Revisiting Mr Smith Goes To Washington + Library

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reconsidered

It's hard to say how many times I've watched the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."  Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12, I should think.  I taped it off of cable (WTBS - the Turner network home station) in the 1980's - it doesn't even have commercials, which means it was before Turner Classic Movies was established.  And it's not one of those pristine prints remade from the negatives.  It has scratches and pops, but not many.

Jean Arthur, who happened to be my mother's cousin, and one that I actually met and spent some time with in 1956, was a Turner favorite, and the director, Frank Capra, is considered one of the greatest.

In this film, Jean plays a good person - which she didn't always do.  She was really more of a comedienne than a serious, dramatic actress, and she moved in the most radical Hollywood circles.  After the anti-Communist Witch Hunts (which Sen. McCarthy and friends were smart enough not to include her among), Capra renounced most of his populist, radical beliefs - even claiming that he had never supported the positions dramatized in his films of the 1930's and '40's.  Jean never went that far, but after her last film, Shane, she more or less retired into oblivion, and never appeared in another feature film.

Since we're now in a very similar political and economic situation as that of the later 1930's, this film should be shown more frequently and widely.  The role of the press (now the media, but they had radio then) and the corrupt political machines has hardly changed at all.  Jimmy Stewart, who plays Jefferson Smith, is a proto-type Green - an environmentalist, and advocate of traditional self-help and rural values - especially harmony with nature and natural processes.  It is his first trip to Washington, D.C., and he is astonished to find that all he was taught or read about American government and national purpose and values no longer applies - indeed, he is practically laughed out of town for trying to be a real Senator who is not the puppet of special interests.

Whenever I stopped the tape, I had my TV tuned to PBS, and was able to segue right into The McLaughlin Group or Washington Week in Review.  Pretty scary.  McLaughlin and his gang, especially, seemed to be exact counterparts of the "Washington Insiders" of the 1930's portrayed in Mr. Smith.

I made my trip to Washington, D.C. in 1978.  This was just after Max Baucus's first Senate campaign, which he won.  I was very much opposed to Baucus and his pseudo-liberal campaign, while pandering to right-wing isolationists who opposed the return of the Panama Canal to Panama, which was was actually the Carter Administration's position (backed by the banksters whose only hope of collecting on Panama's debt was to give them the revenues from the canal).  I knew some high-ranking Democrats in Washington, and asked them about Baucus.  They assured me that he was OK.  But he sure wasn't Mr. Smith.

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

I've wanted to revisit my "campaign" against the Great Falls Public Library and its weeding and other policies for a long time.  Here's a beginning.  I recently located my extensive files and correspondence about this from the early 1990's.  I shall publish some of that as required to restore the library to its former status as the centerpiece of our intellectual life - independent from the politics of the local school system and city government.

5 Demands for the Great Falls Public Library

1.  Define the GFPL as the central intellectual and cultural institution of our city.

2.  Form a committee of local intellectual and cultural leaders to set policy, hire staff, and otherwise organize and direct the library collections and policies.  [No, it don't mean the self-selected "Board" and "Foundation" which only answers to the City Commission mafia and D.A. Davidson and the Republican Party].

3.  Immediately halt the giveaway and sale of library books and other materials.  Reclaim or re-purchase all significant books which have been discarded over the past 25 years, at $1/copy.  The oversight committee can determine which are "significant" and need to be replaced in the library's collection.  [I have attempted several times to restore such books to the Library's shelves, and have been met with nothing but derision and contempt from Library staff.  They refuse to admit they ever made a mistake, or acted out of censorous motives.  And I have protested, in writing, many other times over particular books found on their "dollar shelf" - not one of which was ever answered except by a form letter.]

4.  Fire all those employees who were hired by Jim Heckel, and re-evaluate the Director's position, job description, etc., as well as other professional (MLS) staff.  In my many conversations with these people, I have yet to hear anything which resembles an understanding of what a public library is for, and what services it is supposed to provide - let alone the constitutional issues of freedom of information and local control of vital institutions.

5.  Expand hours of service from 8 am to midnight, 7 days per week. 

What to do when democracy fails - autobiographical

What to do when democracy fails
by Paul Stephens

It's time to admit it.  Democracy in America has failed.  We no longer have any of the elements of a free society.  We no longer have self-government.  We no longer have the Rule of Law, or independent judiciary.  We no longer have civilian control of the military.  We no longer have a free press, or the opportunity to organize politically in order to change our system and "leadership class," such as it is.

