Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How Corporate America Perpetuates the Health Care Crisis

By David Sirota, In These Times. Posted May 22, 2006.


In an excerpt from his book 'Hostile Takeover,' Sirota reveals how the same politicians who preach about the 'culture of life' are too addicted to health industry cash to care about people who can't afford to see a doctor.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Sirota

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor's Note: This article was adapted from "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Can Take It Back," with permission from Crown Publishers.

Let's be honest--very few political operatives, politicians or pundits actually want to explore the real-life, day-to-day economic challenges facing the American people, because to explore them would ultimately force us to admit that our entire venerated political system is totally corrupt.

Take this idiotically simple question that is almost never asked in the normal course of this country's political debate: Why do we hear so much about how well-off America is, yet our country has the highest number of uninsured citizens in the industrialized world?

Why isn't that question asked? Because you can't answer it honestly without exploring how Corporate America has bought off enough politicians to make sure our government helps corporations perpetuate this travesty.

I'm not naïve. I know that corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: the relentless, single-minded pursuit of profit, no matter who gets shafted. That is their stated purpose in a capitalist society, and that's fine. But in our country, corporations aren't supposed to pursue this purpose in a vacuum, unchecked, unregulated, unopposed. There is supposed to be a counterweight, a government separate from Big Business whose job is to prevent the corporate profit motive from destroying society.

That government once passed laws protecting the environment, so the profit motive wouldn't end up eliminating breathable air. That government once protected workers, so the profit motive wouldn't result in Americans toiling in sweatshops. And that government once demanded better wages, so the profit motive wouldn't result in a race to the bottom for poverty-level paychecks. But that government, as we all know, is long gone. Our government has been the victim of a hostile takeover. Over the last thirty years,Corporate America has applied its most effective business tactics to the task of purchasing the one commodity that's not supposed to be for sale: American democracy.

To fight back, I decided to write a guidebook to help people see exactly how politicians' lies, myths and half-truths justify government policies that allow Corporate America to rip us off. My book is meant to provide a window into the one fact that the corporate lobbyists and their tools in the government don't want you to know: that the problems undermining America on a daily basis can be fixed if our government starts representing the interests of ordinary people.

To give you a flavor of the book, consider this excerpt that analyzes the health care crisis--a particularly newsworthy issue considering the recent headlines about Massachusetts moving toward a universal health care system. The Bay State's moves are certainly controversial--especially the steep mandates on uninsured individuals and the desperate efforts to protect the health insurance industry. But they show that the issue is now simmering to a boil not only in Washington, but in state capitals all over America.

Lack of health insurance = death

The Institute of Medicine was created by Congress in 1970 to be the chief, nonpartisan adviser to the federal government on all matters related to health care. That's why the announcement it made in 2004 was so stunning. "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States," the Institute said. Therefore, "By 2010, everyone in the United States should have health insurance ... [The Institute] urges the president and Congress to act immediately by establishing a firm and explicit plan to reach this goal."

The health care system, which is supposed to preserve and protect human life, is allowing thousands of Americans to die every year, and America's top experts were sounding the alarm.

So how is it that government and media have settled into complacency when the system is so bad for so many? The status quo pays big dividends.

In 2003, HMOs nearly doubled their profits from just a year before, adding $10 billion to their bottom line. That year, top executives at the 11 largest health insurers made a combined $85 million in one year. In the first three quarters of 2004, HMO profits increased by another 33 percent. The sheer numbers behind these profits are staggering: In 2004 alone, the four biggest health insurance companies reported $100 billion in revenues. That's $273 million a day, every day, 365 days of the year.


Digg!

David Sirota is co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN). To learn more about his new book, "Hostile Takeover," visit Davidsirota.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Greed is the REASON
Posted by: thinkverybig on May 22, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed, Ego, Money and Power are the reasons politicians will not endorse or find a way for universal healthcare for ALL Americans. It's time for a change in this country. It's time for a REVOLUTION.

