Health Insurance

Two Chinese women die
as one falls from 27th story
and lands on another.

What is it going to take before Obama and our Congress wake up to the basic facts of health care? Anthem Blue Cross of California is trying to raise rates for independents by 39%. Now they are going to be investigated and forced to explain just why they should get a 39% increase in premiums. I don’t know what the answer will be (assuming that anything actually comes of this in the first place) but I am positive there is no reasonable explanation for such a huge increase. But this particular case aside, I raise the question once more, why should insurance companies have anything to do with health care? What exactly is it that insurance companies contribute to health care? Why should they have anything whatsoever to do with health care? They are not doctors, nurses, medical specialists, or any other kind of health care professionals. As far as I know they do nothing but calculate the odds of people dying, how much it will cost to keep them from dying or suffering, and then decide whether or not there is any profit in it for them (they also generate a lot of paper work). This is absolutely stupid. Everyone with a brain larger than Silly Sarah’s (which I think probably encompasses the vast majority of human beings on the planet) knows that a single-payer system, like most industrialized countries have, is by far the best system. It is cheaper, more efficient, more practical, easier to manage and maintain, and is far superior to private insurance by any measure one might employ. Obama and our Congress did not even consider such a system. It was simply dismissed as too radical to pass (socialism, you know). Then there was supposed to be a kind of compromise position in a public option. But that, too, is regarded as socialism. The bills that are being considered are nothing less than gigantic gifts to the insurance companies. Why? I want to know. Why should health care bills be tailored to benefit insurance companies rather than the public? What is the rationale for this? Can anyone tell us? Even now it appears that a majority of the public favors a single-payer system, or at least a public option. This is not a secret, it has been acknowledged repeatedly. It would appear that what the public might want is totally irrelevant as far as our President and Congress are concerned. Obviously this is not a government by the people for the people, the people be damned. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies are important, we are not. There is no practical, economic, or organizational reason why Medicare should not be expanded to include everyone. It is a system that already exists, everyone likes it, it would save enormous sums of money in the long run, and it makes perfect sense. Alas, it would not benefit the insurance companies. Pity. But at least we don’t have to even pretend anymore that our Congress and Executive Branch exist to promote the public good. If there were any lingering doubts about this the Supreme Court recently made it clear who runs things here, so learn to live with it, peasants, serfs, wage slaves, and suckers in general. This is to be your life. Don’t even think of moving to another country, the powers that be are international.

Obama and Congress are in a rush to impose further Sanctions on Iran. Ostensibly, I guess, this is because Iran has said they will increase their production of nuclear fuel. There was an announcement about this, of course presented in the most damaging way. It has subsequently been shown that this has been exaggerated, what Iran is proposing is not as bad as it was made out to be, but that doesn’t seem to matter to those who are eager to impose sanctions. Iran has somehow become the bad sibling that everyone picks on, no matter what they do. Israel, of course, is at the forefront of demanding sanctions against Iran. What I would propose are some sanctions on Israel. After all, they have violated all international rules and regulations, are actively engaged in a kind of genocide, are stealing Palestinian land and water, have committed egregious war crimes, and are the single biggest cause of unrest in the Middle East, so why no sanctions? I should think any reasonable person would think they should face sanctions for their behavior. But no, it seems nothing they do, no matter how illegal, murderous, or criminal seems to make any difference, we just continue to support them year after year, thus insuring there will never be peace in that part of the world (which is, apparently, just the way they want it). I find it unsettling, to say the least, that the Obama administration has made it clear they are on the side of war criminals, both here at home, and in the Middle East. While this may go on in the short run, history will not be kind to us, nor will the long run.

LKBIQ:
Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too.
Richard M. Nixon

TILT:
Research has shown that pack rat “middens” can last as long as 40,000 years.