded is: Do you believe that the powers in Washington DC can craft a moral and sustainable solution that will provide a benefit to the collective group of citizens we call Americans? A greater question then arises: Do you believe that the powers of Washington DC will be able to respond in a moral and sustainable manner while the world as we know it crumbles due to peak oil, over-population and environmental degradation? The answers are obvious. Look at New Orleans, look at the multi-trillion dollar bailout of the thieves who created the economic crisis, look at the oil/automobile industry, look at Honduras, look anywhere. The answers to our solution do not lie with the money lust greed of Washington DC and the global empire it represents. The solution lies with us, it lies with our neighbors and it lies in the skills of basic survival we must learn. FreeVermont. FreeYourself. Now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Although i agree with some of the thoughts expressed in this entry,several points on the healthcare debate aren't entirely correct.what misinformation are rebublicans trying to scare you with??? Rupbulications are for health care reform an making sure it is more affordable for everyone. what they are not for is a government run health care system. everything the government has touched has turned to debt we cannot pay off. Look no further than medicare and social security, that collectively have a total of 91.1 billion in debt. Look at what clinton and barney frank did to the housing industry that has created this current mess. There thought was hey this is america everyone should be able to own a house.. Makes since right??? Not if you are lowering standards to give loans you know people cannot afford to pay back. My point is the government will ruin healthcare and it will be much worse than it is today. Just as you said earlier in the blog, look at the historical perspective of them running anything and u will have your answer. And by the way, the government will dictate tx. far more than any insurance company does now. In fact, the care will be rationed and many elderly will be left out.
ReplyDeleteI can offer one specific on fear tactics - your concern over the elderly not having access to necessary medical treatments under Obama’s plan. That's a valid issue (though in many cases – not yours - I’d like to call bull shit on the feigned humanism) and one many warm-hearted fiscal conservatives can rally around. Its also true. And a scare tactic, intentional or not. See, if you were truly independent, you’d make the connection to another statement you made, that medicare is failing. Doesn’t that necessarily mean ALL elderly will be denied access to ALL services? Doesn’t concern for the elderly necessitate an action that will prevent is certain horror? Or, is the unstated answer that for-profit insurance companies will find their conscience and pick up coverage for a demographic that is now priced so far beyond the market that even Barney Frank couldn’t see a way out?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the gop has a monopoly on open and honest dialog rooted in deeply held and genuine convictions, which is precisely what you would have us believe by your questioning of “what misinformation are rebublicans trying to scare you with ???”, is, I’m sorry, laughable. How can you not recognize both parties are putting politics above people? Until you yourself can see both sides, you are not debating, you are parroting
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most about any misinformation campaign, is when one side wraps the flag around their cause, in so doing creating this stupid duality where you are either with me or anti-American. No other alternative is available. No discourse is allowed. It’s simple good and eviI and it appeals to the great mass of muffin-heads incapable of understanding any nuance or complexity, or for that matter appreciating the fundamental idea of TOLERANCE that the country was founded on. The problem is, tolerance requires listening, which far too many people are threatened by for its power to disrupt their simple minds.
I am the person who wrote the first comment and found the responses to be ridiculous and not well thought out. In fact, they were interpreted and spun and frankly misrepresented. point 1: Never said medicare would be abolished and the elderly would go without care. simply stated the government has run it into the ground financially by borrowing funds and we are now in great debt because of it. It needs to be reformed not thrown out. I don't know what the reader was referring to but it wasn't my comment. Point 2: I don't know what this person found laughable?? I was simply asking what the author of the article was referring to as scare tactics. I never said they were being used or not used. If someone writes something shouldn't we be able to ask what he/she was referring to especially when no specifics were mentioned? come on, what is "laughable" is you trying to put yourself up on this "pedestal" as the all listening and tolerant chosen one. I am actually independent and listen to both sides. I happen to disagree with the dems on this one. so what. That the government put politics above the people is not a new concept, you act as though your brillant mind just came up with this. I have many ideas such as term limits so idiots like bernie sanders cant get elected again and agian. This would cause less policy based on what big companies want and more on pleasing the people. I pefer to talk about answers not call people names "muffin-heads" thats wasted time.
ReplyDeleteAs far as point 1 – do you really believe the current system, government run medicare included (or not) indefinitely, is so unequivocally superior than a nationalized option such that the genuine concern for the elderly is an issue that is unquestionably decided in favor of status quo? Or perhaps the issue is more complicated and the plight of healthcare for the elderly is unclear and that there are both benefits and drawbacks of our current and future options? If you were truly approaching this issue as an indepdendant, then I am wondering why you see the answer, more specifically the rejection of an alternative idea, which such clarity? Or why you bring up one piece of care for the elderly, the potential for denial of treatment, and mention only that one if your concerns are larger?
ReplyDeleteSame with your flaming of Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Barney Frank. Those folks deserve it for sure. No argument. But where is your even-handedness? Can you find no issues with the last president? Likewise, I am sorry, were you really asking the author for clarification on what he sees as scare tactics? How can you not see those (on both sides) if you are objectively researching this issue? Refusing to acknowldge their existence is a refusal to enter in open dialog under the guise of indepdneance.