And worst of all, every trend is towards more centralization, more polarization, more wealth and power for the elite 1%, and less for everyone else.  It's like slavery has become respectable, again.

This didn't just happen in the last week, or over the past 10, 20, or 30 years.  All the elements were in place 40 years ago, or even 80 years ago, or 160 years ago.  1846, "the Year of Decision," as Bernard DeVoto called it, marked the beginning of "the American Empire."  And we can even go back to 1802, when President Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers and author of several key state documents and institutions, was negotiating to pay $15 million in gold to Napoleon, to support his wars of conquest against Britain and Russia, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, and even Egypt - roughly the same agenda which Adolf Hitler would follow in the Second World War, except that Napoleon emancipated the Jews, while Hitler liquidated them as a destructive, alien element.

Just think about that for a minute.  The fledgling US Republic, dirt-poor and with very little government or taxes at all, scraped together the equivalent of a year's operating expenses - much of it borrowed from Dutch-Jewish bankers - to pay Napoleon for a "territory" which he didn't in any sense own.  It was pure "foreign aid", and to a dictator the likes of whom the world had never seen since the height of the Roman Empire.  In effect, we, the people of the United States, right then and there, threw in our lot with the heir to the French Revolution (a revolution which President Jefferson admired, and to some extent even helped to foment).

So, we can go back that far to find the roots of our current situation.  Basically, it has ALWAYS been this way in The United States of America.  We have been fighting world wars since the early 1800's, and our very existence as a nation depended upon French, Dutch, and other foreign nations which helped us gain our so-called "independence" from the Britsh Crown.

We learned all this in elementary and middle school, right?  Well, we learned most of the "facts" (or some of us did - I was an avid reader of history and biography from the 4th grade on - because we had a library and schools which encouraged such reading, which no longer exist).  And coming from a literate family which also read history, and had history books at home, it was easy for me to do this - even while our family was dysfunctional with alcohol, drugs, divorce, sex and gender issues, as well as poverty and lack of any middle-class income.

When I got to high school, I was testing at the top 1% (which I had actually been doing since the 2nd grade, I later found out), and began to discover others in my "intellectual class" - the children of doctors, lawyers, large land-owners, engineers, and business people - and I was able to "integrate" myself with them - even while I was considered to be something of a charity case and odd-ball.

It was my 2nd generation Norwegian grandparents who saved me from a life of ignorance and destruction, by  more or less bribing me to take music lessons and be confirmed in the Lutheran Church.  Even though I was by that time an atheist, and never attended a Lutheran service for another 12 years, I was "confirmed."  I had some identity which I could claim, when everything else went wrong.

People tend to live and think in herds.  I didn't.  I could never understand how people simply went along with whatever their friends and families were doing.  No one seemed to question anything, and if they did, they were punished for it.  In college and afterwards, I joined a few organizations and tried to find some sort of "peer group" or people who followed some of the same ideas and politics which I did.  None of them lasted very long until I took psychedelics, dropped out of graduate school, and began to re-learn everything I had ever known and believed through different "filters" and pre-conceptions.  I found that there were different religions, philosophies, and traditions which seemed to fit much better than WASP Judeo-Christianity and the "linear thinking" behind secular American culture and its commercialized economy and lifestyles.

Growing up in Montana, I only knew white people - those of European descent, plus a few Metis - mixed blood Native Americans.  My aunt had married a Jewish man, so I had a half-Jewish cousin, who never really identified with those traditions - partly because Jewish belonging is matriarchal, and her mother wasn't Jewish.  I probably knew a few people with some African-American descent - even a few with Arabic or other Islamic and Asian backgrounds.  I remember one Chinese family, the Wongs, who still live here, and a Japanese exchange student, but I never had a conversation with any of them in high school (or with the many black people who lived here, then).  Among those I knew, none of them defined themselves as being "people of color" or otherwise "different" - it was bad for one's job and marriage prospects, among other things.  Everyone I knew, in those days, was trying to "pass for white" as they said in the South, and in fact, Great Falls was racially segregated up to about 1970, as the history of the Ozark Club has revealed.

