Just spent some time at www.nice.org.uk, which is the UK's health care rationing board. This is something that Osama has not only proposed for the USA, but the money to pay for it already has been allocated in the Stimulus Package. NICE develops standards for care for the UK health care monolith. I mean industry.
Apart from the physicians and other experts who are part of this organization, a Citizens Council of about 30 people -- representative of everyone in the UK, the organization says -- meet a few times every year to grapple with questions like, Should age be part of considerations in determining health care treatments?
Interesting to read the results of the Citizens Councils deliberations. Like, if older people can actually die from the flu, while younger people only get sick for a couple days but are likely to recover, then the limited supply of "flu jabs" should go first to older people. At least 22 people out of the whole Council seemed to agree on this. Others believed everyone should be treated the same.
At some point, this becomes so very, very sad. I'm sure both the experts and the Citizens Council of NICE are sincere in their efforts to consider the various aspects of health care, and I'm sure they hope to be fair. But take a step back and look again....
Suppose you fall down a flight of stairs and, while you weren't knocked unconscious or didn't seem to break any bones, when you wake up the next morning, your knee hurts so bad you can't bend it or straighten it out. It's black-and-blue and swollen. So what do you do?
Go the local health council, made up of physicians and other experts, accountants, and then a half-dozen of your neighbors. They all examine your knee from various perspectives and decide on what your treatment will be, including how valuable your comfort and mobility are to the community as a whole vs. the cost of treating your knee.
They may come up with some good decisions, like maybe x-ray your knee to determine if any bones are broken. Or they may decide that your knee doesn't matter half as much as buying a supply of swine flu serum, so they will invest no time or money at all in your small problem.
Your knee has become a political issue and will be evaluated and disposed of in that light.
This whole situation is predicated on two assumptions:
1.) All health care resources, including physicians' time and expertise, the means and tools of diagnosis and therapy, all of it, are community resources. They don't belong to any one person or corporation. They're like the Great Lakes; they're just out there.
2.) Your physical condition is everyone's business.
Is either one of these assumptions true? Or something you want to be true?
So you spend 12 or more years in medical and specialty studies, as an intern and resident, yadayadayada, all to become a public utility. After all, you said you wanted to help people. And then why all the study? Any treatment you can offer patients is predetermined by poltical functionaries and government accountants. Government accountants especially.
What about hospitals? They don't belong to anyone? They don't have to pay employees, buy equipment, turn some kind of profit so that they will attract investor money to pay for their construction and maintenance? What if your local Humana hospital no longer can make enough money to stay open? Then what happens? It may become part of your local tax burden.
When Medicaid went into effect in Illinois, at least five hospitals in poor city neighborhoods closed their doors. Their clientele were largely Medicaid/Medicare recipients. Those organizations don't pay the full cost for care. Those hospitals shut their doors. They simply don't exist anymore. People go to County Hospital instead, take a number, and wait all day in the Emergency Room for treatment.
And how much cost is generated by the governing bodies, enforcement agencies, political groups, etc. -- which are pretty much pimples on the butt of the actual practice of medicine? They aren't necessary for a citizen to visit a doctor, be examined, diagnosed, and treated. All these guide personnel and citizens committees just stand and watch, record, and evaluate. They serve no useful purpose in the health care process, except to provide a layer of control over it.
Does the practice of medicine require this additional layer of control? Or is it an obstruction and an unnecessary expense?
If you seriously want to cut the cost -- and I mean "cost" not "price" -- of medical care, get the politicians out of the system. They only add immeasurable and largely useless expense.
This is what it means to "politicize" an issue. Like women's rights. It's no longer your family's problem, Oprah needs to get involved and put it on TV so all kinds of strangers can become indignant over your husband's brutality and your own masochistic tendencies. And, by all means, let's vote on some aspect of this or another. Let's develop some kind of consensus, and in the case of bringing the government into an issue, let's make laws for "proper" behavior so that we lock up anyone who falls short of the standard devised by popular vote, or the "sigh meter."
Does anyone really want to live like this? Exhibitionists leap to mind. All others, not so much.
