Labor, Health Care, and the Corporate Media
Or, What Happened to Alternative Radio on Labor Day?
Can anyone explain to me WHY our health-care system, one of the vital systems of society, the state, the community, and/or the species, is somehow turned over to the profiteers and politicians of the "insurance industry", better called "the Health Insurance Protection Racket" or "Health Extortion, Inc."? Why do the media and all political candidates (except Greens and a few socialists) insist on keeping the discussion focused on "health insurance" and how to subsidize it, rather than "providing quality and appropriate health care for everyone."
I'm sorry. I just don't get it. Is there some RESPONSIBLE person in government, academia, or the media, who can actually make an argument why this should be happening? We've seen the discussions and the process totally subverted by people like Max Baucus, who is unashamedly and totally sold out to the corporate racketeers, even while he pretends to be a "Democrat."
They will not answer the questions; they will not listen to the experts in health care administration and policy; they will actively arrest and suppress the real advocates for free, universal medical services, or at least a system where everyone is included, with health care services being defined as a human right and the most fundamental function of good government.
We also need vigorous consumer protection laws so that no one can be made to pay inflated prices for unnecessary or inappropriate services -which some of us would claim is just about all that our present "health care system" provides. The irony of terminally-ill patients being treated for the last few weeks of their lives at costs which will more than liquidate a life-time's work and savings in their estates is not lost on us. But if these people are elderly or poor, they are "covered." Yet, the rest of us still have to pay for it, at the same fictional or vastly inflated prices.
The present system "rations" by means of income or ability to pay (or have someone else pay) for the treatment. But it also excludes millions from easy minor and preventive treatments which will save 10-fold what they cost. Instead of passing a whole ACA which pretends to correct these problems while actually making them worse (and more profitable for the medical, insurance, and Pharma monopolies), all they needed to do was provide all the basic health care services free, or at (real) cost, rather than shifting all the tremendous costs of a monstrous and unworkable system on to the taxpayers, insurance buyers, etc.
Remember, real insurance is by its very nature, gambling (and "discriminatory" according to risk or probability of loss). "Health insurance" isn't really insurance at all. It was originally intended only for the wealthy, or those who wanted to use it as an incentive to attract healthier employees by guaranteeing that they would not go broke if they were injured or made ill in the workplace or anywhere else. No one's health is being "insured," technically speaking. All that Health Insurance provides is a legally-enforceable guarantee that someone will receive health care from certain providers. There is no guarantee that anyone will stay healthy or be cured, which is the obvious sense that most people understand by "insurance."
In fact, you're insuring your property and estate against confiscation by the medical bill collectors (of which there are more than doctors). Even then, unless you have the most expensive policies, there will be co-payments or exemptions which will probably result in your paying more out of your own pocket than the services actually cost, in addition to having to pay for the original "insurance." A totally unworkable system unless enforced by the state and its legal and police power. No one would voluntarily pay for such a system, which costs at least 4 times more than the socialist alternative.
The idea that "insurance" (which was a very good deal for the healthy people who had it in those days) would cover all the health care costs of the country was never dreamed of, until some politicians decided to reframe "socialized medicine" (unpopular in the McCarthy era) by calling it "national health insurance," and fund it with a payroll tax. (Again, working people paying disproportionately to cover everyone else's health care expenses) So long as it remained free and consumer-driven, it worked. Most of the providers remained in private practice, working at public or non-profit hospitals and clinics, but regulated as to the price and quality standards they had to meet.
This is the so-called "Single Payer" system. It is not "socialized medicine," but a hybrid. Some people on the left still don't like that. They claim that "payment for service" (treatment) greatly expands the number of unnecessary or inappropriate treatments, and that is certainly the case, today. And that is why insurance companies rarely pay the inflated, false prices which people not covered by insurance (but with recoverable assets) are forced to pay - often through their estates. Still, the laws are continually being revised in favor of the medical collectors - in many states, medical bankruptcies aren't even permitted, and where they are, they're the single largest category for bankruptcy proceedings.
So, the first step is to re-define our terms:
It's not about "coverage" or being accounted for in some bureaucrat's ledgers. It's about anyone being able to walk (or be carried) into a health care facility, and being able to receive the best possible health care commensurate with their needs and resources available. And for those who are terminally ill, they won't have to sign away their homes and future income streams.
