Health Care Summit-Charybdis and Scylla Fight over National Health Care, Seek to Create Orwellian State

In my humble opinion, the efforts of the Democrat and Republican parties to reform health care are like ravens and seagulls fighting over a crust of bread. Each party is hungry to profit yet neither is thinking about the interests of the Eagles that aren’t so good at ground fighting or sparrows that don’t want much more than a very small portion when the larger birds are gone. Both parties are representatives for the rich and upper classes owning the corporate health care systems-the poor of the United States are mostly left out except as excuses for more totalitarianism and profit for the social phenomena of developmental corporatism.

Adam Smith believed that left to their own supervision, individuals investing their own capital could do no harm and that regulation was inevitably bad. That was generally true in the 18th century when corporations did not yet exist and the environment and finite resources weren’t issue. Today Smith’s paradigm obviously is wrong in part, considering that the magical potion of capital investment does not inevitably produce good nor is incapable of producing evil. From stuck gas vehicle accelerators to Minimata chemical dumping, from Three Mile Island, to flammable kids pajamas it is possible to produce bad things with capital. When capital is controlled by an extreme minority universally through intercorporate stock ownership a creeping neo-authoritarian state is produced. Adam Smith was not a science fiction writer in the genre of sci-fi-economic theories of the 21st century--he had no idea what the future would do to morph up his practical theories of the era when monarchy and aristocracy sought to control all business and trade.

Corporate health care can produce good and bad results; while the medical technology produced by humanity generally accretes regardless of the system (one can read Solzhenitsyn’s ‘The Cancer Ward’ and learn of the evolution of experimental radiological dosage for cancer in Soviet institutions in the 1050’s and 60’s), economic evolution of social and political forms contemporaneously occurs too. Constructing a large corporate state that tracks each U.S. citizen requiring of all that they pay a global corporation for health insurance is an ineffective evolution as far as democracy and individualism goes--for it establishes a de facto corporatist state.

The Democratic party lost its ability to stand up for fundamental principles after the loss of Tip O’Neil as Speaker of the House. It became eventually a moll--a mildly protesting accomplice of Bush II era deficit spending on the Iraq reconstruction quagmire. During the Clinton years it allowed home to be turned into ATM machines and Wall Street to run amuck while outsourcing industry to China. Neither did it forthrightly defend the U.S. Mexican border after 9-11 will a total environmental control zone of berms and saltwater canals to create a recreational atmosphere with no passage of illegals through the challenging course.

Such a control of illegal aliens was necessary for health care reform if the flow of illegals to emergency rooms were to dry up; that create huge costs for the health care system that will not end through an insurance program for all American citizens once they have the government tracking dog-radio frequency collar of mandatory insurance attached. Myself-I haven’t afforded rental of a mailbox in more than a decade, and the government would guarantee paying insurance payments for me I suppose under the Democratic plan. I can say that the Orwellian health plan that would make transfer payment to the rich is another bad idea.

Most of the poor that are less than 40 are healthy and don’t need insurance--they need health care when they are sick or injured. The best way to do that is to create a national medical system for the poor in families or as individuals earning below the poverty level annually. For the least amount of public cost coverage of the poor would be created, and it could also treat illegal aliens until the flow is halted.

A few words more about the health care system for the nation’s poor and the reasoning for it being the most cost-effective way to go…The actual doctors reacquired quantitatively to treat the health issues of the poor will be the same regardless of who pays for it or where they are treated in the U.S.A. Hiring federal staff doctors to treat physical problems for the poor in general areas, referring specialty issues out to the Medicare structure and private physicians, will eliminate the need to pay for all those poor that are not sick or injured each month with insurance payments. The poor will yet have quality medical care available should they need it, and the public will not have to have their insurance rates increase because of the large numbers of poor people using or abusing the system with unnecessary visits through an expensive process of personal medical coverage. The federal health system should have a competent functioning structure to treat the most common problems, would be able to outsource patients without the common problems, and would have a good demographic idea of what the annual uses of the system will be.

In Alaska some of the legislators in sessions are presently trying to raise the ceiling on reporting of gift dinners from lobbyists from $15 dollars per day to perhaps $50. Legislators in the U.S. want to live high off the hog and haven’t the drive to survive as lean, mean, fighting machines so far as creating a democratic society goes. The nation runs vast deficits, gets involved in protracted for reconstruction efforts of things they have destroyed, and special interests profit thus killing the stimulus to think of effective ways to get things done with a profit or at least without debt. Tip O’Neil would not have been ashamed of creating a national health care system for the poor, nor considered it socialism to do so.

Democracy can allow some large structures to exist. The outsized for Smith capitalism scale of global corporations should be reduced to a size of just 3000 employees per corporation to create a better challenge-response change and adaptation to environmental conditions criterion also more manageable for democracy. It should create a national health care structure for the poor while trying to eliminate poverty.