Coming soon "WeMustChange.org" I ask for your help in getting this project off of the ground. I can be reached at david@thinkverybig.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Greed is the REASON Posted by: Tiffany Twain
Patients Became Money
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 22, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I became a physician in 1976 graduating from what we considered to be one of the most liberal medical schools in the country. We were idealistic and money was never mentioned. In time it changed. The legal system began by creating frivolous litigation that made the doctor/patient relationship adversarial and doctors began to practice defensive medicine. Next came managed care that quickly usurped the financial resources of medicine and exploited doctors and patients eventually controlling what, how and when what procedures, medications and tests were to be performed or prescribed. Pharmaceuticals entered by seizing the media for marketing purposes essentially removing medications from a professional venue. Now politicians are representing the corporations that are making vast profits from this cumulative parcelling of the heathcare profession. I protested all of this the whole time and realized years ago I was being isolated from my profession. I therefore changed course and now focus on Health Eduation where there is, at this time, no financial support. But it is what I believe in. My hope is more people and especially health care workers such as physicians would begin to take a stance as well. I am not holding my breath

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Doctors became chattel Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: mdf1960
» RE: Doctors became chattel Posted by: blueneck
» RE: Patients Became Money Posted by: outtolunch
» RE: Patients Became Money Posted by: ChristopherLL
and only about 2-4% of all Alternet articles are about universal healthcare
Posted by: cry0fan on May 22, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess the people who write and edit for alternet care about as much about universal healthcare as the GOP politicians do....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Give it a rest already Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Give it a rest already Posted by: cry0fan
end this crap
Posted by: rsaxto on May 22, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to end this crap of medical and drug corporations controlling the health care industry. We need single-payer health insurance for everyone regardless of individual circumstances. We need a single supplier of drugs for everyone regardless of individual circumstances. We need doctors not bribed by corporate drug makers. We need effective non-poisonous drugs for everyone. The insurance and medical corporations are what are making medical costs skyrocket and medical effectiveness and lifespan be diminished. We need to stop giving multiple prescriptions of drugs to seniors. We need a healthy system of care not one which kills many people. The existing health care system in the USA sums to mass medical murder. Fix it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hostile to whom?
Posted by: CounterCorp on May 22, 2006 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dave Sirota writes: I know that corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: the relentless, single-minded pursuit of profit, no matter who gets shafted. That is their stated purpose in a capitalist society, and that's fine.

Why is that "fine"? What's good "fine" about it? If the effects are as awful as Sirota describes, how could the thing that causes those effects be "fine"?

Why do ostensibly progressive commentators like Sirota feeled compelled to rationalize, excuse, or otherwise accept an entire class of "persons" in our country whose sole motivation leads them to "destroy society" (as Sirota himself puts it)? Are serial killers and pedophiles "fine" too?

If Sirota had lived in the Middle Ages, would he have said that feudalism and torture were "fine" merely because that was the system in place at the time? Can't we do any better?

Creating sociopathic corporations with little legal, social, or economic responsibility and then trying to pass laws that regulate them is like trying to regulate how often Dr. Frankenstein builds a new monster -- it may make people feel better, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

Why not change the very laws that create corporations from the outset, instead of trying to control them once they've been loosed on the public?

There are plenty of laws that regulate the behavior of both individuals and corporations in our society, but the only ones that corporate executives (and Sirota) seem to believe corporations are compelled to follow are those that require them to pursue profit to the exclusion of everything else.

The laws they don't feel compelled to follow are the ones they know aren't really enforced. There were laws against murder in the Jim Crow South, but few white men were ever even arrested for killing blacks, much less tried or convicted by their fellow white citizens.

It's not the existence of laws, or even the efforts of cops or prosecutors that really matter, it's the mindset of the jury -- and in modern America, corporations are the Ku Klux Klan, and most people (including Sirota) are all too willing to accept corporate predations as somehow being part of the natural order of things, the organizational equivlent of the "boys will be boys" rationalization.

If people think it's "fine" -- or even logical -- to have laws that allow corporations to rampage through society in pursuit of ever-greater wealth, and then pass other laws to protect us from the first laws, they've really lost the plot.

The so-called "hostile takeover" that Sirota describes wasn't really very hostile -- the politicians didn't actually seem to mind (they certainly didn't resist it), and the public's been pretty acquiescent to it, too. Our politicians seem pretty OK with being bought, and the public keeps returning the same politicians from the same two parties to office, so we can't be too hostile to the results, either.

