Response to Health-Care Misinformation, Demagoguery, and Monopolist Perils
a blog post by Cornell Cox, July 18th, 2012. All
articles posted may be read at the blog site by clicking Critical
Actions or reached by search engine, type in: Critical Actions: What's Your Opinion? Anyone desiring not to be on
this mail list may reply to CornellCox@msn.com.
Note: Space and time
does not permit full reply to all remarks, but I hope I've covered some of the
higher points. (At end of my commentary, I've offer some books to read which may
help answer question not covered here.) The yellow highlighted areas are mine
and not the guest writer. Your comments may be made directly at the blog site,
if so I'll get a copy or you may continue to respond by email.
When I wrote this
essay, I didn't expect as much opinion on media or some of the visceral,
illogical response. On the other hand there was some very thoughtful and
reasoned retort, and I am appreciative of all who commented. If you can believe
it, the verbiage has become less invective than some responses to my earlier
blog post. The mild references to "worse than Stalin," "Leftist " (the advocating of liberal, socialist,
or communist political and social change or reform), the liberals, the liberals, "Cornell you and your liberal friends" disparagements,
maybe doesn't contribute to an affable, civil discourse. Some of my centrist-left
friends may take offence. I had my say on that stuff when I expounded in Fallacy
of Political Labels. So let's just drop those references and state either "left",
"liberal" or "progressive" when referring to people of the
opposite Party.
I'll take claim to
being "socially progressive," described as in Liberal meaning not limited to or by established,
traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from
bigotry; favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded; Liberal Of,
designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated
with principles of social and political liberalism; tending to give freely. On the other side of the
political label, I'll claim "fiscal conservatism," with
some caveats to excessive austerity during severe-recessions. (To be explained in
later blog.)
So far as "liberals having no ears," I expect the "great
conservative" of our time, William F. Buckley, to whom I listened and
respected, would be thunderstruck at some of the rhetoric echoing from the
right-thunder-storms. Buckley would agree, I believe, with Sam Tanenhaus, in
his book The Death of Conservatism: "There remains in our
politics a place for an authentic conservatism—a conservatism that seeks not to
destroy but to conserve."
Perhaps, to sum
up the opinion for some right-views on the TV news media is this response:
"Thank God for Fox News. If you would watch and listen more, you wouldn't
be so quick to send this kind of information. JAB"
Over the past several
years, incredulously I've heard some friends admit, "I only watch FOX
NEWS." I agree with some of the responses herein, it's healthy to test
various news channels. If not, certainly one will come away not only with a
more biased view, potentially one indoctrinated to an uncompromising, Limbaugh's
spiel.
I believe, it's
only FOX that claims the "Fair and Balanced" slogan. If you claim it,
should you not be held accountable? In prior blog discussions, some of my
right-friends tried to equate Glenn Beck's show with what was happening on MSN,
but as it turned out, Beck the conspiracy theorist, became
"too foxy" even for FOX. On a regular basis I watched Fox's NewsWatch, a panel of four critiquing
the news, until they removed the better progressive panel members, which left
the show so clearly extreme, right tilted. (Maybe by now they've changed.) In
its place I chose Reliable Sources, hosted by Howard Kurtz on CNN. For me CNN
is the "most trusted," as they claim: such programs a GPS with Fareed
Zakaria for a world-point-of-view or Erin Burnett's
OUTFRONT news program. I also watch MSN's Hardball, the ramble/scramble in
politics, which observably leans left, but Chris Matthews gives all a fair shot,
as he holds the would-be political-spinners in line. Somewhat surprisingly,
when the local Republican Party guru-leader, Linwood Parker, was highlighted in
the local paper for his pleasures off-duty, one of his interest was watching
Hardball. Also on MSN is a relatively new show, two hours every Sat. and Sun.,
8 to 10 am: Up is hosted by Chris Hayes,
articulately talented, who is perceptibly liberal, but a reasonable progressive.
With different panels of four and outside commentators -some conservative, it's
the only place you can get this kind of in-depth debate on many issues. DVR it,
speed through a full hour and half of intriguing discussion, as I do most of
what I watch on TV.
I
think the reason some people don't see conservatives on CBS, NBC, ABC, or read
them in the New York Times is because what was once considered "conservative"
no longer registers for some on the right, certainly those that have been drawn
into extremism.
So
far as time limits this progressive will "give you an ear" to
anything within the realm of reason and reality. Now, I hear my right-friends
saying, "there is no such thing as a reasonable liberal."
I'm
totally for free speech with all the rights protected in the First Amendment.