The lowest priority for a public health care system is those about to die. That's why we have hospice. That's why doctors use triage in emergency situations. It's simple economics. We must make the best use of the resources available - something "liberals" never seem to understand. We can no longer waste expensive treatments and services on those who cannot benefit from them.
And, conversely, the young, the working, and the HEALTHY need these services most of all - to keep them that way. So, call it "throwing grandma under the bus" or whatever - it's a necessary survival strategy in this case. Instead, the "insurance model" insists that the healthy continue to be forced to pay the unrealistic and unaccountable (and most expensive) services for those who are both poorest and sickest. If this is "socialized medicine" (and no one would honestly claim that it is), then it's no wonder that people don't want "government health care" - especially not those who are already on Veteran's, Indian, or other government-provided health care systems, right?
Instead, everyone is promised "good insurance" which covers all the costs of quality health care - something which is impossible for more than a small minority. It's the INSURANCE MODEL which is fundamentally wrong, and it's obviously a much worse disaster after being made compulsory. It's the difference between a numbers racket and a protection racket. You don't have to play the numbers, but it pays off well enough so that people like to play them (unlike the state lotteries designed to replace it, which are actually another tax on the poor and stupid.) That's like the original health insurance policies - you only want to pay for one if you're actually going to need that much health care, or somehow feel "safer" or "more secure" having it.
A protection racket, on the other hand, is pure extortion. It demands "Your money or your life" (or at least your knee-caps or your daughter's virginity). And that's exactly what our "health insurance" racket does, today. The ACA is like telling local storekeepers - 'Yeh, there's nothing we can do about the mob, but we'll help you pay your protection money if you're below a certain income level or number of employees." Seriously. Am I the only person in this universe who understands?
We need to start over. If we're going to spend taxpayer's money on health care, we'd better be damned sure it's being spent in the most cost-effective ways. We want to save the most lives with minimum suffering. We must re-dedicate ALL of our healthcare dollars and resources to actually providing health care, rather than paying off any number of wealthy racketeers - whether insurance extortionists (who make the Mafia look benign in comparison), drug pushers, and the thousands of other Iatrogenic Specialists in every area of our present health care system. (Iatrogenic = doctor-caused).
"We sicken 'em, you cure 'em". It's like a variation on the old undertaker joke - "You stab 'em, we slab 'em." We know this happens, and some (like the saintly Ivan Illich) actually claimed that the medical profession is the single greatest threat to public health. It certainly needs to purge itself of these tendencies. Instead, the "profiteers and monopolists" wing of the profession now rules unchallenged. It's only a matter of time until they completely eliminate any sort of natural remedies, holistic medicine, acupuncture, and homeopathy.
So far, we've stayed safe by NOT accepting (or being given) the same status for insurance payments or govt. programs as aliopathic medicine receives. No mystery - they write all the legislation, and have a monopoly on the very term "medicine" - something which we, along with the Blackfeet and other traditional belief systems, strongly contest. But the recent crackdown on medical cannabis indicates that they will not rest as long as there are profits to be made by eliminating the competition.
Let's put it in the Constitution. First, we have the right to self-medicate, and select and utilize any alternative methods and philosophies of medicine and health care. This is especially true of natural and traditional treatments which do not involved patents and high-tech equipment. Although there are many problems with that, too, which can be easily resolved in a nationalized, public health care system, we don't have to worry about that, here. Just recognize our right to treat ourselves, and use whatever we think best and appropriate in our treatments.
Occupational licensure is another related issue that needs to be addressed, but suffice to say that a license should not be used to create or enforce monopolies, or prevent people from using the products or services they think best, and at a fair price.
All government expenditures on health care should be spent in public clinics and hospitals, laboratories, etc. And all such facilities should be defined as "public" ("nationalized" or some operational equivalent). Those who don't use government funds are, of course, free to do whatever they like within the usual limits of common law.
If they are public or non-profit, there are no stockholders or other "owners" to reimburse. Non-profits with a legitimate history and policies may continue under present staffing, with only their rates and access policies having to conform to national or regional norms. For-profit medicine is over (at least insofar as it collects tax-payer money and enjoys other special privileges) and those companies engaged in it can sell their assets to the new system or its local components for whatever the market will allow, and their employees find an honest job where they are free to actually put the patients' well-being ahead of political and economic interests..
This is really the only answer left. Until we start talking straight about this issue, and listen to people who know what they're doing, things will only get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment