Place Your Bets, Take Your Chances. Or Not!

Insurance is like a casino game. The insured bets that the insurance company will pay off in the event of a loss or claim, and the insurer bets that it won’t. Even when the “house” loses, it can still cut its losses by arbitrarily and unilaterally adjusting the amount of its “bet” downward. Sometimes, it simply refuses to pay.

The problem with giving insurance companies any part in health care—or health care reform—is that for-profit corporations exist for one purpose only—to steal as much profit (c’mon, you didn’t expect me to say “earn,” did you?) as they can for their shareholders and to pay outrageous salaries and bonuses to their top executives. Terms like “conscience,” “honesty,” “aboveboard,” and “forthrightness” are not part of the corporate lexicon, especially where profits are concerned.

Because health insurance companies have broad powers to discriminate in regards to whom they will and won’t insure—not to mention that they deserve much of the blame for rising healthcare costs—the idea of giving them carte blanche privilege to be the sole providers of health insurance for the masses doesn’t even come close to passing the straight face test. In terms of serving most members of society, a strong public option is a better way to go; in terms of serving all members of society, a single payer plan is the only way to go.

Maybe it’s time for House and Senate Democrats to back down* and give obstructionist Republicans what they want: scrap Obama’s current healthcare plan and start over. Start by kicking the insurance companies to the curb. Replace them with a single payer universal healthcare plan based on the Social Security/Medicare models, which work just fine, thank you, when conservatives aren’t trying to subvert them out of existence.

A comprehensive single payer plan would give everyone access to medical care and healthcare services regardless of their income, economic status or station in life. No citizen could be denied medical services, and everyone could choose their own doctor. Everyone would get 100% coverage for medical, dental, vision and hearing. The government, contrary to popular belief, would not be in the business of dictating healthcare choices, so a wide range of medical alternatives, including chiropractic, holistic, acupuncture, physical therapy, dietary, and preventive medical disciplines would be available on patient demand.

Funding a single payer plan is simple in theory if not in practice. Start at 10% of income for individuals, regardless of the individual’s source of income, economic status, or station in life. If you’re a 12-year old with a paper route, 10% of your income goes to 100% healthcare. If you’re a homeless person making a living by returning discarded cans and bottles, 10% of your deposit refunds (collected at point of return) goes to 100% healthcare. If you’re a retiree living on Social Security, 10% of your Social Security amount goes to 100% healthcare. If you’re a CEO hauling down a $1 million a month, 10% of your income goes to 100% healthcare. The plan is all-inclusive, with no loopholes and no exemptions. If you have an income of any kind, in any amount, you pay 10% of it for 100% healthcare.

Such a plan would be advantageous for companies—both large and small—that now find it onerous, if not impossible, to provide health insurance for their employees, as they would be relieved of the moral and/or contractual obligation to provide insurance. Healthcare practitioners and service providers would find relief, too, if only through simplified billing procedures.

But . . . but . . . but what if it takes less than 10% of income to fund the plan?

Reduce the percentage across the board. The plan should not exist to make a profit, only to satisfy people’s healthcare needs.

But . . . but . . . but what if it takes more than 10% of income to fund the plan?

Before raising the percentage on individuals, assess corporations a percentage of their income to make up the shortfall. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, too, didn’t it? Besides, some corporations are already getting health care (AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and General Motors, to name a few); they’re just not paying for it. However, in this case, health care should be limited to the kind rendered by medical professionals for the benefit of living, breathing humans.

But . . . but . . . but I make obscene amounts money, so I’d have to pay an absurd amount of money for my healthcare. It’s just not fair.

Relative to your total income, you’ll pay the same rate as everyone else. If your health isn’t worth 10% of your income to you, I’m prepared to argue that your life is less valuable than you want everyone to think it is.

But . . . but . . . but this healthcare plan will put health insurance companies out of business.

Oh, boo-hoo!

*A euphemism for stand up.

Q >>>

Broken Promises, Shattered Dreams, Ugly Truths: Monopoly for the Masses

“I think Barack Obama is a one-term President.” —former Vice President Dick Cheney

Well, I think Dick Cheney is an asshole—but he’s probably right. President Obama runs a serious risk of being a one-term President because he’s largely failed to deliver on his campaign promises (the ones he made to the voters in order to get elected), and the window of opportunity for keeping those promises continues to shrink. At this point it makes no difference why Obama reneged on his promises; the end results are the same.

For what ails this country blame Obama, yes, but not before you blame previous administrations going back 30 years. Blame Wall Street’s shadow government, greedy corporations, and their minions, the lobbyists, too. In Congress, blame the Republican obstructionists and spineless Democrats who, for expediency’s sake, shirk their responsibilities to their constituents. Blame wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions; blame an ill-informed electorate that believes Faux News is the purveyor of gospel truth; blame a disinterested public that’s too dimwitted to fully understand the issues or too complacent to get out and vote. While you’re at it, blame the chickenshit defenders of the status quo (which probably includes all of the above); there’s plenty enough blame to go around.