However, so called news organizations that are privileged to have power over
the public airwaves should be held to certain boundaries, accountable for fact
and truth, discerned investigatively, not to spread untruths or to give
conspiracy theorist free air time. The hype in all media, internet included,
without respect to truth or ethics, creates an ethos whereby email-rumors and fallacies
breed --- where even some good, gullible people really believe all that stuff.
Case in point: Just last week a friend came by my house, very upset that at her
church, a local protestant mainline denomination, the preacher handed out
copies of an email rumor to certain individuals, she included, as they exited
the church. It's one of the, dozens or hundreds, rampant e-rumors that have
been pervasive online: In this excerpt it falsely quoted President Obama:
"We as a nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair
injustice, which is WHY my wife disrespect the Flag, and she and I have
attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past." Free speech?
My
friend JW parsed or otherwise questioned/commented (in blue font) on about
every paragraph of my essay. (His response is at end of this writing.) He is
ones of the smartest young man I have ever worked with, but I really believe he
may have some catching up to do: Allen West, a U. S. House Representative from
Florida, recently said there were 78 to 81 U. S. House members who are
communist. Yes, those "commie words" are thrown around freely by the
extremist-right. And you might want to check out the latest accusations by
Michelle Bachman and the guidance-shtick Rush Limbaugh is giving to the Romney
campaign. When we can reclaim respectful common-sense, we'll be able to regain
common-good, a moral recovery.
I believe in the Capitalist System, not totally
untethered; it is the free market, not government, under which I worked and
made a living for my family the full forty-five years of hard, devoted work. I
would never portray the wealthy or business owner as evil; successful business
and businessman was my goal in life; I believe in wealth and believe that government's
small-business policies and regulations should be more favorable. However, I
wouldn't put too much trust in the National Chamber of Commerce to be
its first priority to help the small the businessman: many small business
entities, in great numbers, come under the umbrella of giant corporations that their
big-money lobbyist ensure priority.
It is my belief in the system, and concern for it,
that gives me pause to better understand that something has gone wrong with the
system in the last several years. The "exorbitant profits" term should
have been more clearly differentiated or more appropriately defined: In my
estimation, a large corporations', none of which applies to owners and operators
on my mail list, exorbitant profits or easy-made profits could be profits of
monopolist opportunism, unfair trade practices, corporate welfare, gains by unethical means
or graft, which exceed all bounds, as of custom or fairness. It might be Coca-Cola who's
lobbyist ensure "sweet sodas" sell on food stamps. Such large corporations
could be big oil or large corporate farms on tax subsidies or, e.g., Golden West
Financial, Wachovia's debacle; Countrywide Financial, Bank of America's
misfortune; or the JPMorgans' possible excessive trading in derivatives: profitable
activities that do not add value to the economy, but in fact are deleterious to
it. Such as was the financial debacle of 2008 which remains our long haul to
recovery.
Let
me give you a perspective as it pertains to healthcare. Wendell Potter, a
veteran insurance executive with CIGNA who's conscience got the best of him,
resigned and spoke out on how corporate public relation kills health care and
deceives Americans:
"Yet in 2009, the five largest for-profit insurance
companies waltzed through the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression to set records for combined profits. WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group,
Aetna, CIGNA, and Humana reported total profits of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56
percent from the previous year. It was the best year ever for big insurance.
How did they do it? Not by insuring more people. In 2009,
the five companies covered 2.7 million fewer Americans in private health plans
than in 2008.
Throughout the health care reform debate of 2009 and
2010, top health insurance executives argued that total industry profits equal
only one penny of every dollar spent in the U.S. health care system. That was a
big part of the industry’s effort to make people think—erroneously—that
insurers have little to do with rising health care premiums. But even using
their one-penny formula, that would mean the health insurance industry
collected $25 billion in profits in 2009 alone. At that rate, over a ten-year
period that penny of profit could finance more than 25 percent of the $940
billion health care reform law." Potter, Wendell (2010-11-09).
Deadly Spin (p. 144). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
For The
Crisis of European Democracy here's an insight: "Certainly, some European countries have long needed better
economic accountability and more responsible economic management. However,
timing is crucial; reform on a well-thought-out timetable must be distinguished
from reform done in extreme haste. Greece, for all of its accountability
problems, was not in an economic crisis before the global recession in 2008.
(In fact, its economy grew by 4.6 percent in 2006 and 3 percent in 2007 before
beginning its continuing shrinkage.) ---- As Adam
Smith (often seen simplistically as the first guru of free-market economics)
wrote in “The Wealth of Nations,” there are “two distinct objects” of an
economy: “first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people,
or, more properly, to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for
themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue
sufficient for the public services.”
