Archive for the ‘Human Rights’ Category

More on Healthcare

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

– A friend of mine who is following the Healthcare debate sent me the following.   It speaks for itself so I’m just going to publish it as is.

– If you find yourself wondering if you are seeing a pattern here, follow this link for a series of stories all on the same subject.  Sobering stuff, indeed. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

As the health care debate rages onward, here comes yet another article debunking the “threat” of socialized medicine…and note that this article was issued almost at the beginning of the so-called debate on health care. Haven’t seen it? Hmmm, not surprising — as mentioned in my last sending on this subject, the health care industry is spending $1.5 MILLION dollars each DAY to pay lobbyists to both prevent these aritcles and the keep their current profitable system in place…all of which is funded BY YOUR PREMIUMS. And if that’s just what they’re paying lobbyists, imagine what they’re paying advertisers, other media and (gasp) Congress folk! Check out the bill…so far, it’s come to about $65,000 per Congress person (slightly higher for Republicans but that’s about average, even for “Blue Dog” Democrats).   But hey, it’s your money…your health…your Senator or Representative…your say.
Michael

Published on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

The Truth about Socialized Medicine

by Audrey Mayer

I have been hearing a lot of pundits and politicians bemoan “socialized medicine” and its supposed inefficiencies and inequities. These horror stories are never accompanied by data, just hearsay and anecdotes from “a friend of a friend” in Canada or the United Kingdom. Rarely have I heard from people who have themselves experienced a universal public health care system. As one of those people, I thought I should speak up.

While living in Finland for three years, I experienced socialized medicine up close and personal. I gave birth to my son there.

Finland’s public health care system is run by a government agency called KELA, and the doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health care workers are government employees. KELA usually covers 100% of the cost of most services at public clinics, with small copayments for prescriptions and hospital stays that are scaled to a patient’s income. Finland also has many private clinics that are available to those who want to use them, where patients pay the extra cost of the private service (KELA will pay up to what the service would cost at a public clinic). When you visit a clinic or hospital you present your KELA card at the reception desk, and if a payment is necessary you can pay at the clinic, or a bill can be sent to your home.

All Finnish citizens and permanent residents are eligible for KELA benefits, as are immigrants on work and political asylum visas. I was eligible for the KELA system because I was in Finland on a work visa, and I paid income and social services taxes from my paychecks. Yes the taxes were high, about 40% of my gross pay. However, it is comparable to my take-home pay here in the US once I factor in my health insurance premiums, deductibles, and copayments, along with my income and social security taxes.

The care that I received in Finland throughout my pregnancy and childbirth, and for the first 9 months of my son’s life, was simply amazing. I saw the same nurse and doctor for monthly pregnancy checks (and later they were my son’s primary medical caregivers); their offices were in the same hallway. Both women knew us by name and by sight, and always remembered what we had discussed for the previous visit. Routine ultrasounds were performed at the maternity hospital; my nurse made each appointment for me and I simply showed up at the hospital for the procedure. When my labor started I headed to the maternity hospital, and the hospital’s nurses and doctors knew exactly who I was, as my medical files were available to them through KELA’s computerized filing system. (Patients must sign a form that allows their medical files to be accessible by other medical facilities, so a patient’s privacy rights are protected.) Every nurse coming on duty reviewed my file before seeing me, and so my discussions with them were focused on what my son and I needed at the moment, not what had been done during the previous shifts. After my emergency Cesarean operation and a four day stay in the hospital, only one bill was waiting for us when we got home, for a total of 260 Euros.

I never had to wait to see a medical professional, nor was any necessary procedure delayed or denied. Every nurse and doctor I saw was caring and knowledgeable, and spent whatever time was necessary to make sure that I received the care I needed.

I have now been living and working back in the US for 6 months, and already I have had problems with my health insurance plan through my employer. I found out the hard way (that is, at the doctor’s office after my son’s vaccination visit) that my son had been arbitrarily dropped from my plan months before, even though I had been paying the premiums for the family plan all along. It took almost a week of phone calls to get him reinstated. All the while, I privately wondered if the two ear infections he had had in the spring had prompted some computer at the health insurance company to calculate that he was “overusing” the system, and automatically drop his coverage.

That may seem like paranoid thinking, but I have seen it all before. In 2001, my mother was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. Instead of focusing her strength and attention on recovering from a double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation, she spent much of her time arguing with the health insurance company and the hospital over bills she had already paid, and routine treatments that should have been covered by her insurance plan. Ultimately she lost her insurance altogether when she lost her job, and she has since been living in remission, uninsured.