And so, I went off to college as something of a confirmed racist - even though I wouldn't have admitted it at the time.  I agreed with Goldwater entirely, opposing federal laws which forced the "integration" of private facilities, although I understood that the government on whatever level couldn't discriminate.  But I had nothing against black people, and when I got to college, I began to have conversations with them - very strained, at first, I must admit.  It wasn't until I was in a French class with African Americans, and who were much better at learning a language than I was, that I began to understand who my friends should have been, and that race had nothing to do with status among the intellectual or cultural elites I hoped to join.

So, whatever happened to Democracy in America?  We will continue to explore that question in future installments.

 

10 best concepts popularized by Ayn Rand

The Christian Science Monitor (of all places) recently posted a set of 10 Favorite Quotations from Ayn Rand.  I thought it was pretty lame, so I decided to do my own - not with quotations, but with the actual concepts she popularized and espoused.

10 best concepts from Ayn Rand and the Objectivists (a rock 'n roll band)

1.  Social Metaphysics  -  Originally "distilled" or named by Nathaniel Branden, who was developing Objectivist Psychology at the time, "social metaphysics" describes the mechanism by which people are forced into obedience and conformity.  The whole process of "bonding" and creating "affinity groups" (gangs) requires that each person give up his or her own view of reality, and conform to the social unit.  In other words, one's metaphysical view of one's place in the world is totally social, not individual or free.  Which leads us to

2 &3. Individualism -  Rand was the leading individualist philosopher of her day.  And this is both "ethical individualism" and "methodological individualism".  The former refers to her politics totally dominated by "individual rights" and their protection.   Rand believes (and claims Thomas Jefferson as a fellow-believer on this) that "in order to protect these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  Wasn't that in the Declaration of Independence?  Yes,  But Rand and her "school" of libertarians believe exactly that, while most other political philosophers and practitioners apparently do not, believing instead that "might makes right" or some sort of "divine right of ......." - whether church or state officials, law, taxes, etc.
"Methodological Individualism" simply means that the individual is the "unit" for all social analysis and policies.  The whole may be more than the sum of its parts, but it is the parts which are acting, sentient beings.  Each individual is "sovereign", and has purposes, values, etc. of its own, which must be recognized and protected.

4.  The Stolen Concept - This is a simple paraphrase of one of the rules of logic - like "begging the question" (petitio princippi).  You arrive at conclusions which rely on some concept which you have already denied.  She gives lots of examples of this, usually with a rightist bias.  Like, "you can't have "socialized medicine" because that would be enslaving the doctors.  With enslaved doctors, you don't have any good medicine at all."  But it works equally well from the left.  You learn the tools, and then apply them to your own projects or positions. And of course the real student will then study logic, to see if what Rand was saying is correct, and verified "in the literature" or whatever.  Usually, they'd either find that it wasn't, or that there were already better explanations of the process or phenomenon in question.

5.  Cigarettes are a symbol of freedom and liberation.  So, Rand was a drug freak after all.  Didn't we just know it?  And everyone has the right to enjoy their guilty pleasures, whether sexual, pharmaceutical, alcoholic, etc. - "so long as it doesn't harm others."  But of course all of these things harm others!  So much for Ayn Rand!

6.  Escape clauses - the above is an example of that.   Ayn Rand isn't for everybody.  In fact, it's for almost nobody - the 1%, the Mensans, the nerds and geeks, the sexually confused and dispossessed.  Boys with Oedipus Complexes, and refugees from tyrannical religious sects and doctrines.  It's the traditional proto-revolutionary class, or at least that's what attracted me to it.  And I never feared that I could get back out if need be.  I chose to be there, and I could chose to leave.  I knew a hundred different perspectives on the Phenomenon of Ayn Rand, and being afraid wasn't any part of them.

7.  Pride, self-esteem.  This seems like such a cliche, now, but outside of Hollywood, these were not values prominently displayed in American society prior to Ayn Rand's influence in the 1940's with The Fountainhead.  In that novel (which really was revolutionary at the time), Rand explained the various social types who are destroying our world, our souls, and our very existence as a nation and people.  There wasn't any glorification of "capitalists" and bankers/industrialists there.  They were all SOB's, while it was journalists, independent business people (entrepreneurs), and artists/musicians who were really important, and had "souls."