One
of the problems Greece has is her weakness, in action, to collect taxes due;
same for the U. S. as the IRS goes after more individuals and small businesses,
giving large corporations a pass with very few audits. David Cay Johnston
writes: "Knowing how this secretive world operates is crucial to
understanding how large corporations have been shifting the burden of taxes off
themselves and onto you in ways that Congress never intended, that the IRS is
ill equipped to deal with and that some judges have found to be perfectly
legal." In fact the corporate revenue contribution to the tax coffers has dropped
to an all-time low of 7-8% of the total collected.
·
Johnston:
"Despite all the deregulation rhetoric, government grows ever bigger. The
number of federal government workers shrinks, but the ranks of people who are
hired on contract at much greater cost increases. In 2000 workers hired on
contract cost our federal government $207 billion. By 2006 this had swelled to
$400 billion—rivaling the expense of either Social Security or interest on the
federal government’s growing debt."
·
"There
is a reason that 35,000 people are registered as lobbyists in Washington,
double the number of lobbyists employed there in 2000. They are there to seek
favors, from outright gifts of your tax dollars to subtle changes in rules that
funnel money to their clients, thwart competition, hold you back, and buoy
others. Among the ironies is that many of the most damaging policies have been
created in the name of Adam Smith, the original modern economist." Johnston, David Cay (2005-01-04). Perfectly
Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and
Cheat Everybody Else (Kindle Locations 4087-4089). Penguin Group. Kindle
Edition.
Encouragingly,
for American economic recovery, the giant corporations have $2 trillion-plus capital
just waiting to spill out the economic-pump. It is the large, giant
corporations that have and continue to do be very profitable throughout this
economic slump.
As an analogy for mandated-health
insurance, I offer the "liability auto insurance" equation: Certainly
not everyone owns a car, but everyone depends on the public transportation
system, cradle to grave, to receive food, heat fuel, necessities for life in
the modern society, and travel to-an-fro for healthcare service. Can you name a
U. S. State that doesn't require auto liability - maybe one, Florida? not required
in full measure as the others, I'm not sure? Really, if someone challenges its
constitutionally, and it may have been, do you think the John Roberts Court
would find it unconstitutional throughout the nation. No. Responsibility
equally applies in health mandate for your cradle to grave use of the health
system, no escaping it. My theory is that Chief Justice Robert wasn't about to
throw this country into an unending broil ---- after his reflection of what the
court did with "Citizens United."
Healthcare is the noose around the economic-neck that, without
ongoing regulatory revisions, will stymied "small business" to a
slower recovery. As Wendell Potter wrote before the health reformation act
on Employers, "more and more of
them are dropping coverage for their employees because of the exorbitant rate
increases that insurance companies have been imposing in recent years.
Thousands of small businesses across the country have stopped offering coverage
to their employees over the past fifteen years, in many cases because
profit-driven health insurers have “purged” them from their rolls."
(2010-11-09). Deadly Spin (p. 72). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
I have empathy as a pro-small-business advocate, and sympathy, in
their struggle to meet mandated employee coverage. There must be reprieve for
the small businessman to make healthcare more affordable to business and
employee, and in fact for all who spend, the now, 18% of GDP for their
healthcare.
The question remains for health reform: If not the current reform
act, repealing it, then what's next?
When and how? Shall we now take another step forward or a big step
backward?
I agree with JDG, except that it's my hope that all Americans will
wake-up to see what's happening to their country, "Cornell and all his
liberal friends" will not be enough.
For
further study on these issues, I recommend these books:
Perfectly Legal, Free Lunch, Deadly Spin, The Healing of America, Greedy Bastards,
The New American Economy, Winner-Take-All Politics, Too Big Too Fail, The Big
Short, The Benefits and The Burden, Reckless Endangerment, Reckless, The Broken
Branch, The Great Reset, That Used to Be Us, Pity The Billionaire, The Death of
Conservatism, and Aftershock.
------------------------
Cornell,
Thanks for the article
regarding tax and health care.
Unfortunately, many
American are misinformed regarding the Health Care Act, commonly called Obama
Care.
From the death panels
when the law was being passed in Congress to the House trying to repeal it, it
has been a non-unifying situation.
Rom Emanuel begged
President Obama not to make The Health Care Act his signature effort, because
of its ultimate outcome. Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of
government, but it is better than all the rest". Today's Congress could
have Churchill change his mind were he around today.
Obama had Simpson-Bowles
almost passed, but the House speaker caved into the Tea Party.
I am going to vote in
November. I am not optimistic about the next four years.
But historically, when
America seems to be wrong, ultimately we wake up and do the right thing. I hope
I live to see it.
As a result I am very
selective of what I watch on TV - WRAL 5:00 to 6:30 and NBC 6:30 to 7PM . After
that it is sports, PBS, AMC, and TCM.
Best regards.