When these pundits and politicians go onto national television and spew all sorts of false rhetoric about the evils of socialized medicine, it makes my blood boil. They are doing an incredible disservice to their fellow Americans, both those with and without health insurance. For every anecdote they have about a Canadian waiting six months for necessary open heart surgery, I can find twenty Americans for whom that equally necessary surgery is completely out of reach. Now is the time for an honest assessment about what (if anything) can be salvaged from our current system, and to put a system in place that does what it is supposed to do: provide health care.

Audrey Mayer is an assistant professor at Michigan Technological University, focused on sustainability research and education.

A mean streak in the US mainstream

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

– What to say?   This is one aspect of the U.S. that I will not be sorry to leave behind when I shift to New Zealand.

– – – – – – – – – – –

The Independent (UK)
Tue, 25 Aug 2009

The US tolerates more inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here

HealthCareFailureWhen we Europeans – the British included – contemplate the battles President Obama must fight to reform the US health system, our first response tends to be disbelief. How can it be that so obvious a social good as universal health insurance, so humane a solution to common vulnerability, is not sewn deep into the fabric of the United States? How can one of the biggest, richest and most advanced countries in the world tolerate a situation where, at any one time, one in six of the population has to pay for their treatment item by item, or resort to hospital casualty wards?

The second response, as automatic as the first, is to blame heartless and ignorant Republicans. To Europeans, a universal health system is so basic to a civilised society that only the loony right could possibly oppose it: the people who cling to their guns, picket abortion clinics (when they are not trying to shoot the abortionists) and block funding for birth control in the third world. All right, we are saying to ourselves, there are Americans who think like this, but they are out on an ideological limb.

If only this were true. The reason why Obama is finding health reform such a struggle – even though it was central to his election platform – is not because an extreme wing of the Republican Party, mobilised by media shock-jocks, is foaming at the mouth, or because Republicans have more money than Democrats to buy lobbying and advertising power. Nor is it only because so many influential groups, from insurance companies through doctors, have lucrative interests to defend – although this is a big part of it.

It is because very many Americans simply do not agree that it is a good idea. And they include not only mainstream Republicans, but Democrats, too. Indeed, Obama’s chief problem in seeking to extend health cover to most Americans is not Republican opposition: he thrashed John McCain to win his presidential mandate; he has majorities in both Houses of Congress. If Democrats were solidly behind reform, victory would already be his.

The unpalatable fact for Europeans who incline to think that Americans are just like us is that Democrats are not solidly behind Obama on this issue. Even many in the party’s mainstream must be wooed, cajoled and even – yes – frightened, if they are ever going to agree to change the status quo. Universal healthcare is an article of faith in the US only at what mainstream America would regard as the bleeding- heart liberal end of the spectrum.

As some of Obama’s enemies warned through the campaign – and I mean warned, not promised – this is the philosophical terrain where, his voting record suggests, this President is most at home. But many more are not. The absence from the Senate of Edward Kennedy, through illness, and Hillary Clinton, elevated to the State Department, has left his pro-reform advocacy in the legislature sorely depleted.

But there is something else at work here, too, beyond defective advocacy, and it lays bare a profound misunderstanding. Europe hailed Obama’s landslide election victory as evidence that America had reclaimed its better self, turned to the left and bade farewell to ingrained racial divisions as well. That was a benevolent, but ultimately idealistic, gloss.

Obama’s victory can indeed be seen as a reaction to eight years of conservative Republicanism under George Bush and a turn by US voters to the left. But that left is still quite a bit further right than in most of Europe. Nor was it just a leftward turn that cost John McCain the White House; it was also a rejection of the weaker candidate. Obama’s great asset was that he came across as more competent on the economy, at a time of global financial meltdown. From this side of the Atlantic, we convinced ourselves that Americans had voted with their hearts, but there was a considerable element of the wallet as well.

That wallet element helps explain the deep-seated misgivings that have surfaced about Obama’s plans for health reform. A majority of Americans believe they have adequate health cover. Their choice of job may be limited by their insurance requirements (and labour mobility reduced). And their calculations may be upset – sometimes disastrously – by accident or illness.

But with most pensioners protected by the state system known as Medicare, an “I’m all right, Jack” attitude prevails. It coexists with the fear that extending the pool of the insured, to the poorer and more illness-prone, will raise premiums for the healthy and bring queuing, or rationing, of care – which is why stories about the NHS inspire such dread. The principle that no one should be penalised financially by illness is trumped by the self-interest of the majority, then rationalised by the argument that health is a matter of personal responsibility.

