SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR HEALTH CARE

We know that politics rides on waves of historical social currents. In this case, a renewed radical individualism--a la Ayn Rand--is in vogue among the far Right. There has long been an American distrust of government, especially of the federal government. Reagan ratcheted up that sentiment with his rhetoric of "government is not the solution; government is the problem." 


There has also been a great lessening of civic involvement as Americans are in the middle of a disidentification with civic organizations and involvement. (Tocqueville marveled at how readily Americans joined social and civic and groups.) Today, membership in everything from bridge clubs to museums is way down. With this radical individualism and disidentification with civic and local social groups comes what I see as the breakdown of the social contract, something that most people have never considered and schools do not teach. (In fact, there are hardly any civics classes any more.) We are losing our social capital.


Two ideas are foundational re people's involvement with government and society: the proper role of government in human affairs, and how much the individual is obligated to society. The former is constantly discussed; the latter is nearly forgotten. Indeed, Margaret Thatcher voiced the "Atlas Shrugged" theme when she said, "Society does not exist." 


The point I am getting to is that American society must evolve to the point in which it understands health care as a human right. One that "society" provides for all its members, and as part of the social contract between government and its citizens--and between citizens and citizens. American society, it seems clear to me, is headed towards an anarchic "Blade Runner" society, instead of toward the Swiss model, in which health care was declared a human right and its electorate voted (voted!) for universal health care, with insurance companies providing non-profit policies to the poor.

PATRIOTIC INSIGHT INTO PERDITION

Obama, you might know, is a deranged, evil usurper! But, the always rational American people, the REAL people, are onto his wily ruse. Why, just look at the Harris Interactive Poll, of 24 March 2010, which was splashed across cable news, including Fox:

67% of Republicans think Obama a socialist;

61% that he wants to take away the right to own guns;

57% that he is a Muslim;

55% that he has done many things which are unconstitutional;

51% that he wants to turn over sovereignty to a one-world government;

45% that he was not born in the U.S. (and, thus not eligible to be president);

41% that he wants to use economic collapse or a terrorist attack as excuse to take dictatorial powers;

38% that he is doing many of the things Hitler did;

and, as a topper, 24% that "he may be the Anti-Christ." Let me repeat: one quarter of Republicans think Obama just might be the long-awaited Anti-Christ.

These numbers give one great confidence in the ratiocination of the American public and that they see through the Goebbels-like, evil deception. And, these beliefs--obviously accurate--just descend on them from heavenly places with only minor help from disinterested Earthly sources. Oh, one more: 22% of Republicans believe that Obama "wants the terrorists to win." Should we really wait for the ballot box, if the country is in such imminent danger?

But, the nation is blessed with a large group of true Americans who can tap into their powers of seeing through the artifices of the Obama socialist-Hitlerist-terrorist regime. Only these patriots can save the country.

On the other hand, and unfortunately, a USA Today/Gallup Poll, of 3/24/2010 (see <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm>), found that, re Obamacare,

49% (versus 40%) considered it "a good thing," rather than bad, that Congress passed the health-care bill;

one half described their reaction to the bill as "enthusiastic" or "pleased";

and, 48% called the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. Just consider for a moment: half of those polled, in a recent, scientifically-conducted survey, think Obamacare a good thing! It's appalling! The subterfuge! Don't they get it? Don't they see he is leading the nation like lemmings over the statist cliff of progressive, failed policies that historically have always failed?

See? That's what an accomplished acolyte of Hitler (and possibly Satan) can do: Fool (some of) the people.

At least we have astute and concerned citizens like the one who held the poster (I saw it tonight) at a rally, across which she had scrawled (apparently without conscious irony), "Do not steal from Medicaid to pay for your socialist programs." I can rest in bed tonight confident that a multitude of informed Americans, such as this patriot, will rise up blessed with insightful comprehension. But, with continuing Obamination, soon she will be--with a little help from the patriotic press-- appropriately frothing at the mouth.

SENATOR WICKER'S "REPORT ON HEALTH CARE"

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker’s (R., Miss.) summer 2009 “Report on Health Care,” mailed out recently to thousands of Mississippians makes the main point that the public-health insurance option is a “bait and switch tactic.” His basis for making this claim, as shown in a large graph, is that, of the 170 million Americans who currently have private insurance, 119 million could lose private coverage under the proposed public plan—70% of the total. In the graph and repeated in text, Wicker uses “a recent study by the nonpartisan Lewin Group” for those data.

The Lewin Group might be “nonpartisan” but it manifestly is not disinterested. It is part of Ingenix, owned by United Healthcare Goup (UHG); in addition to its flagship company, UnitedHealthcare, UHG has been busy buying insurance companies, making it the largest health insurer in the country. Previously, Lewin Group has released “studies” that claim a public-option would cost doctors and hospitals money.

Five times in Sen. Wicker’s report he uses some version of the phrase “government takeover of health care.” He claims that “a public plan would kill the private insurance market.” But, the Lewin Group consultants he uses to support his claims have insurance industry ties, thus their editorial independence is suspect.

The independence of politicians, too, has long been suspect; and Congress’ standing with the public could hardly be lower. They would help their cause by presenting honest assessments of issues, using unbiased data. Then, with the crucial and necessary assistance of responsible media, the public forum would be a place where citizens could rationally decide public issues.