JG
----------------------------------
I NEVER watch Fox
news! They are so biased that it is sickening!
Thanks for
sharing, Cornell.
SC
---------------------------------
Cornell,
Thanks for sharing this.
DS
--------------------------------------------
OK I watch MSNBC and they are worst than Stalin on
misinformation. NBC News has lost it credibility and CNN is trying to regain.
I would speculate the majority of MSNBC listeners believe they
will get their healthcare free under Obamacare so who is right or misinformed.
Once they all figure they
have to pay something for healthcare and even be taxed for it if they don't buy
into a plan the Left looses it edge. Why do we need all those IRS agents?
I have the solution. Let all the Liberals and big Democratic
Donors all stop contributing to Super PACs and start their own Insurance
Company to assist the needy and or buy a healthcare plan for those that fall
through the safety nets already in place. We (even the Heartless Conservative)
will contribute but we know it would be 80% bloated and go bankrupt in months.
But I know the answer already , The Healthcare Bill gave exemptions to all
their friends ( Union Plans, AARP etc). Healthcare Law not good enough even for
our Congress and President. The other solution take 10% of money that it will
cost the taxpayers from this disaster and set up the State Heathcare Xchanges
(one of the good ideas) and have competition on coverage, but -- see the Left just cannot let the
market work and let the government give incentives to the small business owner
to cover his employees someone might make a profit other than their liberal
friends ( that is the problem government is picking winners and losers--
they have to mandate this and that and the Left has proven they will do whatever to achieve
ultimate control of everyone lives ---which equals ultimate checkmate on
Freedom and the future of the World. I say the World is at stake because WE the
people who believe in Freedom and less government have nowhere else to go. Cornell and all your Liberal
friends will wake up one day and say what did we just let happen to our
country. As a military historian, World history Major and personally
seen the world in War and Peace I know the stakes it is not pretty. It want be Liberal vs
Conservative it will be Haves and Haves Not.
Some good points but I can rephrase the questions and get a
different misguided result from any political leaning group. Read the Health
Care Bill yourself and you will see the train wreck that will hit us. The bill
is 90% bad and 10% good. Look at Medicaid and Medicare need to reform these
programs before they tackle Universal Health. I have government healthcare as
Military so I don't have a fight right now but we know the Health Care Bill
will impact our care in the future.
Most are missing the
point on Non citizens. They will be cared for same as today through emergency
room and County Health. So are they now going to be fined or Taxed at the
hospital before care? How about all the folk you say you are helping-- now they
have pay-- no free ride as I heard from the Left.
I would go point by point on the topics but Leftist have no
ears.
Thanks,
JDG
------------------------
Cornell: Again you are right on!
These have got to be the "worst of times" for American democracy.
Our present-day politics are built on ignorance and prejudice, with the
Republicans leading the way.
Making progress on anything that truly matters? Forget about it.
--- WL
---------------------------
Hi Cornell,
I was most impressed reading your blog, it presents a very well
reasoned
and reasonable description of what's underlying the general hysteria
that seems to exist all over the country on this topic and debunking
most of the alleged facts that have led to this sorry state of affairs.
I wish more people would simply read the primary sources instead of
relying on FOX News and other rabble-rousers for their information.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to continuing to
get your email observations on the body politic.
In the meantime, stay cool and watch out for tornadoes!
All the best,
P
-------------------------------
Cornell, thanks for this article.
Keep them coming. I love the conversation. All the research in the world won't
answer the question of whether the news outlets, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, have
agendas that slant one way or the other. They all claim to be unbiased, but the
evidence proves otherwise. FOX is no better of worse than any other, if you
watch prime time news shows. See the "Ed Show" or "Rachel
Maddow" on NBC. Or Shawn Hannity on FOX. I do like Bill Oreily, but after
reading his books, I realize that he is not a socially conservative as he is
portrayed. FOX does have liberal commentators, Alan Combs, Juan Williams, and
Bob Beckell. I don't see conservative voices on NBC, ABC, CBS, or the NY Times…
As to the Health Care Bill. Some
simple facts are not in dispute. (see below) The unintended consequences will
be staggering:
- Everyone will be required to purchase insurance.
Everyone. I currently pay nearly 10k per year in premiums for my family of
6 healthy people. Plus my deductible is $5800 per year, so my minimum
output is 15k per year before the insurance pays anything. (I consider
that, my fair share) How will a family of 4 with a modest income of
60k-70k per year manage that?
- Beginning in 2014, my employees will be forced to
purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Now I believe that everyone,
including the working poor, has a choice now, and could contribute toward
their healthcare needs, except they are busy paying credit card bills,
cell phones, eating out, buying overpriced clothing, shoes, and
entertainment, etc… The penalty will range up to $2000 per family, for not
purchasing insurance, which I assume will go into the medicare/medicaid
system.