More to the point, we create the very corporations that are hostile to our interests -- they couldn't exist in the first place without the laws that our representatives passed. If we don't like the results of those laws, we should change the laws.

Instead, we prefer to keep building these monters, handing them weapons, and leaving the doors to our houses unlocked, and then being surprised and complaining when they attack us. Marx said that capitalists would sell you the rope to hang them. We're even worse than that -- the capitalists are making money off this deal, but we're the ones swinging from the rope.

www.countercorp.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hostile to whom? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Hostile to whom? Posted by: CounterCorp
» RE: Hostile to whom? Posted by: BansheeVT
The Greatest Country In The World - just ask any American drone
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 22, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is supposed to be a counterweight, a government separate from Big Business whose job is to prevent the corporate profit motive from destroying society."

The intended hierarchy has government controlling and limiting the corporations, and the people in charge of the government doing the same for the government.

America has the people under government control which in turn is ruled by the corporations.

Still consider it the greatest country in the world?

(The Healthy Model)

1. PEOPLE
l
2. GOV'T
l
3. CORPORATIONS

------

(The Greatest Country
In The World's Vision)

1. CORPORATIONS
l
2. GOV'T
l
3. PEOPLE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rationing health care
Posted by: DaveB on May 22, 2006 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any health care system includes rationing in some form. The only way this could be avoided would be if resources were infinite, which is manifestly impossible. Furthermore, every health care system is ultimately a disappointing failure, because ultimately we all die.

Therefore it is easy to ridicule any health care system for its cruelty and failures. That's ANY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AT ALL.

The real question is how to get the best results given the resources that we are willing or able to make available. And the answer to that question cannot be to first spend 30% of every health care dollar on what is essentially an argument over who should pay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ationing health care Posted by: VisionQuest
» What is the physician's role? Posted by: ssegallmd
there's also another reason they are against national health care
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 22, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Alternet, for publishing such a great article that davastaingly gets to the truth.

There is also another reason the business/Chamber of Commerce dictatorship doesn't want national health care. And that reason is: if your health care is dependent upon the good graces of the person/business who employs you, then you are virtually forced to accept anything from your employer. They can double your workload, cut your wages, etc. knowing full well that you don't dare leave for fear of losing health care coverage.

If we had a national health care program, it would remove a BIG stick that employers have over employees. National health care could lead to better wages and working conditions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Troll alert Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Troll alert Posted by: aussidawg
a concerned Canadian
Posted by: concerned Canadian on May 22, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally some honesty and clarity. I am currently in China and there's no difference between what a citizen of China faces when he/she faces illness than what an American faces. Unbelievable that Americans have for so long accepted this deficit. Yes, the oreo-cookie scenario shows things clearly. Now the question for the country's citizens is how to get your country back, out of the hands of those who have laid America to almost waste. You don't, when you are right there at home, understand the stealing of your country's wealth and shifting it to wherever the coporate power brokers want to shift it to. Meanwhile, ask them if they have health insurance . Ironically, your country would at least have a chance to become a better place if they didn't. That's a 'dark side' view of things, but then who has created this pall over your country? Who can win democracy back for your country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did anybody actually read what was proposed?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 22, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One solution is a universal health care system where the government is the single payer. A shorter name for this is "Medicare for Everybody." As economist Paul Krugman notes, "The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs." Medicare, Krugman notes, "has much lower administrative costs than private insurance."

That's right...because medicare is such a wonderful model, which always provides timely, necessary, and exemplary care to its "beneficiaries". Not only that, I'm sure the best and newest medicines have been developed in the labs of medicare...err, wait a min...

No freakin' thanks. I thought you folks were pro-choice, too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not really... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Not really...Not really Posted by: solrev
» RE: Not really... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Not really... Posted by: dawoud_almajid
» The evidence is plain... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Dude, where's my government?
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 22, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for your book, David. I just hope that the public can still read and understand it, after having their eyeballs seared by the rows and rows of cheap plastic s**t they're seduced into buying on shopping trips or after having their brains turned to guava jelly by the cheap plastic programming that passes for televised entertainment. I also hope that they realize in enough time that owning a house full of plastic baubles, driving a Titanic-class SUV, and having access to boob-tube trivia 24/7 is not a complete life. Not allowing our government to abandon us (as they already have) and insisting on a society that cares about all of its members is kinda important, too. If this country ends up as a police state or descends into anarchy, the baubles and boob-tube won't mean anything.