8.  Ennoblement -  Tim Leary used this term, I think.  American society was "ennobled" by the youth culture of the 1960's, and the Objectivist movement was a big part of it, as was Scientology.  It was seen, world-wide, as another Renaissance, and Objectivism was a Renaissance philosophy and movement.

9.  The literature of music.  Ayn Rand understood the importance of symphonic music to the educational and social process as well or better than anyone.  You simply can't have an advanced society without a large number of people listening to and finding meaning in this essential cultural framework.  Every advanced culture has it, and values it.

10.  Romanticism  -  Those of us with an inherent interest in film, TV, drama, music, or the other arts were fascinated by Rand's defense of what she called "Romanticism."  Not quite the same as the historical movement which started in Germany and France during and after the Revolution, but she had good taste, and read all those people critically.  It's worth mentioning that Rand was also a Wagnerite, like many other Northern European Jews, and also much closer to Lutheranism than Catholicism insofar as cultural aspects were concerned.  (Like Trotsky, who was educated in a German-language Lutheran gymnasium!).

The 19th century Romantics, on the other hand, were more - well, "Roman." 

Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge" - Milton Friedman, Chile, etc.

The Secret Knowledge

I have just been outraged, listening to Garrison Keilor's "The Writer's Almanac".

He devoted today's program, Dec 5, 2011, to Rose Wilder Lane and Joan Didion (as well as Calvin Trillin).

No mention of "The Discovery of Freedom."  Just "Little House on the Prairie."  In these days, with Ron Paul surging, there can be no mention of Liberty or of any threats posed by government.  It is "freedom" that is the enemy.

I found myself recoiling at the tremendous spiritual evil which is the Democratic Party, the Liberal Establishment.

Stupidity, greed, power lust -
just lust, distilled, as doctrine -

=========
Cont 12-10-11

I happened upon David Mamet, the playwright, in his new book at the Library.  I must have seen Mamet on a talk show or two, or otherwise seen or heard him reviewed or interviewed.  And I have seen a couple of his films (that he wrote - I don't think he directed them, but he could have).  Anyway, he's a big name, and obviously a master of the American Vernacular.  Here in Great Falls among Bison alumni, he should get 10 bonus points for writing "American Buffalo."

This newest book is called, intriguingly, "The Secret Knowledge."  I used to believe that "secret" and "sacred" were somehow related or cognate.  Not so, apparently, but in this use of the word, Mamet comes very close to what I was thinking of.  Never has there been such an embarrassing liberal "conversion" to the doctrines of so-called "conservatism" as Mamet's.  He read a couple of books by Hayek and Friedman, and started listening to Fox News, and one of the greatest playwrights of our time was now a raging conservative - as exemplified by Hayek, Friedman, and a number of the rest of the Pantheon.  Ayn Rand isn't indexed, but her essay collection, 'The Virtue of Selfishness" is in the Bibliography.  So are several works by Noam Chomsky.  Obviously, Mamet had read him during his "liberal" period, and sees no reason to think the less of the great linguist and political philosopher, now.  At least we know Mamet is being honest here, and I can follow his every step so far.

You're probably thinking, as I was, "Surely this is a parody" - some sort of radical joke or ploy - a put-on, in other words.  Except for the Zionism and Neocon nonsense, I pretty much agree with everything Mamet says, and when I don't, it's either because he or I don't exactly have the best answer or analysis, already.  As all my friends know, I'm a stalwart defender of Hayek.  And if I can't defend him on some obscure point of economic theory, there are many others who can.  He was a good man, and had original and important insights into the economic order, and did everything in his power to maximize the public good.  He was a sincere Millian Utilitarian.

Milton Friedman I'll leave to Mamet, since they're both Jewish, and presumably understand each other better than I do.  I've heard Friedman speak and teach, and shaken hands with him.  I liked his books much better before I met him.  He was actually a sort of gangster type.  Or perhaps rightist Bolshevik of some kind.  I'm not even sure he was a rightist, and like Hayek, he denied being a conservative. 

Chicago School, I suppose, says it all - even though Friedman was a disciple of the original group centered around Frank H. Knight, Aaron Director, and several others.  (Hayek was Austrian School - quite different from the Chicago economists).  My best econ professors were their students, or Friedman's.  Friedman was really more of a technocrat and econometrician/historian.  He had all the classical liberal arguments for a free society - he especially mentions A.V. Dicey, and his jurisprudence, so he was a genuine "classical liberal" (libertarian), and not the supporter of dictators, etc., he is made out to be.