- Small business with 50+ full time workers, will be
assessed a $2000 per employee penalty for each full time worker. For (-----)
and me, that comes to 180 workers (out of 240 total) or $360,000 per year.
That's more than we make per year in total profit for all 3 locations.
Never mind our debt that we took on to start these businesses. If we pass
that on to our guests and other small businesses do the same, can you even
imagine the inflation for the common man, who eats with us? Just looking
at our business, we'll have to increase our prices by just over $1 per
meal to recover this and be back to the narrow margins we currently enjoy.
(and that works only if the same number of people dine with us, which is
unlikely) The line below about "corporations that make
exorbitant profits" paints with a broad brush, those small
businesses who incorporate, take real risk, and employee real people. My
debt to get my business off the ground is staggering, and I, like most
small business people, live on the razors edge most of the time, worrying
about how to make the next payroll.
- The other unintended consequence will be cutting of
hourly staff's hours to below 30 hours per week, thus eliminating overtime
pay virtually completely, and forcing many of those persons currently
working one job, to seek a 2nd job, to make ends meet. (and pay there
health care penalty) This will further force more otherwise, healthy,
able-bodied, people into the medicare and medicaid system. So… we further
create and perpetuate the welfare state, because we'll be reducing
incomes, and requiring output for health insurance. The consequences of
the bill will be hurting the very people they intend to help.
On
a personal note, the notion that anyone who owns a business is wealthy and
therefore evil, is a terrible ideal to perpetuate. (-----) and I are perceived
to be generous because we tithe, and support or school, club, and community. We believe that is a part of our worship to God, and that
we are commanded in the bible to be good stewards of the blessings we have.
Many people believe that we are generous because we have wealth. That couldn't
be further from the truth.
While a person can prove or disprove
their point of view (any point of view) using the internet, newspaper, TV, or
radio… I don't believe that giving our government more power, control, or
influence over our daily lives is in our best interests. The first thing every
despot, tyrant, or dictator in history has done is increase the dependency of
the people to the government. If they have control, they can take it away,
change it to meet the governments needs, etc… Unfortunately our government is
just like any other business. It's first priority is to grow, increase it's
power/influence, and perpetuate itself.
I recommend a book called
"Economic Facts and Fallicies", by Thomas Sowell, Economics Professor
at Stanford. This book helped me to discern better the news reports that we are
bombarded with everyday, and realize that every report is coming from an
agenda.
thanks, keep your blog postings
coming. EB.
-----------------------------
Hey Cornell,
Good to hear hear from you. Hope your doing well. I love you man
but I had to put some thought below.
Best Regards,
JW
Health-Care Misinformation, Demagoguery, and
Monopolist Perils
Recently
a friend sent me an email requesting that I check the veracity of an online
posting by FOX News, Five major ObamaCare taxes. In answer I provided the Summary of
New Health Reform Law, written by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Take the test at Kaiser
Family Foundation to learn how much you know about
Health Reform. With respect to FOX's accurateness, not necessarily for their
tax critique but in general, I provide an excerpt from the book, THE FOX
EFFECT, which is printed below my following commentary:
Of
recent years, any government-policy consideration that might involved tax
revenue has devolved in deadlock while the "tax whipping boy" wins
the day --- thanks to Grover Norquist, a pillar of the Republican-right. Taxes
are the undermining of many governmental reforms and proposals; it is the
demagoguery "war on tax and government." Albeit, the reality is that
someone has to pay for government services, including the healthcare most
people expect as an inalienable right. Currently 50% of Americans pay no federal income
tax, and the top 10% pay about 1/2 of all federal income taxes. Is that not
enough on the highest earnings? Also, the bottom portion of the income spectrum
actually get an earned income credit. A direct transfer of wealth. Question
is, who will foot the bill for healthcare, including the indigent? How will the Obama plan change
coverage for the indigent? If you can't afford it, you will still not buy it so
you will still be uninsured. I don't see that the plan will help anyone in the
lowest income bracket? Will the cost be more equitably shared by those,
who are able, but irresponsibly shirk their duty, How is free choice a
shrinking of duty? Many Americans object to
buying insurance on many grounds. Amish, etc. Are they being irresponsible? Is
not free choice what our country was founded on, not forced purchases of
service that transfer wealth to huge insurance and health care companies. Why
are healthy Americans forced to buy something they have chosen to want? being dependent on state and the responsibly
insured who pay higher premiums to cover the negligent's debt write-offs, ----
and those who already make exorbitant profits, What is the % consider
exorbitant? Who decides? i.e. corporations
who benefit from favorable, governmental policy? Is not a forced policy of purchasing
insurance a governmental windfall for all insurance companies? Will they share the
cost with spread-around taxes? We all ready pay taxes to cover Medicare, Medicaid,
state run hospitals, county health clinics and vast amounts of government
funded health research. I don't see that Obamacare will help lower taxes but
will raise them. Also, I don't think it will help the very poor, who will still
not be able to afford to buy health insurance. Therefore they will still be the
ward of the state. How will this program lower taxes or help the very poor?