Sen. Wicker’s report, rather than pulling us out of the bayou of befuddlement, is, instead, a less-than-honest assessment, if its claims are supported by biased data. It seems they are.

HEALTH CARE 3

There are no plans, nothing anywhere in anyone's proposed legislation, for "government takeover" of the health industry. There ARE plans, though, for the continuance of a near-monopoly of the big half dozen insurance giants. That's why a public option is so crucial: to create some competition in the insurance world. Competition would help to contain prices. Second, why is it WalMart can market some drugs for, say, $4? Because it can buy in such gargantuan bulk, it can dictate prices to the suppliers. There's only one entity that would be larger than WalMart to do the same: a public insurance pool.

Capitalists (the REAL capitalists who actually control hefty capital) want monopolistic conditions and seek to restrict competition for their benefit (while the rest of us hope for a little true competitive capitalism). That's one of its paradoxes: the ideology at street level does not match the natural inclination (and real actions) at the level of the boardroom.

In the case at hand, all the proposals would send windfall profits to the insurance companies, because all the proposals expand coverage (even the Republican proposals), adding coverage to tens of millions of people. Remember: the proposals are not for GOVERNMENT insurance, but for a public-insurance plan or for government payments--to the insurance companies! That's why the insurance companies are generally onboard for nearly all the plans. From where they sit, it looks pretty good for business.

The pharmaceutical companies are onboard for nearly all the plans, because they would be getting increased business by way of more people covered by insurance who would be getting the drugs they need. It also looks pretty good for the drug companies.

Many physicians and medical associations support a public option, because they see they are prevented from practicing good medicine when the insurance companies are calling the shots (good pun!).

81% of the American public wants a public option for health insurance.

So, if the insurance industry knows it would benefit immensely, and big pharma knows it will benefit, and many doctors want freedom from the insurance companies, and most people want a public option, and the only entity capable of containing costs (through competition and the power of bulk-negotion of prices) is a public option--then why all the dissension and huge disinformation campaign about something cleverly labeled as "Obamacare" and "socialized medicine" and a "government takeover" of the health industry? My conclusion is that it is simply a political maneuver to destroy Obama.

I can think of no other reason why spreading fear and disinformation (e.g. death panels, Nazi health plans, euthanasia, robbing medicare, socialized medicine, long wait lines, government takeover, faceless bureaucrats intervening between patient and doctor, rationing of health care) is so important. Remember: EVERY other developed country (each has its own variations), with greater public involvement in health care than we (although we do have public programs in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and the VA system), has arguably, but demonstrably, a more successful health-care system than the U.S. Yet, what we get is widely disseminated disinformation and fearmongering.

Sadly, this climate drives out real discussion--like just how ARE costs going to be contained? I heard that a family of four, who today could be paying as much as $1,000 per month for health insurance, would, by 2020, at the rate health insurance is rising, be paying $20,000 per year. I cannot speak for the veracity of the figures, except that they are extrapolation from now to then.

And, there's little talk about how the public-option plan is ALREADY a compromise. The one that is the most rational and beneficial is the single-payer plan, which takes health care out of the profit-making business. I guess the Obama administration made a tactical decision to go with a compromise.

But, I wonder if they understood the ferocity of the opposition in using the proposed legislation as a sledge hammer to perhaps mortally wound the party in power. Too bad: There are some huge issues looming over the threatening horizon (like Iran, Afghanistan, taxes, the global environment) in which a true public discourse--meaning "real," without the political demonization--is greatly needed. I'm afraid the atmosphere has now been ruined, because some corporate media and political groups understand the power they have for spreading hate and fear, and thus control the votes. We all lose.

HEALTH CARE 2

I'm sure we can back-and-forth in an endless badinage about health care. But, for now let me inject a small point--a generality!--and some observations.

The accrual of profits might not be the only impetus to innovation. To wit: innovation occurs in some countries due to strict cost controls where the downward pressure on costs by cost controls motivate researchers to find ways to improve medical procedures. For example, in the U.S. an MRI of the neck region costs about $1,500, while in Japan the same procedure costs under $100. Not coincidentally, many of the medical innovations which we use come from places such as Japan, Canada, France, Switzerland, Britain, and so on.

Probably, I believe, we will have a health-care bill by November because both sides need to claim that they have been at the people's business. It will be a compromise. The Obama Administration is desperate to get some kind of bill to claim some kind of "success." The Republicans can also claim "success" by claiming they stood up for the American people and defeated "socialism" and the "government takeover" of health care. The bill will do little to lower costs and will put off to some later date any true reform. Without government involvement, I see little reform occurring.

In the meantime, the shorter-term goal of Republicans to badly wound Obama has been successful leading up to mid-term elections. Unfortunately, the party out of power has the incentive to resist what is best for the country, which lessens the party in power, until the opposition party is in power.

I believe eventually, after the country is in severely desperate crisis (the American way!), and no matter which party is in power, we will have significant government involvement in health care (which we already have, like Medicare). It would not come as any surprise that this could occur--perhaps most likely would occur under a Republican Administration (think environmental laws passed under Nixon). I imagine they will promote it as the patriotic thing to do (and depend on Americans' short memory).