Remember, this is the Rockefeller-funded University (Chicago) which trained the best business economists in the world - for several decades.  They were much in demand by any country that wanted to succeed.  Whatever you want to say about Chile, it has one of the strongest economies in Latin America, as it did before the 1973 Coup.  I don't think we can really blame Milton Friedman for "the Chicago Boys" successes, or any of them for the human rights atrocities.  That wasn't his sphere of interest or influence.

In fact, when I investigated this further, I found that there were a number of Chicago-trained Chileans there already.  Pinochet's coup was engineered by CIA and other American interests.  I wouldn't be surprised if Rockefeller, the CFR, and Henry Kissinger in particular were involved.  Indeed, there are still warrants out for Kissinger over this, I understand.  Why not blame Harvard instead of the University of Chicago? - they are, after all, major rivals in this "industry."

And since Hayek and Friedman are often mentioned in the same sentence, as though they were intellectual brothers or something, let me throw some light on this.  Their methodology and values are somewhat different, although they might come to similar policy conclusions.
Both men are, in some sense, libertarians.  And both founding members of the Mt. Pelerin Society (a very interesting story in itself which Mamet might want to follow up on.  Indeed, he might be eligible for membership!)

But they come from opposite ends of society and culture.  Friedman's mother worked in the garment district sweat-shops of New York City - a fact which Friedman claimed proved the value of "capitalism" and "free enterprise."  Through Rutger's, Friedman attended nothing but public schools - New York City's were among the best in the world, then.  Yet, he is viciously opposed to public education, and the strongest and most important advocate of a universal voucher system.

His take on medicine is very similar.  It has been regulated to death.  There should be no occupational licensure.  The market should determine everything.  And since there are those who have no tokens to play in the market game, he has a ready answer (and one which I suspect he knew could never be implemented) - a guaranteed annual income.  Can a single person survive on $1000/month?  OK.  Pay everyone that, or a portion of it if they are presently making less than $2000/month.  And let them keep half of what they earn up to the $2000, at which point the subsidy will end, and they will be taxed at some fair rate (say, 25%, on everything they make over that).  But neither Friedman nor I really likes the idea of a tax on regular wages and salaries of working people.  It's the unearned income, the rents and speculative or monopoly profits which need to be highly taxed - both to discourage abuse of these powers, and to maximize the income of the state.  It's just the opposite, in other words, of the punishing "conservative" view of keeping the poor, poor and dependent, and letting the very wealthy get a free pass on everything because they are somehow "creating jobs" with their stolen wealth and influence.

If Mamet is serious about this shedding of his tattered and corrupt liberal skin, and emerging fresh and free into the glorious sunshine of freedom, I might be able to help.  If you've got the money, I've got the time.

Updated-2-5-12-

I picked up a DVD of Mamet's alleged masterpiece, the film of Glengarry Glen Ross, with his own screenplay, and starring four of the greatest actors working then - Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, and Kevin Spacey.  Wow!  I had no idea.  Think "Death of a Salesman" on meth or crack cocaine.  This is the Film Noir version of Film Noir.  I mean, it's almost unwatchable for people in my class, who have worked in sales and marvelled that such barbarity could persist in today's America.  But it's Amerika, right?  In the Kafkian sense, maybe.  The German national temperament is much more temperate, I'm sure.  Cool. 

Leon Panetta - War Criminal

Leon Panetta on 60 Minutes

This will be the third time I've publicly stated that I believe Leon Panetta (as well as the President, and his immediate two predecessors) are certifiable war criminals, directly responsible for ordering the killing of numerous civilians and patriots of their respective countries or faiths.

Needless to say, this killing is illegal, and constitutes war crimes.  They admit they are doing it, and defend the practice.  If they will not voluntarily resign, they must be removed from office, and then prosecuted by international authorities in a War Crimes Tribunal.

I don't understand how the news media and almost everyone involved in government can fail to recognize the necessity for this.  Not only do we not have a "rule of law" - we don't even have a free press, sane judiciary or functional legislatures/Congress, and even though the men elected to the Presidency have merit and experience of various kinds, they have proven totally incapable of actually addressing the issues and crises which face us.