Of
course, tax-fairness is always a concern. Are we
not concerned about the crushing tax burden which has placed our economy in
shambles, ruined jobs, caused vast numbers of families to be in poverty? Crush
local, state and federal debt caused by huge spending? The only way to stop the
spend is to stop the taxes. We continue to recklessly raise taxes and fees, yet
spend more each year. Is this fair to young children and the unborn generations
who will pay for it?
Free-market
capitalism, private insurance alone, is not well-suited to universal or optimum
coverage;
Agreed. However is universal coverage required for the maximum benefit to the
greatest number of people? Insurance alone is part of the problem. it
is complicated, difficult, and the reform-law going forward will need much
tweaking. Why
overturn our complete system on an experiment? Fix the coverage issues in many
various ways and much of the public who wish to buy insurance could afford it.
Forced mandates for specific coverage not needed by many families causes
unneeded cost. As convoluted as our capitalist healthcare system
is, we dare not mention single-payer or government-option for fear of being
branded a socialist. The disparaging term "socialized medicine" was
first popularized by a public relations firm working for the American Medical
Association in 1947 to disparage President Truman's proposal for a national
health care system; it was label as anyone advocating universal access to
health care must be a communist. I
haven't heard anyone calling the program communistic in many years. However, I
agree a single payer system is a huge departure from capitalism. Socialism has
miserably failed, brought vast suffering and destroyed the lives and livelihood
of most of Europe. Should we follow Greece, Italy and the rest of Europe into
crushing debt, low productivity, and huge interference into our personal lives?
So,
it is as it has been: I am a capitalist; you are a capitalist. That's the
American way in which I have received my family's healthcare from 1960 through
a small company and later through a large corporation. It's a system through
which the 2010-reform act attempted cost control for expanded coverage in a
free-market, not by totally inflexible government control but with some
stringent regulation. In such a system, mandates are of essences; it's where
the capitalist health insurers, without too much infringement by government,
continue to be profitable to their stockholders, with some restraints on
exorbitant profits. Still don't understand what level of profit is "wrong"?
Corporations are a reflection of American and some foreign owners? Mom, Pop,
401Ks, retirement, jobs, investment, growth, all depend on large, even huge
profits. You can't raise the poor by crushing the rich and poor people don't
hire anyone. We need much great profit to drive growth, investment, and jobs. You
will always have less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. Show we
tax wealthy and subsidize poverty to get less wealth and more poverty?
Chief
Justice Roberts says the health mandate is a "tax" and so it is. From
a political standpoint, the tax issue is why neither side wants to talk about
it, unless it can be demagogued to their favor. Why are
some many on the left, who demonized Roberts, now lauding him and accepting his
word over Obama? Obama said it was not a tax, Roberts said it was? Is Obama or
Roberts right? Is it a fine, a tax, a fee, or all three?
Enhanced
health-delivery efficiency with greater emphasis in preventive care, along with
"paying more and taking less" becomes the pledging-idiom of
recipients and providers of healthcare. A system based on merit rewards those who take
care of themselves, their loved ones and avoid bad habits. Again, you get more
of what you subsidize. We are going to subsidize poor health habits by
requiring the health to pay for the "unhealthy by choice". Why should
people be forced to buy a product that takes care of people who refuse to take
care of themselves? That is if the US's 17% of
GDP healthcare cost gains closer parity to about 8% in other developed
countries or a Switzerland's high at 11% of GDP. These countries provide
universal healthcare with better outcomes in many cases than the US. Can you really
compare Switzerland with the US? We have huge problem with systemic problems
caused by cultural and social issues. Actually, among
nine rich nations, the per-capita rate of "Deaths Due to Surgical or
Medical Mishaps" the US was highest by far, when a Commonwealth Fund study
was done 2001 and 2004.