Right now, the jury is out on which way we're heading as a nation; but one thing's for certain: what we have known as our past will not be our future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biggest cause of sickness
Posted by: topview on May 22, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't the HMO's and the Drug industries that are the cause,as much as the Food Industries. We need to change what we consume and then we wouldn't need to use these
Corporate rip-offs.
If you go back 60 to 70 years before the food industries started to pack all the food with toxic chemicals and preservitives, then you won't get sick and need all this medical attention.
Stop eating sugar, Vegetable oil, except Olive oil and Cocanut oil, White flour and Meat injected with toxic chemicals
and anti-biotics.
Start eating only Organic food and no packaged food and take
multi-vitamins. Your body will get well and you won't get sick and need to take toxic Pharmacuticals that make you sicker.
I had colon cancer 10 years ago, after the cut,burn and poison, I decided to change the food I ate and at 72 now
I feel better than I ever felt and am hardly ever sick anymore. If everyone stopped buying the garbage that the food industries supply that are toxic to humans, they would have to change or go broke. It cost more for good food (Organic) but the outcome is worth it,as your body will not need Corporate America's toxic chemicals and services.
Believe me! it will work for you too. Read your labels!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare for Everyone - The Time Has Come
Posted by: patvic1405 on May 22, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have had close (live-in) contact with two relatives who had Medicare. Both required extensive hospitalizations, operations, emergency care, and routine doctors' visits over a period of years. Their care was excellent. They paid almost nothing out of pocket. I'm sure that there are others who have not had as good an experience as this, but for my money, I'd LOVE to have Medicare for myself instead of paying through the nose for private insurance where, conveniently for the insurance company, nothing is "covered" so that I end up paying HUGE premiums, have a HUGE deductible AND end still up paying for most of my doctor/hospital visits out of pocket. In 2005 I had over $3,000 in medical bills, almost none of which was paid by the insurance company, plus I forked over $2,500 in premiums for the privilege. Luckily, I could pay the bills. Not everyone is so fortunate. And why shouldn't all Americans have the same Cadillac health coverage as those puking politicians in DC?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big Pharma needs a complacent American public to maintain their high returns on investment
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 22, 2006 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pharmaceutical companies - the producers of the 'best and newest' medications - because what is new, patented and expensive is always better then what is old, right? You can be the latest guinea pig for the pharma sector, and if you suffer devastating side effects you know you can rely on the FDA to look the other way. You don't want to use drugs that doctors have a lot of experience with, that time has shown to be safe, because they are old - and who wants anything old and icky - we want new, shiny, bright!

Now look here - the doctors have the degrees and the experience and we can trust what they have to say - agreed?. The brilliant scientists at MegaPharmaCorp, Inc., motivated by their selfless desire for human well-being, spend long hours in the lab developing these new miracle medications like Vioxx and Celebrex. The FDA, using rational scientific procedures, have verified that these drugs are completely safe and effective. If you want to be happy and successful, you must buy these products!

Meanwhile, the pharma companies are pushing the equivalents of speed (Ritalin, Wellbutrin and all the other ADD drugs) on kids, the equivalent of heroin (all the opiates like Oxycontin, etc.) on adults, etc. Many people abuse these legal drugs (Rush Limbaugh, for example), but you don't ever see the manufacturers being punished - even though they love to see their product move out the door. Want to know what pharma thinks? "Gosh... if we could only sell this stuff over-the-counter..."

