|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Just read this (Reply to this comment)
by AliventiAsylum
I already see one aspect of this here in this region. More workers are being hired as "seasonal" or "temporary" and given termination dates just inside the window for which they would be required to fall into the category where the business would have to supply benefits to some degree. So for a person to have year-round employment, they actually end up working for three different companies. Nice, huh?
Patti
|
Jul 18 '10
12:00 pm PDT
|
|
A sound analysis (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray
I"d gladly support tort reform to get a single-payer system, but that is impossible. Covering more people, alas, will be a boon for the insurance industry.
|
Sep 01 '09
12:16 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Can victory be achieved in a debate between Bad Guys? (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Very clear and impressive essay. I wonder why there aren't more comments, and why this type of sensible analysis is not heard more frequently in the media.
I am a little surprised, however, by some unsupported statements, like the claim that the US has the "best" technology and that US doctors are the "best trained". Where do these beliefs come from? I'd be surprised if any careful analysis showed any appreciable difference in these categories between the US and other developed countries.
Likewise, the claim that Sweden or Denmark (and I assume you mean most of EU countries, which have socialized medicine) are more homogeneous than the US and therefore more prone to compassion sounds like a platitude to me. Why do you think so?
Diversity is a problematic concept (can be linguistic, social, ethnic, religious), but I think many European nations are culturally more fragmented than the US given their complex history (as attested to by the presence of separatist movements almost everywhere here, as well as our extreme linguistic heterogeneity). In addition, current immigration pro capita is higher in several EU countries than the US.
In any case, compared to much of Africa and Asia, EU countries and the US are relatively homogeneous from the cultural standpoint.
The reason for American indifference to the plight of the uninsured must be grounded in the rooted social Darwinism one sees in the US: the myth of success, the belief in opportunity (even when realities contradict the myth), and in general the antipathy for anything socialized.
In a nutshell, the US political scene is not dominated by special interest groups because the society is heterogeneous, but because everyone tends to pursue his own antisocial narrow interests. It would happen even without the Hispanics and the Chinese...
It will take a while for Americans to scream for socialized medicine...Not too many of them would like to live in a society like Sweden, where the average gross income for an MD is $80,000/yr (minus 50% tax, you get the salary of a bus driver)....
Vic
|
Aug 24 '09
1:06 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Can victory be achieved in a debate between Bad Guys? (Reply to this comment)
by metalluk
Thanks for the incisive comment. It's at least a little reassuring to know that there is a person like yourself who can see through the muck and mire, spin and lies, to get to the bottom of an issue.
The question I keep pondering through all of this is: What can we, as grassroots Americans, do to fight the special interests that continue to oppress us through our failed two-party system?
I wish I had an answer. IMO, American democracy will never be primarily concerned with public interest until there is genuine campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbying but the very interest groups that exploit the current system would block any effort to restrict their methods of exerting influence.
The organization "Common Cause" was an effort to give a voice to the "public interest" and had at least a little clout at one time, but no longer gets any press (if it even still exists).
There are a few democracies that do a better job than we do here in America at advancing public interest. Denmark and Sweden come to mind. I think, however, that their advantage is largely a result of greater cultural homogeneity. I think that people who are more likely to genuinely care about disadvantaged members of their society if they feel some sense of kinship and commonality with them. Although I treasure the cultural diversity that exists in America, I think that it also makes it easier for the fortunate to disregard the suffering of the least fortunate members of the society.
Each of the developed nations is a unique experiment in government and social justice. One can hope that a few of the most culturally advanced and compassionate nations will continue to expand their commitment to the public interest and that America will someday be shamed into following suit, even if it lags twenty years behind. Otherwise, I don't see American democracy changing its ways anytime soon.
|
Aug 22 '09
7:53 pm PDT
|
|
Can victory be achieved in a debate between Bad Guys? (Reply to this comment)
by holy_diver
"The insurance industry expects to emerge more profitable if any healthcare legislation is passed this year.
And that's the bottom line behind Obama's motivation to push his healthcare "reform" (i.e., compulsory insurance mandate) - he seems thoroughly owned by one of the worst of special interests. . . health insurance companies; who make billions by doing what Republicans claim the federal government would "start" doing - rationing coverage (though I doubt the private health insurance companies would use such an honest term).
As you so effectively point out, their isn't much on cost reduction for premiums - and that's exactly what would benefit the criminal health insurance companies the most. Oh, sure, there is that interesting theory that if the risk pool can be lowered in comparison to the non-risk pool (something that could be accomplished with a compulsory insurance mandate), than the excess insurance profits could be used to lower premiums for all. Too bad the executives on top would rather pocket the extra cash than actually provide a cheaper service to those forced to consume their draconian coverage policies. Meanwhile, we get the usual round of excuses as to why premiums haven’t dropped from said executives - inflated energy costs, a natural increase in our country’s growing risk pool, excess taxation, etc.,. My point - mandatory insurance doesn’t lower premiums. Just look at my home state of MA, the birth-place of that busted theory. Have premiums ever dropped in response to a compulsory insurance mandate, be it automotive or health related?
No. In fact, in some cases, premiums went up.
“Insurance companies do, in fact, help to constrain payments to healthcare providers by setting limits on reimbursements for various procedures, but, meanwhile, they consume 31% of healthcare dollars for that meager service.”
And thus they deliberately counteract any positive impact such a service could have on the cost of healthcare, so that the wealthy within this now parasitic complex can benefit. You have to love the businessman’s bureaucratic semantics - the devil is always in their details.
Great write up. Our country is indeed in a sad state of affairs when one can only find the truth of an intense national debate stashed away in the dark corner of some fading consumer review website. To date, I have never seen a political debate state-side so ravaged by blatant lies and misconceptions. Not even the war in Iraq was this subversive (at least one side was telling the truth in that debacle - in this one, all sides are lying to benefit their own special interests).
“What should be done (but will not be done this year because Our Democracy is hostage to special interests)”
Your parenthetical contains the most succinct truth about our country - there is no longer a party that represents public interests, or the legitimate welfare of the everyday citizen (and I don’t mean welfare in the terms of a social program to give to the poor - I mean the interest of the non-business owning consumer/laborer/worker to have a legitimate shot at decent living and wage equity).
The question I keep pondering through all of this is: What can we, as grassroots Americans, do to fight the special interests that continue to oppress us through our failed two-party system? We can’t wait on a wave of grassroots enlightenment - that would suppose that the majority of Americans seek truth through honest debate, critical introspection and self-motivated research (an occurrence that seems as unlikely to me as the discovery of arcane sorcery). We can’t expect either the Democrats or Republicans to provide us with an answer. Our nations other “Third Parties” - i.e., Libertarianism, the Green Party, Socialists - are even less likely provide truth and reconciliation.
So, what can we do now? Leave it up to the informed individual to educate the almost clinically blunted and anesthetized American Majority? I see little chance of success in that. . .
I hope I’m dead wrong, and that one day I’ll find out I’m being a “Negative Nancy” about all of this.
Again, yours was an excellent, and startlingly true synopsis of our healthcare fiasco.
- Chris
|
Aug 22 '09
11:12 am PDT
|
|
|
|