The inconvenient, unbearable, ugly truth of the matter is that the U.S., as it’s existed for more than 230 years, faces imminent danger of becoming something the Founding Fathers never envisioned, something they abhorred. While a dysfunctional government watches dispassionately as the economy sputters and grinds to a halt, the social infrastructure of a once great nation inexorably turns to rubble.

Common citizens suffer for lack of jobs, lack of affordable housing, lack of health care, and lack of competent, trustworthy leadership. Meanwhile, a very small percentage of the total population ransacks the economy and carries off all the goodies—thoroughly shortchanging the middle class and totally disenfranchising all those below the middle class.

If current trends continue, it won’t be long before the people in the upper echelons of the middle class and those in the lower echelons of the privileged class begin to feel the pinch, too. When the richest of the rich have extracted every last dime from members of the lower classes, it’s only a matter of time until they begin feeding on their own.

In every Monopoly game, there can only be one winner.

Q >>>

It's Only NORML

CBS refused to run a paid 15-second NORML ad on its 42nd Street digital billboard, so I’m letting the ad run here, for free:

Take that, CBS!

Q >>>

Righting Wrongs by Writing Rights

Corporate dominance of the political process was foretold by the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, in which corporations got the go ahead to spend unlimited amounts of money to back the candidates of their choice or to influence legislative outcomes. With that monumental error of lapsed judgment, the SCOTUS turned the tatters of our Representative Republic into an official Corporate Kleptocracy.

The problems attributable to corporate influence—and now, dominance—over our society are systemic, pernicious, deeply ingrained, and difficult (but not yet impossible) to overcome. These problems will, however, become more intractable as corporations flex their newfound political muscles and test the potential of the gift handed to them by the Supreme Court.

Restoring political power to the people won’t be easy, but, for the moment, at least, it’s still possible. Fran Korten’s Yes! Magazine article, republished by AlterNet, lists some specific ways to put the brakes on corporate ability to sway political decision-making processes. Even better, Quinn Hungeski suggests, on his AlterNet blog, that maybe it’s time to reintroduce some of the old laws that once governed corporations.

Not to be relegated to a lonely corner of the room, John Nichols, writing for TheNation.com (also republished by AlterNet), recounts how Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards assumed a leading role in calling for a Constitutional amendment to preserve the people’s ownership of our government and our elections, but Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, political activist and founder of Creative Commons, thinks that a Constitutional Convention is the better way to go.

Among the things that must be done immediately, if not sooner, to reverse the bad policy decisions coming from career politicians acting on behalf of corporate lobbyists are to make the necessary Constitutional corrections to ensure that political power resides with the people, and to implement procedures that guarantee fair elections at all levels of government. These are the logical starting places from which many other needed corrections will follow.

To all those politicians—professional or otherwise—who think that the smart bet is to curry favor with the corporations, I’ll say only this: Think again, dumbasses! Have you forgotten that every corporation’s primary goal is to cut costs and trim expenses to bolster the bottom line? How long do you think your job is going to last once corporations realize they no longer have to pretend they operate in a democracy? When they decide that you can be of no further use to them, your job is history.

But, hey, you can take solace in the fact that your job won’t be outsourced to a third-world country. It will simply cease to exist.

Q >>>

Structuring the News

Do televised news reports often leave you baffled? This video shows the probable reasons why.

When TV news seems pointless, vague, confusing, irrelevant and incomplete, and it often leaves you scratching your head and wondering what that was all about, now you know why; there’s an app a formula for that. If you want fair and balanced news you can trust, you’ll have to make your own (or watch Jon Stewart on Comedy Central).

Many thanks to novelist Timothy Hallinan for bringing this one to my attention. Oh, and Tim shares a few of his ideas on how to effect some meaningful changes to our dysfunctional government at Murder is Everywhere.

Q >>>

Looking for Answers (in all the Right Places)

In response to my previous post, Suzan (Welcome to Pottersville 2) asked what the first step is in dealing with the corrupting influences powerful corporations have on government. Having pondered that question for a few days, I’ve come to realize that I probably have a better understanding of what needs to be done than I have on how to go about doing it.

While I busy myself creating a laundry list of specific actions that will lessen corporate influence and help reverse a corporate takeover of the U.S. Government, watch this trailer for the 2003 documentary film The Corporation, based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel Bakan:

Then, after you’ve seen the trailer, watch the 23-part YouTube video documentary series, from machbar, accessible under the right-hand column heading “Related Videos.” These videos are essential to understanding the dangers corporations pose to you, to society, and to all life on Earth.