In this country, if you can't afford to pay for a premium health insurance policy and a private lawyer to make sure that the terms of the contract are followed, you might as well not have any insurance at all. Even then, you are likely to get put on some poorly-researched, very expensive drug that has a good chance of causing serious damage. All so that the health sector can continue earning hefty returns on investment, which they use to buy corrupt politicians, corrupt government regulators, and corrupt medical scientists. They set up drug trials in Third World countries (aka the Constant Gardener) where they won't get sued for killing people; they bury bad test results in order to get their 'product' to market, and when the carnage grows they pressure the FDA not to take action, all so they can keep the drug on the market for a year or two and pull down more profit.

Want to take care of your health? You had better rely on yourself, and you had better do a lot of independent research as well. A healthy diet and regular exercise are good places to start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Real Problem
Posted by: outtolunch on May 22, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People can complain all they want about the health care system in this country. They can point the finger at doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, HMOs, the government, etc. But the one person who is the root cause of the problem is YOU. Americans just don't take proper care of themselves. I know it's politically incorrect to blame people for their health issues, but let's face facts. We eat too much food and it's not even good food, we don't exercise enough, some of us drink too much, some of us still smoke despite all the evidence of what happens when you do smoke, some of us do drugs, and most of us don't get enough rest. We are a nation of people killing ourselves with our bad habits so it's no surprise that so many of us are sick. The problem is we expect to have a health care system that will take good care of us AND we expect someone else to pay. As someone who has employer-provided health insurance, I'm extremely thankful. But I've also learned not to take it for granted. But most Americans do take it for granted. They don't realize just how lucky they are to have a third party who'll pay for their health care expenses if they get sick. Moving to a government-run system won't change people's behavior cause as far as they're concerned, someone besides them is footing the bill.

Now imagine a world where people had to pay for their own health care. Economists often refer to what's known as the moral hazard problem where if you insure against a certain behavior, you're more likely to observe that behavior. Putting more of the burden on people will force them to take better care of themselves. Maybe they'll think twice about eating that McDonalds value meal for lunch. Maybe they'll learn to cook at home instead of picking up a pizza. Now I'm sure people will complain saying that it's not fair to the person who gets cancer or heart disease. People act like these diseases strike at random, but the truth is that almost all of today's leading causes of death are the product of our own behavior. Shifting the burden of providing health care to the government isn't going to solve the underlying problem.

Howard Dean said it best. We don't have a health care system. We have a disease care system. We have a system that focuses too much on treatment and not enough on prevention. And it's a system full of players who are more than willing to take advantage of a population that abuses itself. Doctors would rather prescribe a pill or recommend a procedure than tell their patients to just go home, eat right and exercise. Drug companies want people to think the cure for their illness lies in a pill and that eating right won't do a thing. Insurance companies may try to wiggle out of covering the treatment your doctor recommends, but they love having a customer base who will always be sick. The well will never run dry.

I see people all around me who eat poorly and probably haven't exercised in years. They get sick, they're on half a dozen prescriptions, they take time off from work to go to the doctor, and they complain about the cost of health care. These are the people I have a beef with. Their bad habits cause them to develop problems which are easily preventable. It drives up the cost of health care for everyone including those of us who take care of ourselves. And eventually businesses, who are burdened with the rising cost of health insurance, decide to stop hiring Americans and send the work to India or China or they hire illegal immigrants who don't require benefits.

Americans need to take more responsibility. Until that happens, we will have a health care system that will continue to fail us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Real Problem Posted by: solrev
» Who Knew . . . Posted by: VisionQuest
» RE: Who Knew . . . Posted by: outtolunch
» RE: Who Knew . . . Posted by: Jesse
» What the French do Posted by: BlueTigress
Private Insurance is a RACKET!!!
Posted by: aussidawg on May 22, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, a response to outolunch's post. Yes, we do have a serious obesity problem in this country. I understand this having recently lived in one of the worst areas of the nation for this problem. San Antonio has a terrible problem with obesity, but it isn't due to people overeating, it is due to lack of nutritional information and affordibility of high quality foods. The poverty rate in San Antonio is one of the highest in the nation, and largly Hispanic, with an accompanying diet of Tex-Mex food. Although this is delicious stuff (to say the least) it is very high in fat content. It is much less expensive than so called "health" foods, and is the customary diet for many. What I am trying to point out is that obesity is not necessarily due to over eating, rather, due to customs and/or a persons financial ability to afford the healthier fresh organic foods and lean cuts of meat.