The point is that, when on “normal”, the needle of the US barometer is not only quite a way to the political right of where it would be in Europe, but showing a very different atmospheric level, too. For there is a mean and merciless streak in mainstream US attitudes, which tolerates much more in the way of inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here, while incorporating a large and often sanctimonious quotient of blame.

This transatlantic difference goes far beyond the healthcare debate. Consider the give-no-quarter statements out of the US on the release of the Lockerbie bomber – or the continued application of the death penalty, or the fact that excessive violence is far more common a cause for censorship of US films in Europe than sex. Or even, in documents emerging from the CIA, a different tolerance threshold where torture and terrorism are concerned.

Some put the divergence down to the ideological rigidity that led Puritans and others to flee to America in the first place; others to the ruthless struggle for survival that marked the early settlement years and the conquest of the West. Still others see it as the price the US pays for its material success. What it means, though, is that if and when Obama gets some form of health reform through, it will reflect America’s fears quite as much as its promise. And it is unlikely to be a national service that looks anything like ours.

To the original…

– Research thanks to John P. and Charles S.

The Swiss Menace

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”

Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.

Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.

Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world.

Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.

Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.

More…

– research thanks to:  Michael M.

– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, a friend of mine suggests the website bugmenot.com :arrow: as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.

The brutal truth about America’s healthcare

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

Free_HealthcareAn extraordinary report from Guy Adams in Los Angeles at the music arena that has been turned into a makeshift medical center

They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.

In the week that Britain’s National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an “evil and Orwellian” example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

To the original…

Chips in Official IDs Raise Privacy Fears

Sunday, August 16th, 2009

– Yeah, the U.S. government is pushing these new passports with embedded RFID chips and the hackers have already broken them. It seems like the bureaucrat’s desire to use new technologies has over-ridden anyone’s concerns for the saftey and privacy of those U.S. citizens who carry these little packets of ‘free’ information out into an increasingly hostile world.   I’m glad I’ve got an ‘old-style’ passport for now.

= = = = = = =   = = = = = = =   = = = = = = =

Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he’d bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car.

It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker’s gold.

Zipping past Fisherman’s Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians’ electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he’d “skimmed” the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet.

Embedding identity documents — passports, drivers licenses, and the like — with RFID chips is a no-brainer to government officials. Increasingly, they are promoting it as a 21st century application of technology that will help speed border crossings, safeguard credentials against counterfeiters, and keep terrorists from sneaking into the country.

But Paget’s February experiment demonstrated something privacy advocates had feared for years: That RFID, coupled with other technologies, could make people trackable without their knowledge or consent.

More…

Hardliners closing portal to paradise

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Rahman Baba, “The Nightingale of Peshawar”, was an 18th-century poet and mystic.

He withdrew from the world and promised his followers that if they also loosened their ties with the world, they could purge their souls of worries and move towards direct experience of God. Rituals and fasting were for the pious, said the saint. He emphasised that divinity can best be reached through the gateway of the human heart – that we all have paradise within us, if we know where to look.

For centuries, Rahman Baba’s shrine at the foot of the Khyber Pass has been a place where musicians and poets have gathered, and his Sufi verses in Pashtun made him the national poet of the Pathans.

Then, about 10 years ago, a Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrasa was built at the end of the track leading to the shrine. Soon its students took it on themselves to halt what they saw as un-Islamic practices. On my last visit, I talked about the situation with the shrine keeper, Tila Mohammed. He described how young Islamists now came and complained that his shrine was a centre of idolatry and superstition: “My family have been singing here for generations,” said Tila. “But now these Arab madrasa students come here and create trouble.

“They tell us that what we do is wrong. They ask people who are singing to stop. Sometimes arguments break out – even fist fights. This used to be a place where people came to get peace of mind. Now when they come here they encounter more problems, so gradually have stopped coming.”

“Before the Afghan war, there was nothing like this. But then the Saudis came, with their propaganda, to stop us visiting the saints, and to stop us preaching’ishq [love]. Now trouble happens more and more frequently.”

Behind the violence lies a long theological conflict that has divided the Islamic world for centuries. Rahman Baba believed passionately in the importance of music, poetry and dancing as a path for reaching God, as a way of opening the gates of paradise. But this use of poetry and music in ritual is one of the many aspects of Sufi practice that has attracted the wrath of modern Islamists. For although the Koran does not ban music, Islamic tradition has always associated music with dancing girls and immorality.