Even the way you frame the issues with medicare with respect to our debt displays your partisanship. You throw out the number 91 billion in direct reference to our problem, but don’t tell the whole story. 91 billion is less than 1% of our debt, surely, if you care about fiscal responsibility, and in the context and spirit of listening to both sides, you could mention some of the causes for the other 99%.
You listen to the level required to respond with the prescribed gop answer. I’m sorry, but its hard to believe otherwise when your words are so consistently non-independent. This issue is larger than that, and is not so simple that either side has THE right answer. If you can’t recognize that, there will be no honest debate.
Its funny, btw, that you start the post by suggesting my responses are ridiculous and not well thought out and end it by saying you prefer to talk about answers and not call names.
ReplyDeletelook, i the point wasnt for me to give you my opininions on everything there is not enough room here. I mentioned the 91 billion bc it was relevant to the point that government partly bc of its corruptness cant run anything without promising the funded program money to other endeavors.. ie. look at social security. I didnt mention bush because what was the releavance????? He was a terrible president. I disagreed with him on border control, the type D medicare bill and seral other issues.whats your point??? In all honesty, all with the limited amount ive read from you it seems you want to attack everything and give no opinions and that does not get anything done. the government is corrupt,you are right wing and can't debate, and so on. Yes i know the answer is somewhere in the middle.. but lets talk about an answer bc i havent heard u offer any???
ReplyDeleteThe relevance is two-fold. 1) it speaks to the authentic of your arguments. When you pick and choose what parts of a complex problem to present, its hard to accept your claim of independence. If you are not actually independent and actually engaging in debate and listening and considering other viewpoints, then there is no point at all in debating. Its just two of us towing the party line. Secondly, it invalidates the concern over the proposed solution’s contributions to debt. Its insignificant compared to the total.
ReplyDeleteMy solution. I agree with the author that the fundamental problem is a disconnect between the motivations and objectives of those providing coverage and those who need medical treatment. I don’t see how that’s reconciled in the context of a private system. I think some form of nationalized health-care is the answer. It’s true, you’ll get no debate from me, that the government is not good at running things. That will be an issue in this case as well. However, I believe those inefficiencies, wasted money, bureaucrats making health care decision, some tx being wrongfully denied, etc, are, regrettably, the better alternative.
have no clue what you are saying in the first paragraph. perhhaps its beyond me.
ReplyDeleteanyway, why does the solution have to be black or white. why not have the private insureres be regulated more by the government. I don't love this idea but something has to be done with these rising prices. the athor is dead on when he says the insurances companinies are big biz and worried only about money. It's called compromise and listening to both sides. will it happen... of course not bc the government is fucked and so partisan and wrapped up on pacs and money it wont listen to reason. a solution????? term limits... get the old out and gives much more power back to the people. if the people demand this we can gain some of our power back and real change is possible
re my first paragraph. You asked the relevance of mentioning the Bush presidency. Specifically what I think was lacking, and is entirely relevant, is the larger context. That’s what establishes (or compromises) your independence. Picking and choosing the pieces of an issue that suits your argument seems partisan.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the solution is black or white at all. That's precisely why I continue to press the issue of an independent perspective. That’s precisely why I think scare tactics are so damaging to the debate. They are designed to confuse and polarize. It’s a complex issue and I am all for a compromise – really there is no other way. I just think in the end, the primary problem has to be removed– the separation of the profit-motive from the delivery of medical services. That’s why I believe some form of nationalization, and maybe you’re dead on that the best option comes in the shape of strict government regulation, is in order. Accepting that, I don’t like Obama’s plan, I don’t think it’s completely thought-out and I think his motivations are more political than magnanimous. However, I do firmly believe it is advancing the debate and moving the nation in the direction we need to go. What stands in the way are scare tactics that don’t comprehend the issue in its entirety.
thank you for taking the time to discuss this subject. Excuse me for not explaining more about the misinformation i referenced in the post and that was questioned by the first commentator. I believe it to be so obvious as to not even need explaining. I'll keep it simple:
ReplyDelete1. "death panels" what a joke!try to find that phrase in all the health care reform being proposed.
2. rationing: there is no legislation that talks about rationing. If we are going to talk about rationing lets talk about the 47 million uninsured who are already "rationed" out of health care. We can quibble over details, but the spirit of this reform is to bring more health care to more people.
3. "the gov't is going to take over". Well, that might be perceived as a good thing. I know that in my experience it has been. My father is very pleased with his experience at the VA hospital, my mother has battled cancer with the backing of medicare and my children have received only superlative and comprehensive service due to Dr. Dynosaur; all gov't run programs.
4. "America has the best healthcare in the world". We don't. We actually rank 37th by the WHO. what we do have is the most expensive. This is because health care is not the top priority of the health care system. Profits are the top priority. that is why it is the most expensive. Think about it. Then ask yourself "Who is making the profit?"
for more, read Sharon Begley's article in Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131
Oh yeah, don't be afraid to comment as a code name. This anonymous stuff gets confusing.
ReplyDelete