It's like, they think it's all a joke, that we were dumb enough to elect them President.  They're just actors like Ronald Reagan, and on the verge of Alzheimer's, at that.  They really don't know what to do, and have no interest in doing it, even if they did know.  Clinton was the last one who at least aspired to this knowledge and informed leadership.  Jimmy Carter was another one - both excelled academically and in their professions or businesses.
 
But one really doesn't know what to make of an Obama.  Frankly, I don't think it's actually dawned on him, yet, that he actually is POTUS, and can use that office to promote peace, justice, and environmental sustainability.

Some have hypothesized that the President and his family are under threat - that they are forced to do and say these things, on pain of assassination.  It's got to be a major part of the calculation, and obviously is and has been since at least 1963.  But if that is so, then he needs to resign, say something to that effect (as many others, including our top General, Colin Powell, have done), and thus "fix the problem."  If our elected President isn't really our president, then why is he there?  He is not serving the people, but only a few mega-corporations and gangsters.  Let them take care of him, and let us have a different president.

Why aren't any Democrats running against this most-reviled president in history?  Why have they ceded their party to the likes of Max Baucus, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden (the Credit Card Senator) and James Carville, who shamelessly use their influence to promote their corporate clients and the party machines?  How can they - especially Democrat women - stand by when a Madeleine Albright or Hillary Clinton leads us into wars and murderous campaigns against civilians?

Albright, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair were the first set of war criminals widely identified following the intentional liquidation of Serbia, without any UN or other legitimate reasons or justification.  It was simply NATO "re-defining" itself as a kind of global Werhrmacht and Luftwaffe, which fit right in with Bush II and his Zionist Neocons, and has carried over even unto our first African-American President, who is now presiding over NATO raping Africa and the encirclement of the now-economically dominant East Asia.

God and the rest of the world understand this.  They don't know what to make of the "good old USA."  The one they knew and did business with following World War II no longer exists.  It is like we've become "the Image of the Enemy" along with Israel - questing for resources to feed our war machines, and demanding "Lebensraum" from our poorer, darker neighbors.

Isn't it obvious?  We will be punished for our sins, secularly as well as ecclesiastically, on earth as it is in Heaven.  And it may require the complete annihilation of the human species, leaving only machines and few frozen corpses waiting to be revived when Earth is again fit for human habitation. It's definitely something we want to avoid. 

The Health Insurance Racket

I wrote the following essay over the past several days, under the title of "The Fallacy of Health Insurance." Ralph Nader had an article in today's Counterpunch called "The Healthcare Racket" which might make many of the same points- I haven't read it yet, but you can read it here:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/02/the-health-care-racket/


-greateco




The Fallacy of "Health Insurance"


By Paul Stephens


"Insurance" is probably one of the most mis-used and falsely-advertised products or service in our current "service economy." What, exactly is "insurance?" We know what property and casualty insurance are. You pay so much a year, or per voyage, or other period of time, and this "protects" you from calamitous losses - of either your property or your life. If you have a family and up-scale lifestyle, you might want to bet that you could die prematurely, and your family would thereby "win" this bet by collecting the insurance money. That's about as far as the business concept of "insurance" really goes.


What, then, about "Health Insurance?" Apparently, nearly all of our leading political and business people seem to believe in and support this concept, without really knowing what "insurance" is, or what it can and cannot do.


I've maintained for at least 20 years - probably more like 40 - that "Health insurance" is a racket and a fraud, akin to the Mafia "protection rackets" and other forms of organized extortion.


And it should be obvious why this is so. We're not "insuring" our health when we buy health insurance. Instead, we are protecting our assets from confiscation by medical providers and their collection agencies. And even if we don't have any assets, we might want some form of "insurance" now, simply to guarantee access to medical services. Most providers require proof of insurance or other means of payment before they will treat us - something which was unthinkable even 30 years ago.


This, of course, is the "business model" which hospitals and clinics use. Somehow, they have gone from being a public service to the most predatory and exploitative kind of business - speaking technically, a "coercive monopoly" which prevents using alternatives (drug laws, medical licensing and accreditation laws) while maximizing its own revenues with pricing which has little or nothing to do with real costs, but everything to do with price discrimination and making sure that such payments (revenues) are maximized for the providers.