Logically
health-care reform, in this administration, was taken on early, not only for
more optimum coverage, but in the process to look more closely at cost-control
measures which affect the economy. When waste is eliminated, the savings can
flow to benefit other economic-sectors. I can see no way in which this plan will actual
reduce overall dollars spent on health care? There is no profit motive to
reduce spending by doctors or hospitals, who make more when we spend more. Ins.
companies are forced to insure all at set coverage. No one group is benefiting
by reducing cost, since consumers are now no longer negotiating fees and
service cost. At this point cost savings is zero or negligible. Actually it will increase
dramatically. Even so, waiting on the nonexistent more
idealized, ideological plan, based on history, would most
certainly die of initiative breakdown. If our representatives don't take
seriously their responsibility to build on coverage and cost control, surely
the health law's currently growing acceptance will die, which I guess is the
hope of and uselessness of the US House voting its repeal this week. The house is the one body of government most representative of the
people. They stand for election more often, make far less, have far more
turnover and are much closer in every way to the people. The constitution
requires them to initiate all taxes. However, the tax, as justice Roberts calls
it, started in the Senate, which is not legal. I think the house best
represents the majority of Americans, since they elected on a purely
mathematical formula of representation.
A
redeeming factor may be that some center-seeking Republicans, such as Jeb Bush,
in growing numbers, including those in House and Senate, are recognizing the
hazards of Grover Norquist's "no tax pledges." Bush's recent reproach
of Norquist brought attention to Bruce Bartlet, a Reagan advisor, who commented
that after President Reagan lowered taxes, he signed into law tax raises 11
times. Regardless of any benefit from Norquist defections for more common-sense
approach, ongoing healthcare improvements won't be easy because the of natural,
endemic problems in our "for profit" healthcare system. For Profit is reason almost every individual works daily. Charity
is not real unless it is voluntary. We work to make wealth, and donate to find
meaning. Why are so many individuals on the left upset about wealthy, including
Romney's? Why not embrace what has made our country great which is the
capitalistic system, couple with a generous, and informed population who
constantly out-give all other nations? Americans are incredibly generous
because they can give and love to do so. However, stripping them of wealth, and
forcibly taking their income in the name of giving to the government is
actually extreme greed by politicians who want to command control of the
wealth.
Models
for improved efficiency and cost control have been proven, such as Cleveland
Clinic, and there is much to be learned from some European countries who
actually do use private insurance, such as Germany and Switzerland, What about UK,
Italy, Greece, Russia, etc. where seniors stick with their private coverage
no matter how old they are. "Contrary to American wisdom, most developed
countries manage health care without resorting to "socialized
medicine," says T. R. Reid in his book The Healing of America.
We
don't have to wait for further study as some suggest; that would be the killer
of the beginning of something that can be much improved upon. But as Reid say,
"There are hundreds of companies with a multi-billion-dollar stake in the
status quo; Which
companies? From what I see, the most powerful health care firms, drug
companies, insurance companies, doctors groups, all strongly support Obamacare?
Who other than the rank and file of Americans is opposed? those
firms and their backers on Wall Street are fiercely resistant to any change
that might cut off the gravy train." I think the train has just received a massive
infusion of cash directly from the average Americans who are now forced to buy
what they don't want. Thus, the challenge to overcome, like so many
other things in this country, is a consent of the "money monopoly" in
a "give and take" where greed What is greed? What is
profit? Is increasing taxes greed by taking what you did not earn to give away
others income? is no more the powerful oligarch.
____________________________________________________
"Fair and
Balanced" - "You decide" - THE
FOX EFFECT: How
Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine (My
personal opinion, in fairness, is that FOX News does have some
straight-up reporting, e.g. Sheppard Smith's report.
An excerpt:
Then there is the
deliberate spread of misinformation. Polls consistently find Fox News viewers
among the most ignorant on a variety of issues. For example, NBC News's online publication
First Read reported in April 2009 that "72% of self-identified FOX News
viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, Actually it will not
"give" coverage to anyone. However illegal immigrants do pay taxes in
many cases. They will be forced to buy insurance as well as anyone else. The
IRS doesn't care who you are or where you got your money. They just require you
to pay the tax on it. This does, and will continue to apply to illegal
immigrants. 79% of them say it will lead to a government
takeover, Yes it
will. The IRS is tasked with enforcing the law through internal regulations,
much like the tax code used now. These codes are not law, but the courts have
ruled over and over, that the carry the weight of law. The IRS will decide if
the plan you buy meets the regulations and force insurance companies to comply.
They will REQUIRE certain types of coverage, perhaps abortion. This essentially
gives universal control over health care by the IRS. No you won't pay the tax
to the IRS, but if you don't buy, you will pay the tax. 69%
think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, I agree, Obama has forced the
Catholic church to comply with forced coverage of birth control. A ruling that
all health plans cover abortion would easily accomplish this longstanding goal
of the left to require universal abortion funded coverage. and
75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to
stop providing care for the elderly." Where is the funding for Medicare
heading? It is threatened by this plan. 12 As First Read pointed out, this was
"rampant misinformation" that large numbers of Fox News viewers
believed.