I personally need healthcare coverage, due to failed back syndrome. This is nothing that was due to my lifestyle, rather due to genetic degenerative disk disease. I must receive treatment for chronic pain, or I cannot function in daily life. I have both private insurance coverage (because I CANNOT drop the coverage for a year from now due to a requirement for initial coverage) and Medicare from SSI disability. This private company tripled my premiums (now $550.00/month for my portion ONLY and without dental coverage), and at the same time dropped my children from coverage and increased medication co-pays. They will not pay for preventative medicines (such as stop smoking aids) and exclude many brand name and classes of medications from coverage. They are very difficult to force to pay medical provider's claims, and actually, may have to be taken to court and sued for some of my medical bills to be paid. My treatment has not been unusual by any means, but rather very routine. In the meantime, providers file deliquent claims on my credit report thus having a very detrimental impact on my credit rating. I am paying them $550.00/month without choice for all of this hassle. Medicare on the other hand is very responsive, but will not pay until the primary, private company pays their portion first. No wonder these private health insurance companies make such obscene profits!

Mr. Bush and cronies propose we all set up tax free private health care accounts. My last back surgery was $175,000.00. Well gee, I'll just put a few bucks away in my account each month and befoe ou know it, I'll be set. Even better, the bank gets to use that money to make more money for them! Look, I'm fortunate to even have coverage. Many cannot afford medical insurance premiums, or cannot get coverage without pre-existing conditions being left uncovered. Who, besides the folks that can afford GOOD coverage to begin with, are going to be able to save enough in a private account to cover the high costs of medical expenses?

Bush is de-regulating everything under the sun, including insurance companies, utility companies, energy companies, and we the people are left paying the soaring prices. Bush should be renamed the Universal CEO for Corporate America. He boosts their bottom lines while the rest of us get screwed big time. These people are shameless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Private Insurance is a RACKET!!! Posted by: monkeywrench
LISENCE TO PILL
Posted by: Roverton on May 22, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An industry that creates the need for itself? Well now I've heard it all. Next you'll be selling the notion that the Government isn't looking out for my safety all day long.

Nope, that's just paranoid. No sir, not buy'n it...

La, la, la, la, la... I can't hear you. Stay out of my safety bubble with your gloomy news. I'm too easily influenced for this topic...

Hey, AMERICAN IDOL IS ON!
Yay, the world is safe again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Penny-Wise & Pound/Dollar/Euro Foolish
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 22, 2006 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from the basic morality of universal healthcare, it just makes good economic sense. When the risk pool is spread over the entire economy, healthcare becomes very affordable for everyone. Universal coverage encourages preventative and well-baby care which saves huge amounts of money and results in better productivity in the workforce.

The old arguments just don't stand up to the numbers. Most of the countries we compete with in the global market have some form of universal coverage and do well. Employers are freed from having to worry about insurance contracts and escalating costs every year-- the cost of healthcare is just a flat-rate cost factored into their overhead and becomes a constant.

