Community Members > Cynthia Rosenberry > More Words to Live By   [Community Blogs]

Insurance may be the biggest scam of our time yet our government mandates it. Who made that happen? How did we get to this point? The U.S. seriously needs to establish a separation of corporation and state, not citizen and state. The needs of the corporation often conflict with the needs of country/U.S. citizen, which is comprised of people, not PACs, bankrolls, and global corporations. Allowing corporations and the free market to determine the moral attitudes of our country is tantamount to leaving the country on auto-pilot. Who even knows where we are going? Do we have a "morality" that extends beyond the next election cycle?

Dennis Kucinich, a U.S. Representative and presidential candidate from Ohio, has a compassionate idea: expanding Medicare to cover all U.S. citizens, but will it find support? Will Kunicich even be allowed to discussed it in open debate before the next presidential election?

The question is, even if a majority of Americans say they want it, can they find a politician (no offense to Kucinich) who can get elected that will champion it? Getting one elected is the rub. Moneyed folk make the campaign contributions (as well as own the media) so moneyed folks determine what happens with our healthcare system. In my experience, sneering pundits are often allied with the moneyed ilk and I imagine they are insured to the teeth. Never was there an issue that so clearly pinpoints the chasm between the HAVEs and the HAVE-NOTs.

Noam Chomsky said regarding the 2004 U.S. elections:
"The New York Times commented that Kerry didn't make any hint about possible government involvement in health care programs because that position has, in their words, "no political support." Well, according to the most recent polls, 80% of the population thinks that the government ought to guarantee health care for everyone, and furthermore regard it as a moral obligation. That tells you something about people's values. But there's "no political support."

Why? Because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, the financial institutions are opposed, the insurance industry is opposed, so there's "no political support." It doesn't matter if 80% of the population regard it as a moral obligation: That doesn't count as political support. It tells you something about the elite conception. You're supposed to vote for the image they're projecting. "

Wasn't it HCA Senator Frist that called single-payer health care "single prayer healthcare" or was that someone else? Some people will always be able to afford the best health care the U.S. has to offer and will always be eligible but others may find themselves on the outside of the system, looking in. Insiders criticize socialized health care saying it will lead to rationing of services and supplies. The fact is, health care is already rationed in the U.S. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't, you will suffer and perhaps die for the lack of it just as you would in the poorest country in the world. It's not first-come-first-serve. The right to live in good health is a "privilege," not a given and it's a "right" bestowed by corporate policy, not government policy. So the corporations determine who lives and who dies in this country. In my opinion, they have TOO MUCH POWER. The irony is that suicide and assisting suicide is illegal but that's a purely archaic policy of the government. If it were up to the insurance companies, the law may be different, considering suicide is not their liability. Our government's attitude must be then, we expect that you will live, it's not our problem if you are not well. Every man for himself. Who writes policy about life and death? Policies regarding the death penalty, abortion, assisted suicide, these issues keep people voting along party lines. What would politicians do without the same old issues to keep us tuning in for the next election? The saga continues. Problems are seldom solved. Diseases are seldom cured.

Fans of our laissez-faire mercantile system as survival of the fittest often say fundamental need drives people to be self-sufficient and productive. While that may be the case in some instances, on the whole, I have to disagree. A lack of healthcare when needed will simply add to the burdens of working and unemployed Americans and will further impair their ability to catch up and compete. It's not enough just to safeguard the health of kids and elderly. The people supporting them are the working-aged worker class and a lot of them are uninsured. Lose an income provider and the family implodes. If guaranteeing that every member of the family will, at least, receive adequate medical care is "single prayer," according to the most powerful U.S. politicians, then perhaps praying for it will do more good than voting for it. Go ahead and pray the insurance companies will deem you or your spouse eligible for coverage, go ahead and pray to find a job with a good health care plan... Pray for your family but throw in a prayer for the rest? Pray that our government will stop policies in favor of preemptive violence and killing people abroad and will start expanding one of protecting, helping, and healing its own citizenry here at home.

Regarding Kucinich's plan for expanding medicare, however, considering the largest segment of our population is shifting into retirement, how this matter is handled will have everything to do with public perception of single-payer healthcare as a viable option (and we know who's in control of the spin). On a personal level, a large portion of our population may soon find out first-hand the consequence of a social-Darwinist attitude towards health care and the changing attitudes will impact family groups consisting of all ages. The baby-boomer shift may squelch any hopes for expanding Medicare when it becomes burdened with tending to the mass of Baby-boomers. Their middle aged offspring may find concensus regarding the need to tend to the needs of the elderly and children, however, may not find concensus regarding other population groups, preferring to cut their losses on those. The last thing the non-wealthy need is higher taxes, yet, slightly higher taxes will not ruin the majority of people. Sudden illness, however, can devestate the uninsured so the ethics and morality of pointing to the insurance industry as the necessary savior of our species are questionable.