At Attock, not far from the shrine of Rahman Baba, stands the Haqqania, one of the most radical madrasas in South Asia. Much of the Taleban leadership were trained here, so I asked the madrasa’s director, Maulana Sami ul-Haq, about what I had heard at Rahman Baba’s tomb. The matter was quite simple. “Music is against Islam. Musical instruments lead men astray and are sinful. They are forbidden, and these musicians are wrongdoers.”

Nor were Sami’s strictures limited to the shrine’s music: “We believe there is no power but God,” he continued. “I invite people who come here to return to the true path of the Koran. Do not pray to a corpse: Rahman Baba is dead. Go to the mosque, not to a grave.”

This sort of madrasa-driven change in attitudes is being reproduced across Pakistan. There are now 27 times as many madrasas in the country as there were in 1947: from 245 at independence, the number has shot up to 6870 in 2001. Across Pakistan, the religious tenor has been correspondingly radicalised: the tolerant, Sufi-minded Barelvi form of Islam is now out of fashion in northern Pakistan, overtaken by the more hardline and politicised Wahhabism.

More…

Women flogged for wearing trousers

Sunday, July 26th, 2009

CAIRO – Sudanese police arrested 13 women in a raid on a cafe and flogged 10 of them in public for wearing trousers in violation of the country’s strict Islamic law, one of those arrested said.

The 13 women were at a cafe in the capital, Khartoum, when they were detained by officers from the public order police, which enforces the implementation of Sharia law in public places.

The force, which is similar to the Saudi religious police, randomly enforces an alcohol ban and often scolds young men and women mingling in public.

One of those arrested on Friday, journalist Lubna Hussein, said she is challenging the charges, which can be punishable by up to 40 lashes.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Hussein said.

Islamic Sharia law has been strictly implemented in Sudan since the ruling party came to power in a 1989 military coup.

More…

Health insurers refuse to limit rescission of coverage

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

– There’s a lot that bothers me about health care coverage here in the U.S.A.  I’ve written several times on it:


– But I don’t think I’ve seen anything that irritated and angered me quite like the story below.

– Insurance industry executives saying in front of congress that they will do basically anything they can to drop folks who are insured – rather than paying their legitimate claims.  Unbelievable!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

cancelLawmakers ask three executives if they’ll stop dropping customers except where they can show “intentional fraud.” All say no.

Executives of three of the nation’s largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation’s healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

“No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.”

The executives — Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California — were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

More…

The Battle for Pork Chop Hill (healthcare)

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

obama-listening– A friend of mine is an M.D. and recently he responded to President Obama’s request for grass-roots input from the U.S. public on health care reform by writing a letter to the president detailing his thoughts.   He sent me a copy of his letter to see if I had any thoughts and/or comments.

– I found it a well-written, thoughtful letter full of excellent suggestions but when I responded to him, I found it impossible to get into the spirit of it.   To me, here in the U.S., the battle for serious health care reform, is a meaningless battle – a lot like those battles when our troops fought for mastery of particular hilltop in WWII and the Korean War.   The hills won one day at a terrible cost would be abandoned just a few days later as the conditions of the larger enclosing battles changed.

– Frankly, I don’t think there’s any chance that the U.S. will ever enact serious health care reform and in my response to my friend, below, you’ll see why.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dr. H.,

Thank you for responding to the president’s request for input on our health care system.   What you’ve written here is an excellent public service.

I too have thoughts about all of this but I’m afraid I am less optimistic that calls for ideas will lead to any changes of significance.   My fear, as I’ve told you before, is that the medical and pharmaceutical industries in the U.S. have been thoroughly captured by large and powerful profit-centric corporate interests and that nothing will wrest control back from them short of a revolution.

Corporations vs. People

I don’t mean an armed revolution.   I mean a revolution in how we, as human beings, think about what the purposes of our national governments should be.   I’m fond of saying that, “One cannot have two number-one priorities.“  When it comes to deciding what governments are for, we certainly cannot.   We either have to place the welfare and happiness of the nation’s people first or the freedom of the nation’s corporations  to do whatever they want to do in their pursuit of profits.  We cannot have it both ways.

Once this choice is explained clearly and brought into our collective consciousness, I have little doubt that most people would feel that government’s number-one priority should be to maximize the quality of life for its citizens.   But, absent such explanations and awarenesses, our country, and most others as well, have been primarily molded by those who seek profit and power for themselves with little regard for the circumstances of others.