The only real issue should be what kind of universal coverage our nation should adopt. The economic logic and basic morality of the policy is obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better Nutrition Less Medical Attention
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 22, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always felt and still do that preserving a healthy agriculture and a healthy environment would reduce drastically our dependency on the medical profession. I also think that our occupations should demand activities that diminish our health. We should work to the maximum of healthy exertion and not beyond. The phrase, no pain, no gain is symptomatic of our masochistic work practices. If our employment makes us unfit for employment, then our employment benefits no-one because ultimately the employer looses all it's employees as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Framing the discussion in loaded terms.
Posted by: dix on May 22, 2006 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this article and the ensuing comments many points spring to mind but I will focus on one that pertains to the title. American corporations not only perpetuate the "health care crisis" they largely create it. In Canada the public medicare system is being actively sabotaged by those who would prevent it being used as a model to america and would exploit provisions of FTAA to force open the doors to american business opportunity. Bear in mind that private health insurance in america has overhead costs including executive salaries in the order of 15% whereas Canadian Medicare overhead runs around 3%. But rather than have the american public be made aware of this, the private industry advocates attempt to make the system unworkable in order that they may participate in the gold mine of unregulated private insurance and health care delivery. The current debate in Canada is whether of not to allow private delivery to compete with the public system because we have a recently elected minority government who call themselves Conservatives but are actually Republicans of the North. Under Free Trade, once a category is opened to the private sector it cannot be closed again except by withdrawing from the entire deal. So, waitlists are unacceptably long to the frustration of the patients, not because we don't have the services but because we have inadequate access to the services. A metaphor: if you have a hockey rink and a game scheduled to start at 8:00 PM but the spectators all show up at 7:55 and are still crowding in at 8:15 delaying the game, is the solution to hire more hockey players or to have more doorways? This applies to emergency services where patients are backed up for lack of admitting space which is in itself stymied by shortage of acute care bed space due to budget cuts. This is a classic strategy of neoliberal governmental manipulation: cut the allocated funds, then claim you can't provide the service. Then when the waitlists back up, claim the only solution is to offer alternative, read: private, service.
Even with it's flaws the Canadian system covers 100% of the population at a cost of approximately 9% of our GDP whereas the current U.S. private system costs over 13% of GDP and leaves out around 16% of the population, well more than the entire population of Canada. The suggestion that adding private facilities in Canada would shorten waitlists is demonstrably wrong for at least two reasons. First, it is necessary to avoid false comparisons because the services provided are not equal. The private facilities in the US whose principal purpose is to earn profit for shareholders do not provide equal service. In order to cut costs they have less staff, less well trained staff, less time on machines such as dialysis, and less prescription drugs for follow up, with a consequence of greater mortality rates. But also, private services, in order to increase "efficiencies" cherry pick who they cover, and which services to provide resulting in taking the simplest cases and leaving the most difficult for the public sector, thereby increasing waitlist times. For the source of the above, see: Public Solutions to Healthcare Waitlists, by Dr. Michael Rachliss at policyalternatives.ca.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Framing the discussion in loaded terms.
Posted by: dix on May 22, 2006 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this article and the ensuing comments many points spring to mind but I will focus on one that pertains to the title. American corporations not only perpetuate the "health care crisis" they largely create it. In Canada the public medicare system is being actively sabotaged by those who would prevent it being used as a model to america and would exploit provisions of FTAA to force open the doors to american business opportunity. Bear in mind that private health insurance in america has overhead costs including executive salaries in the order of 15% whereas Canadian Medicare overhead runs around 3%. But rather than have the american public be made aware of this, the private industry advocates attempt to make the system unworkable in order that they may participate in the gold mine of unregulated private insurance and health care delivery. The current debate in Canada is whether of not to allow private delivery to compete with the public system because we have a recently elected minority government who call themselves Conservatives but are actually Republicans of the North. Under Free Trade, once a category is opened to the private sector it cannot be closed again except by withdrawing from the entire deal. So, waitlists are unacceptably long to the frustration of the patients, not because we don't have the services but because we have inadequate access to the services. A metaphor: if you have a hockey rink and a game scheduled to start at 8:00 PM but the spectators all show up at 7:55 and are still crowding in at 8:15 delaying the game, is the solution to hire more hockey players or to have more doorways? This applies to emergency services where patients are backed up for lack of admitting space which is in itself stymied by shortage of acute care bed space due to budget cuts. This is a classic strategy of neoliberal governmental manipulation: cut the allocated funds, then claim you can't provide the service. Then when the waitlists back up, claim the only solution is to offer alternative, read: private, service.
Even with it's flaws the Canadian system covers 100% of the population at a cost of approximately 9% of our GDP whereas the current U.S. private system costs over 13% of GDP and leaves out around 16% of the population, well more than the entire population of Canada. The suggestion that adding private facilities in Canada would shorten waitlists is demonstrably wrong for at least two reasons. First, it is necessary to avoid false comparisons because the services provided are not equal. The private facilities in the US whose principal purpose is to earn profit for shareholders do not provide equal service. In order to cut costs they have less staff, less well trained staff, less time on machines such as dialysis, and less prescription drugs for follow up, with a consequence of greater mortality rates. But also, private services, in order to increase "efficiencies" cherry pick who they cover, and which services to provide resulting in taking the simplest cases and leaving the most difficult for the public sector, thereby increasing waitlist times. For the source of the above, see: Public Solutions to Healthcare Waitlists, by Dr. Michael Rachliss at policyalternatives.ca.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good food not drugs
Posted by: Jenny on May 22, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need in the United States is what came into our lives in March of 2001 in the form of a Presence who speaks to us in our mind empathetically. His first agenda was with the 50+ man drug cartel in our community composed mostly of physicians. He told them that we did not need the medical monstrosity if we would but feed our people correctly and get the chemicals out of our environment. See www.westonaprice.org for more information about this. Dr. Price discovered that many primitive people had few dental caries, no need for orthodontics, no degenerative diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer living off the land as they had for generations. It is only when they ate "modern" foods including white flour and sugar and canned milk that their health went into a decline. Such a diet will even lead to drug and alcohol abuse and male homosexualism.
Delamer Duverus has shown us how. We don't need the medical establishment. We need to invest our money into healthy food production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