Yet, somehow, that never gets mentioned! We all know cases from our families and friends, if not ourselves, where they're in the hospital for a few days and come out with a bill so astronomical that we should laugh at it. I'm talking, now, like $20,000 per DAY for a bout of pneumonia or a heart by-pass surgery, with all the meds and dressings itemized at perhaps 10 times or more their real cost. If you're on Medicare, you'll get something like an 80% discount - that's all that Medicare will reimburse for this. "Good" private insurance might result in a two-thirds discount - the $100,000 bill will be paid by the insurer to the extent of $30,000 or so, with perhaps some deductibles or co-payments required to be paid out-of-pocket, or by "supplementary insurance."


If you're indigent, and on Medicaid, the "providers" might get reimbursed $10,000, but don't expect very good care. Still, that's close to the real "marginal cost" and thus "free market price" which all cash payers should be able to negotiate for, except that as a coercive monopoly, our present "non-profit" hospitals don't have to negotiate with anyone. And they have dozens of lawyers and other bill collectors to back them up. The independent physician or private clinic has always been willing to do some negotiating, but now that everyone is "covered" by something or other, they have no incentive to charge fair prices to ordinary people with working-class incomes.


So, where exactly does "insurance" or, especially, "Health Insurance" fit into this picture? Nowhere, obviously. You don't have property, so you don't need to insure it against fire, theft, or bill collectors, right? You don't have a cash income, so you don't need to "protect" your survivor's "rights" to it. (But your estate, if any, will be pillaged by the hospitals and doctors who provided your final health care - probably more than all the rest you spent in your entire life). So, you'd better have insurance or else dispose of your property ahead of time - even that can be traced and recovered (confiscated) under our present bankruptcy and inheritance laws, though.


Yes, you may need healthcare - the services of a physician, hospital facilities, drugs, dressings, crutches, wheel chairs, etc. Where do they come from? They've always been provided both publicly and privately. Doctors and nurses are trained to treat everyone, regardless of wealth or "ability to pay." You pay what you can, volunteer if you can't, trade work or other services, etc. Which all works fine in a free society with free markets and strong "family values" like church, community, being one's brothers' keepers, etc. We all help out, and help is there for us when we need it. The American Way.


In case you hadn't noticed, that's not what we have, now. We have a bureaucratic nightmare dominated by multi-billion-dollar corporations and executives who live under guard in gated communities. We live in a system of economic totalitarianism - call it "gangster capitalism" or whatever - and we must pay everything we have and always depend on the State and corporations to provide us with necessities - think of North Korea. That is what we have HERE and NOW.


I just listened to an hour of discussion on the Helena Public TV channel which covers the interim legislative committees' business. With the "Affordable Care" bill, insurance rates are spiking, as everyone knew they would (insurance companies now have to cover pre-existing conditions and other higher-risk groups), and some of the groups which are being forced to buy the resulting defective products are revolting. College students, for example, must either have proof of health insurance, or buy the university system policy for some $840/semester - which they assure us is a bargain rate - far below "the market price."


But if you're forced to buy it, there is no market price. How YOU value it, as a customer, may be on the order of $20, or nothing at all, since you will still have to pay out of pocket up to some deductible, as well as co-payments, and the cap for "benefits" under this policy is now $50,000, whereas last year, it was $200,000. So, basically, the insurance is totally worthless to the student, but very valuable to the local medical establishment, which is sure to get paid off in case of a car wreck, skiing accident, or whatever.


In effect, the $840/semester is an added tuition fee or even a tax from the student's point of view. And it will no doubt result in a significant number of students dropping out or taking less than 4 credits per semester (which exempts one from the requirement). Someone, it may have been Ms Stearns, the Commissioner for Higher Education, pointed out that they presently have a "soft enforcement" policy for this requirement. Thus, just about anyone could "opt out" pleading poverty or whatever. So, that's why this policy hasn't done a lot of damage already. But never fear: the discussion thereafter included "tightening" up the "enforcement" of this policy, as though that were a "solution."
One used to only read about stuff like this in Orwell or Kafka. We laughed at the idea that America could ever be like this. Well, it is, and hardly anyone is laughing about it, now.


And of course we are hearing the same sorts of promises from the State Auditor candidates, whose business it is to regulate insurance (but not medical services) in the state. Indeed, one wonders who, if anyone, regulates the medical business at all! Obviously, they are guilty of numerous business practices which, in any other field, would be illegal and closely monitored by the Attorney General, if no one else, as part of the Consumer Protection bureaucracy.