(As an aside, let me say that I am not against Capitalism.   Indeed, it is the engine that creates wealth and innovation in our societies.   I am only saying that at the very top of the decision pyramid, when corporate interests clash with the best interests of the people, the decision makers should opt for the good of the people.   Done even handedly, this might limit the range of actions of corporations but it would still be a level playing field for them and none would be disadvantaged verses the others.   More over, those decisions makers at the very top would be strongly instructed to stay out of the way of corporations to the maximum extent possible – save when the people’s best interests are at stake).

So, from my POV, the battle here is not how we can ‘fix’ health care.  It goes far far deeper than that.   Until we, as a people, decide that the happiness and well being of the nation’s people IS the highest priority of the national government, we will always have these battles.   And, given the drive and tenacity of those whose primary aims are for power and profit, we will usually lose these battles.

Beyond all of this, there are bigger problems for our country and the world yet looming.

Globalization

A healthy vibrant country can organize its finances to support free medical care for all of its citizens.  Several countries around the world have proven this decisively.   But, I’m not sure that a country whose finances are faltering badly can do this.   And our country is faltering badly at this point in its history.   Globalization was touted as our “friend”.   Indeed, as the “world’s friend”; better and cheaper products for everyone and improved standards of living for all.

life-and-debtBut, it hasn’t turned out that way for some of us.  Small countries, like Jamaica (see the Movie “Life and Debt“), have had food stuffs injected  into their markets at far lower prices than their local farmers could sell for.  The result is that the local farmers have all lost their farms and moved to the cities and now entire countries are completely dependent on the food stuffs supplied by the multinational corporate proponents of Globalization.  Sure, these folks can buy their food cheaper.  But now they’ve lost their independence, their jobs, their communities and they are utterly dependent on outside forces for their survival.   Globalization has made them into captive consumers.

And the rich nations have not escaped unscathed.   Multinational corporations seeking ever larger profits have convinced us in the U.S. to send our manufacturing and high-tech industries overseas.    They promised us lower costs on all the cheap goods  love to buy at Wal-Mart.  And for a while, that was fun.   But now we see the deep truth that a nation can only continue being rich if it produces and sells things of value.  And we’ve been turned into a nation of consumers and borrowers by Globalization and are getting poorer by the day.

The multinationals saw great opportunity some years back when they gazed at, for example, the U.S. and China.   They thought, “China is poor and has really cheap labor and the U.S. is rich and its labor is expensive.   If we connect these two situations, goods will flow from China to the U.S. and money will flow from the U.S. to China and we’ll set ourselves up as the folks in the middle coordinating the exchange and getting hugely rich.“  And, for the multinationals and China, it’s been a good deal.  But, for the U.S., the promises of Globalism have only impoverished us.

So, back to socialized health care.   I don’t believe that even if the U.S. wanted to implement serious socialized healthcare, that we could.   What would we pay for it with?   We are no longer a wealth generating nation.

So, that’s one of the big looming problems I was referring to.

Economies and Growth

The other has to do with the idea that most of our societies are built upon the principle that healthy economies are growth economies.  That’s worked well for us as a species up until now but it isn’t going to work much longer.   We’re coming to the limits of what the planet can supply for food and water and we’ve clearly exceeded what it can supply for renewable resources. We’ve built the very foundations of our societies on a non-renewable resource, oil, that will be running out soon.   And we’ve messed with the atmosphere’s Carbon Dioxide so badly that we’re well on our way towards a major climate shift.

And, in the midst of all of these dire warnings written so clearly on the wall of our future, the very best folks can come up with, as they consider and fret about the problems of the currently global economic downturn, is that with luck and perseverance, soon we’ll have our economies all back up and running just as before – with ever increasing growth, consumption and pollution as the cornerstones of our brave new world – same as the old unworkable, unsustainable world.

So, that would be the second problem – and it’s a big one.

Perspectives

pork-chop-hillIf you are down inside the workings of a specific nation and deeply involved and  invested in the concerns and problems of the local health care system, then it might seem reasonable to you to fight the good fight  for a better way of doing things.

But I would suggest that if one gets out of the trenches and ascends above the entire field of battle to a great height, one might see that in the bigger picture it isn’t going to matter if your brave and idealistic unit captures that small hill called “Healthcare”.   Bigger forces are afoot and visible from a greater height.

Those are my thoughts, Dr. H.   As always, I know I sound like a great pessimist.   But I don’t feel that way.   I think I am simply seeing the bigger picture.   I too am idealistic and I talk and rail and write about all of this almost daily.   But, in truth, I don’t do these things because I think I can really change them.   I act more because speaking the truth is right in and of itself and needs no other justification.