insurance takeover of the healthcare
Posted by: michaeltwatson on May 23, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only has the insurance industry taken over the healthcare industry, they are continuing to try to take over the justice system's ability to right the wrongs done by the healthcare industry. Just last week the U.S. Senate narrowly defeated a bill brought to the floor by Senator (surgeon) Bill Frist, attempting to take away the rights of seriously injured patients. The Congressional Budget office found last month that limits on injured patients rights would decrease the cost of healthcare. The New England Journal of medicine determined, in an exhaustive study, that frivolous lawsuits are not a burden on the courts nor on the physicians. So, why do insurance companies continue to try to limit the rights of the victims? For answers, see www.AmericasTunnelVision.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Resistance
Posted by: resistance6 on May 26, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's this about the lack of universal healthcare insurance causing 18,000 deaths? What about the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused directly by hospitals -- by lack of sanitation, misdiagnosis, poor treatment, misdrugging? Not to mention the eager beaver doctors and nurses that want to help the sick people along a little more quickly to a "good death" -- and practice euthanasia? Look what Terri Schiavo's "health care" bought HER.

It's amazing how healthy people can keep THEMSELVES if they eliminate processed foods, take supplements, get an Ionic Breeze or two, and learn some basic information about home remedies using simple things like charcoal and garlic.

I don't have healthcare and I avoid doctors like a literal plague. If I have to go to one, I just pay out of my pocket. Each time these "good citizens" insist they have to enter all my information into a national databank. This I highly object to, and each time I'm told to go elsewhere if I don't like it, that it's their "policy." Doesn't matter if it's my dentist or whoever.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Remember Nazi Germany and their very effective campaign to eliminate "useless eaters?" Do you want to be put into a national databank that can diagnose the likelihood of you becoming a "useless eater" who is going to eat up a lot of taxpayer bucks that can be better used for Shock and Awe or for another island mansion for one of the politicians?

The Bushes and Clintons and most of the people in government are Luciferians, and we need to stay out of their way as much as possible. Not go standing in line for their "goodies" and getting put on to their database lists. Remember Katrina?

Remember this also. If you have cancer and get an official diagnosis, you'll not be able to find any doctor to treat you with any but the standard horrific treatments of chemo, radiation and surgery. A doctor who tries to treat outside the box will risk losing his license or being imprisoned.

It's all about money.

Furthermore, Big Pharma owns the medical industry -- lock, stock and barrel. Modern doctors are mindless lemmings who take their orders from the drug salesmen who make their regular rounds peddling their patented drugs -- drugs which have side effects far worse than whatever diseases, real or imagined, they are meant to cure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatized Health Insurance = Murder by Capitalism
Posted by: antiapathy on May 26, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Free markets and competition are good for some products and services, like pizza parlors and auto mechanics, but absolutely atrocious for others.

Any civilized society should provide for the fundamental rights of its citizens. The government provides education, fire protection, and all kinds of other basic needs for our country. The right to live a healthy life is one of those fundamental rights, and the private sector is failing us miserably. Not only failing us, but making a profit off of our misery and death. Why do we tolerate a system that is so inefficient and corrupt?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]