Seeing with the Third Eye

Seeing with the Third Eye
 It's time for a reset....

When you're not a member of either  "major party", it's easy to see how all their fun and games is in pursuit of an established duopoly.  They simply don't care what happens to the rest of us.  We're the "chips" they play with between themselves, for votes and campaign contributions (which amount to extortion, not bribes, as those providing the loot used to think). 

So, we're all being exploited, and it's a negative-sum game even between the D's and R's (ever wonder where that R2-D2 came from?).    EVERYONE would benefit by a reset.  We must redesign the game for Pareto Optimality (everyone is better-off, instead of some being sacrificed to others - with added incentives to "help the poor", promote culture, etc), instead of this mindless gang warfare, which doesn't even compute on a level of 7th graders, let alone "responsible adults."

And we need a different legal system, obviously.  The one we have panders only to political demagogues, and has almost nothing to do with justice, fairness, sympathy, morality, or any of those good things usually attributed to courts of law (but not by those who run them).  Without an ethical society with ethical values shared by nearly everyone in some form, there's no point in having a legal system like we have, now, which is little more than organized gang enforcement of its edicts and territories.  No one here has any real "rights" or "protection under the law."  You only get what you pay for, or can extort from others. 

Ayn Rand and socialized medicine

If you're wondering why we don't have anything resembling "socialized medicine" in the US, it's the same reason behind the current obsession with "the failure of the public schools"  (which are, in fact, "socialized education").  The only people who opposed socialized medicine originally were some of the wealthier doctors, or more accurately, the "consultants" they hired to identify and promote their interests, which they took to be monopoly control of the supply (and even the definitions) of medicine, in order to maximize their own wealth and power. 

Enter Ayn Rand

Her essay, "The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine, the Doctor" (c. 1964) became almost a manifesto to "block" or "repeal" Medicare and other "paths to socialized medicine."  The fact that Ayn Rand squandered her vast personal fortune, and had to rely on Medicare in her old age is beside the point.  This occurred when she was dying of lung cancer - no doubt a karmic consequence of her advocacy of smoking, which was based on totally wrong arguments that cigarettes represented "power" or "man's control over nature,"  instead of the social rituals which some Native Americans still practice. 

The Crows (into which Barak Obama was adopted, probably because of the Unitarian Mission School which influenced their  subsequent development) held the Tobacco plant sacred.  There's even a Tobacco Root Mountain Range in Montana/Wyoming, and it was Montana mythology and real history which inspired a lot of Rand's work - mainly because of Jewish-Scandinavian Baltic culture which was also transplanted here. 

Anyway, I'll see if I can find a link to the "forgotten doctors" essay.  Of course, "Objectivists" claim absolute property rights over every word their prophetess has written, so you might have to buy or check out the book.  Can you find Rand's works in your local public library?  It's doubtful, which is why taxpayers no longer want to fund them (the libraries, I mean), and why they have been turned into corporate work-slave-stations, or free video-rental stores (a function which Netflix will soon have eliminated).  Now, it's the NSA which can examine anyone's library records without  a warrant, and the librarian can be prosecuted for telling her clients that they are on a "watch list" or otherwise "a person of interest"  to "the authorities."  Surely we must all want that - to be a "person of interest." 

Of course, everyone agreed to Medicare because caring for one's elderly relatives was a major burden, now assumed by the Federal Government.  Local communities which had county rest-homes and other successful local program (usually discriminating by race or class) were soon bribed or coerced into selling them to private companies, who had "more leverage in Washington".  The Democrats ran on the "socialized medicine" gravy train for 50 years, until they were finally forced to promote the reductio ad absurdum of corporate medicine, "Obamacare", with all its racist and classist overtones.  And now, all the drugged, dumbed down, middle class "liberals" are out there selling it like snake-oil. 

Even people like myself, with a degree in Economics from a leading university, can make little if any sense of our overall "welfare system."  It is positively designed to fail, and those who end up taking it over (corporate "contractors" - often major banks, credit card, or even aerospace "defense" contractors like Grumman-Northrup) have no incentives other than to maximize their own "cut" of the loot - often about 20-25% of the "gross" as a "commission" or "service charge."  And  in the case of Medicine, the doctors are anything but "forgotten."  Instead, they are further empowered to loot and bankrupt  the patients whose fees were already supposed to be paid by Medicare or Medicaid. 

How is this possible?  It really does have a lot to do with Ayn Rand, who is believed by conservatives and liberals alike to have been fundamentally evil and malevolent, albeit for different reasons.  Now, that doesn't matter.  Rand (and the Greens) are the New Reds.  We're the bad guys, by definition.  So, anything we do or say will be tainted, with each side of the duopoly blaming the other for the bad parts, and taking credit for the good.  I formulated a principle maybe 25 years ago which says this: 

Each major party is half-right and half-wrong.  They run for office on the good half, and after winning, then proceed to implement (with the assistance of the losers) the bad half, so that each side has an even chance (to begin with, anyway) in winning the next election, since no "track record" of good leadership by one party will be allowed to exist. 

Enter Baucus and the other "bi-partisans" who "broker" these deals to maximize the errors and subsequent policy disasters so that there can always be a cry for "more money" and "more programs - more jobs" for those who serve the state so dutifully. 

Ultimately, it gets down to that - serving the state, and in the particular case, party loyalty.  The only party besides the Greens where I ever participated or held leadership positions was the Republicans, so even when I despise them, I respect the real Republican tradition.  And this was where Rand and the Libertarians in general were correct.  Their arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and other Enlightenment thinkers, as well as Marx and the many Left critics who saw only misery and disasters in the "unbridled capitalism" which Jefferson and Smith supposedly endorsed (actually, they warned continuously about the power of business and trade elites, and their motives to enslave and impoverish the rest of us).  Abraham  Lincoln, who may be counted as a founding Republican Intellectual, actually read and corresponded with Marx, and always claimed that "Labor is Prior to Capital," and Labor's interests the more important in government decisions. 

Intellectuals, the workers, the taxpayers, the drafted or bribed soldiers, spies, and Homeland Security Gestapo all have the same interests.  To make sure that the owners of capital and war profiteers do not take over the  state, by impoverishing and demoralizing the rest of us to be their slaves and cannon-fodder.  For reasons listed above, that has not happened.  The Ruling Class, supposedly glorified in Rand's "superman" novels, has consolidated and concentrated its power and control in ways that more resemble Fascism or Stalinist totalitarianism than any sort of "freedom" or "free enterprise."  Our first Black president (we'd call him a Metis in Montana), instead of acting to reverse some of the murderous "foreign policy" as well as domestic Gulag of the biggest prison system the world has ever seen, has become its best (or worst) practitioner, until finally even a few of the hardened party operatives have  conceded that this might be a good time to reduce the prison population, and quit prosecuting the slaves of the drug cartels who are themselves a creature of bought and paid for legislators.  Unfortunately, no such sanity or remorse extends to the victims of US-Zionist foreign policy, which kills 100's of thousands each year. 

I was reading Jessica Mitford's "Cruel and Usual Punishment" from the early 1970's last night.  We think the Prison State is a recent consequence of the "war on drugs" or the worship of wealth and power in general, but it was all there in 1970, with the largest and most corporatized prison system in the world, at a time when the Chinese and Soviet Gulags were the main objects of American media attention.  Mitford is an institution in herself, and so the book was widely read and discussed, and she got access to people and places which even then was unprecedented.  Someone should suggest it to the First Family as a "must-read." 

Labor, Healthcare, and the Corporate State

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.