Finally, read what PFAW has to say about the recent Supreme Court decision, and sign their petition for a Constitutional Amendment granting Congress the authority to limit corporate influence in elections.

In the meantime, I’ll keep working on the list.

Q >>>

Winding Down the Coup-Coup Clock

There will never, ever be any positive changes to anything that matters to individual citizens until corporations are reined in and brought under strict government control. Despite the recent Supreme Court Ruling that gives corporations (including foreign corporations) the right to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money to influence elections and legislation under the guise of freedom of speech, under no circumstances must corporations be allowed to wield unrestrained and unlimited purchasing power to engineer a takeover of the government.

To say that ours is a nation in crisis only addresses the visible tip of the iceberg; it’s much more accurate to say that ours is a nation in crises. That’s right, many crises. An overpopulation crisis. An environmental crisis. A climate change crisis. A food-and-water resource crisis. An energy crisis. A crumbling national infrastructure crisis. A healthcare crisis. An education crisis. An economic crisis. If you must crowd all of these crises under the same umbrella, call it a sustainability crisis. Nothing about our current state of affairs is sustainable.

Everywhere you look, things are going wrong, and it’s incredibly naïve to think that corporations will do anything to alleviate these crises, or to act in ways that will help avert future crises. A corporation’s only goal is to make profits; it cares not a whit about common interests or about the commonwealth. Giving corporations unfettered control over the government will only guarantee more of what we’ve already got, and from there things just get worse.

For more than 120 years corporations have aspired (and probably conspired) to effect a coup by which to seize control of the government. Last week, the SCOTUS made every corporation’s fondest dream come true. Now it’s time to push back, to thwart this coup, to stop this nonsense, to put an end to the insanity that threatens to overwhelm us all. It’s time to change the national mindset, to collectively agree to make the changes that must be made if humans are to evolve, to thrive, and to endure as a species.

And, yes, time is of the essence.

Q >>>

Future America (Without the Sugar Coating)

If you haven’t seen this video yet, you owe it to yourself to watch it at least once.

Olbermann’s comments are true but, at best, they paint only an incomplete picture. What might Future America look like after a generation of absolute corporate rule? We have only to look at Thailand to get a glimpse of Future America and the grinding poverty that results when Big Business runs the show.

In Thailand, prostitution is a means to escape poverty for some, but in Thailand, prostitutes get to keep 100% of the money they earn. Somehow, I don’t think that the corporations that will rule over Future America are that magnanimous.

Q >>>

SCOTUS FUBAR

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States did a stupid thing; it gave away the people’s democracy, made a gift of it to corporations. The United States of America have officially become the Corporate States of America.

Sign Public Citizen’s petition to Congress!

Are you as outraged as I am? You should be.

This cannot—must not—be allowed to stand.

Reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Q >>>

In Favor of Oregon Ballot Measures 66 and 67

A news report, by Kohr Harlan, a few nights ago on Local 6 News featured a couple of Portland pizza restaurant owners, one who supports ballot Measures 66 and 67 and one who adamantly opposes them. Obviously, one of them comes out on the right side of the issues and the other one doesn’t. But how do we decide which is which?

Pat Desievri, owner of New York New York Italian restaurant in Southwest Portland, feels that the State of Oregon’s spending is out of control and that the State needs to tighten its belt during this recession, just as everyone else must do. While this may appear to be logical on the face of it, the reality goes much deeper—as we shall soon see.

Phil Gessner, owner of Escape From New York Pizza in Northwest Portland, may or may not like the idea of new taxes, but he embraces them because he’s smart enough to know that short-term strategies do not fix long-term problems, and that any society that disenfranchises education will itself eventually become disenfranchised.

How do two business people who essentially operate the same type of business come to be at odds over the issue of new taxes? Individual viewpoints arising out of personal circumstances, past experiences, and education and indoctrination no doubt have a lot to do with it. Mostly, though, I think it’s a failure of one of the parties to fully understand and appreciate the role government plays in maintaining an orderly society and to comprehend the reasons why government’s hunger for ever-increasing amounts of money is never satiated.

It’s easy to shake an angry fist at politicians who call for more taxes, much easier than, say, doing a little research to determine why higher taxes (or new taxes) may be necessary. Believe it or not, it’s not always corruption, greed, or incompetence that causes various government officials to beg for more tax revenue. Sometimes it’s because the various government agencies tasked with providing services to people are expected to provide for more people while spending less money in the process of doing it. The problem is too many people, not a shortage of resources. That, and corporations hoarding what resources do exist.

Sure, you can starve the government or drown it in a bathtub, but at what cost? Are we really ready to lay the groundwork for widespread social upheaval? And if downsizing the government is such a good thing, wouldn’t it be better to eliminate it entirely?

Only if you want to return to the chaos and brutality of the Wild, Wild West.

Annie, get your gun.

Q >>>