Following the 2010
election, the University of Maryland released a study finding that Fox News
viewers were the most misinformed audience of any major news network. Compared
with those who never watch Fox, frequent viewers of the network were:
·
Thirty-one
percentage points more likely to agree that "most economists have
estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit." In fact, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said just the opposite: that health
care reform would actually decrease the deficit. That is not really what the CBO said
and the devil is in the details. The plan will soon expand in coverage and
cost.
·
Thirty-one
points more likely to agree that "it is not clear that Obama was born in
the United States." In fact, the birthed claims had been repeatedly
debunked during the 2008 election by numerous nonpartisan and even Republican
sources, including former Hawaii governor Linda Ingle. I don't really think
the question was worded clearly. If worded as "Do you believe Obama was
not born in the US" the % who answered in the affirmative would have been
much smaller.
·
Thirty
points more likely to agree that "most scientists do not agree that
climate change is occurring." In fact, there is broad scientific consensus
that not only is climate change occurring but human activity is the cause. What is broad
scientific consensus? 50%? 60%,80%? Broad questions like this one are difficult
to define or measure.
·
Fourteen
points more likely to agree that "the stimulus legislation did not include
any tax cuts." The nonpartisan PolitiFact.com noted that the stimulus bill
provided tax cuts to 95 percent of workers. Which stimulus package? There have
been several piece of legislation labeled as stimulus under both Bush and
Obama. It's hard to define questions like this one.
·
Fourteen
points more likely to agree that "their own income taxes have gone
up." Most Fox viewers could have confirmed this to be false by looking at
their own tax return. Again this is hard to define. Do they mean the %? The net total
dollars on an annual basis? Elimination of certain deductions? The payroll
deduction? Many peoples taxes have gone in at least one of these four ways. Personal
live changes, including selling home, losing deduction all affect these items.
It's hard to say in terms of a groups personal taxes.
·
Thirteen
points more likely to agree that "the auto bailout only occurred under
Obama." In fact, it had begun under George W. Bush. Agreed, However,
Obama, strong-armed the deal that forfeited bondholder rights to union
contracts by bypassing the bankruptcy proceeding in which a court would have
decided the fate. Most like the unions would have taken a joint hit with the
bond holders.
·
Twelve
points more likely to agree that "most economists estimate the stimulus
caused job losses." 13 USA Today reported with a banner headline in August
2010, "Economists Agree: Stimulus Created Nearly 3 Million Jobs." 14 Again, it's hard to
say. The debt created by the Bush War, Bush
Bailout, Osama's Bailout and years of reckless spending will crush the
jobs of millions if not checked. Economist agree that Greece is heading down a
path to destruction due to years of unchecked spending. Are we next?
When
confronted with this study, Michael Clemente, Fox's senior vice president for
news, reacted in a telling way. Instead of expressing concern about Fox's
apparent failure to inform their viewers, or arguing with the substance or
methodology of the study, Clemente attacked the messenger, sarcastically
impugning the reputation of the University of Maryland. Acting more like a political
attack dog than a major media executive, Clemente told The New York Times,
"The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the
top schools for having 'Students Who Study the Least' and being the 'Best Party
School, ?" adding, "Given these fine academic distinctions, we'll
regard the study with the same level of veracity it was 'researched'
with." 15
But
this was hardly the first time Fox's viewers had been revealed to be
conspicuously misinformed. In 2003, 9 years is a long time
ago? the Program on International Policy Attitudes
conducted "a series of national polls between January and September."
The results, as reported by The San Diego Union Tribune, found:
·
"A
majority of Americans (52 percent) believed evidence was found linking Iraq to
September 11."
·
"A
large minority (35 percent) believed weapons of mass destruction were found in
Iraq."
·
"A
majority (56 percent) believed most world opinion supported the war."
·
"Fox
led the list for those with at least one misperception (80 percent). It also
led for those holding all three- 45 percent, compared with 12 percent to 15
percent for the other networks." 16
Misinformation
has consequences, especially in a democracy. "In general, you end up with
citizens who are acting on bad information when they carry out their civic
duties," says Kelly McBride, an expert on media ethics at the Pointer
Institute, speaking about the media in general. "It affects the governing
of a nation. It inspires people to make their voting decisions on fear or
lies." 17 In summary on Fox: A free press is essential to democracy. The left
is hugely offended by free speech unless it involves some measure of obscenity.
Why the constant attacks on our institutions of the press? Fox is sometimes
wrong and opinionated but rarely boring.
Brock, David;
Rabin-Hat, Ari (2012-02-21). The Fox Effect: How Roger Ails Turned a Network
into a Propaganda Machine (Kindle Locations 179-185). Random House, Inc..
Kindle Edition.