At the end of your letter, you listed the following points:

1. There is no place in medical care for “For Profit”.

2. Insurance companies’ priority is profit for shareholders.

3. Direct to patient advertising should be banned.

4. Medical Schools need to be induced to greatly increase graduation of primary care physicians, including loan forgiveness for those who go into primary care practice.

5. Providers should be incentivized for keeping patients healthy and minimizing expensive tests and medications.

6. We should have a single payer system that links patients and families with primary care providers that have support from social services, nutrition and exercise referrals and other support groups.

7. Hopefully we can move toward a society with less income inequality and social injustice where we prioritize education and opportunity and improve the quality of life for all.

I agree and applaud everyone of them.  And I say this not withstanding the fact that I think this battle over health care will be swept away by the larger trends that are afoot.

Again, thanks for writing your letter to the President.  I deeply admire your motives and your idealism.   Please do not take anything I’ve said here as a criticism – it is not intended to be.

Your friend,

Dennis Gallagher

For 300 years Britain has outsourced mayhem. Finally it’s coming home

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

– I’ve long thought that Britain has had a lot to own up to that it has largely been in denial of.   Things like selling salt from the sea to the Indians during Gandhi’s years of protest. Not that the U.S., with its Monroe Doctrine and its manipulation of Latin American events for its own benefit, hasn’t much of the same history and denial.   But Monbiot (one of my favorites authors) surely nails the paper to the church door here.   I think the average U.S. and British citizen, living blissfully within the cocoons of wealth created by these rapacious adventures, has very little idea how much of their comfort came at what cost to others.

– But, irony abounds.   Those who were disadvantaged by these manipulations; China with the Opium, Chile with the Copper and etc., are quick to point at their wounds and moralize.   But, inevitably, as the winds of history shift, they will come into ascendance and practice all the same self-aggrandizements at the expense of the weaker.  Indeed, I find myself wondering frequently what sort of a world-master China is going to make - given the current trends.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Opium, famine and banks all played their part in this country’s plundering of the globe. Now it’s over, we find it hard to accept

Why now? It’s not as if this is the first time Britain’s representatives have been caught out. The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce. Pushing their own interests to the limit, they teeter perennially on the brink of disgrace, except when they fly clean over the edge. So why does the current ballyhoo threaten to destroy not only the government but also our antediluvian political system?

The past 15 years have produced the cash-for-questions racket, the Hinduja and Ecclestone affairs, the lies and fabrications that led to the invasion of Iraq, the forced abandonment of the BAE corruption probe, the cash-for-honours caper and the cash-for-amendments scandal. By comparison to the outright subversion of the functions of government in some of these cases, the is small beer. Any one of them should have prompted the sweeping political reforms we are now debating. But they didn’t.

The expenses scandal, by contrast, could kill the Labour party. It might also force politicians of all parties to address our unjust voting system, the unelected Lords, the excessive power of the executive, the legalised blackmail used by the whips, and a score of further anachronisms and injustices. Why is it different?

I believe that the current political crisis has little to do with the expenses scandal, still less with Gordon Brown’s leadership. It arises because our economic system can no longer extract wealth from other nations. For the past 300 years, the revolutions and reforms experienced by almost all other developed countries have been averted in Britain by foreign remittances.

The social unrest that might have transformed our politics was instead outsourced to our colonies and unwilling trading partners. The rebellions in Ireland, India, China, the Caribbean, Egypt, South Africa, Malaya, Kenya, Iran and other places we subjugated were the price of political peace in Britain. After decolonisation, our plunder of other nations was sustained by the banks. Now, for the first time in three centuries, they can no longer deliver, and we must at last confront our problems.

There will probably never be a full account of the robbery this country organised, but there are a few snapshots. In his book Capitalism and Colonial Production, Hamza Alavi estimates that the resource flow from India to Britain between 1793 and 1803 was in the order of £2m a year, the equivalent of many billions today. The economic drain from India, he notes, “has not only been a major factor in India’s impoverishment … it has also been a very significant factor in the industrial revolution in Britain”. As Ralph Davis observes in The Industrial Revolution and British Overseas Trade, from the 1760s onwards India’s wealth “bought the national debt back from the Dutch and others … leaving Britain nearly free from overseas indebtedness when it came to face the great French wars from 1793”.

More, much more…

– Research thanks to Robin S.