In the area of health care, with socialized medicine (making all health care resources community resources) and then especially inviting "representative citizens" in to help determine therapies -- this isn't even just plain-vanilla socialism. It's Marxist communism. Textbook Marxist communism. Osama can call it anything he likes, but if it walks like a duck....
Osama is a Marxist. Didn't I say so before? Need more evidence? Or is it more important to US citizens to find a Messiah to surrender to, rather than to take on the burden of living their own lives their own way?
It's just sad. In the words of Dante, from his account of hell: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Nanny State
Watched Prez Osama's speech to the AMA. First, very generally, something I find very disturbing about this person is the odd, almost drunken expression he gets on his face when people applaud him. He literally looks like he's melting into some sort of ga-ga emotion. This is positively weird. I'm not sure if this is narcissism or what. Sort of reminds me of Sally Field's "You love me! You really love me!" Only Sally Field didn't seem to abandon all reason the way the prez does. Is he so undone by flattery?
Regarding the speech itself, it raises more questions than it answers. What particularly struck me -- and I'm sure left many doctors wondering, as well -- is the changes in payment that Osama is proposing.
1.) Osama says doctors' pay should be "outcome-based." What the heck does that mean? If a patient dies, they don't get paid? If they misdiagnose something, they don't get paid? It is possible to misdiagnose something honestly, when one condition disguises another, for example, or if doctors are restricted in the diagnostic tests they can perform -- which is another proposal the prez made. Or, maybe the patient simply doesn't follow directions. Anyway, what exactly is "outcome-based pay" for doctors?
2.) Osama said doctors shouldn't be paid on a case-by-case basis, but for a whole treatment. Maybe he doesn't understand how doctors work? You don't get a cardiac surgeon to monitor after-surgery care, for example. A dermatologist might consult without contributing anything more. What constitutes a"whole treatment"?
To me, this sounds like he's suggesting that doctors take some kind of salary, no doubt determined by the Paymaster General, the new Compensation Czar Osama named last week. After all, once he's determined how much people at AIG and GM can make, this new czar will have plenty of time on his hands to try to control health care providers. Got to keep these government dudes busy or the general public might begin to wonder why, exactly, we have a Paymaster General in the first place, and that might lead to diminishing the number of people who can dictate policy without benefit of congressional input and reduce Osama's power. We couldn't have that in this administration.
3.) Osama says doctors should get bonuses when they're successful. Oh well, they used to have bonuses in the financial industry, and see how that worked out? The SEIU and Acorn didn't like it at all. It might indicate that some people are more equal than others. And exactly what kind of bonuses would doctors get? If they don't leave a sponge in your tummy after an appendectomy? If they actually cure someone? That's their job, isn't it?
Or is Osama talking about research? It's a possibility. Is research covered under Osama's health care plan? Where? In other nations with socialized medicine, research has been the first thing to go -- just too damn expensive.
4.) Osama keeps talking about preventive medicine. (He's actually says "preventative" -- which is a word that people have just made up. You really don't need the extra syllable.) Anway, preventive medicine has added considerably to the cost of health care in general. For example, getting that yearly PAP smear, mammogram, or now prostate exams. Even for people who have no family history of these problems or any symptoms. OK. Catching anything early can help to "cure" it, but the vast majority of these tests reveal nothing but a clean bill of health. And they cost the same whether doctors find anything or not.
I'm not saying regular testing is a bad idea; I'm just saying it's expensive and it won't reduce costs, except in those cases that do reveal a potential problem, and these are a very small percentage of cases.
Also, I've heard that these types of preventive tests actually are more useful for keeping machines busy to help pay down their costs. I mean, in any industry, you buy an expensive new machine, you've got to keep it going 24/7 to get any return-on-investment from it. The health care industry is not immune to this reality. It's like, you get a brand new MRI machine, you've got to start stacking up bodies to keep scanning pretty much 24 hours per day to keep up the payments on it.
And "prevention" generally means no smoking, eat a healthy diet, exercise regularly. So, how is this going to happen? Everybody already knows this. No matter how many billboards about cancer are pasted onto cigarette packs, 20% of Americans still smoke. Junk food is a whole industry. Kids don't like vegetables. I would guess that more people watch exercise on TV than actually exercise. That home stationery bicycle is useful mainly as a clothes hanger.
So how is this type of prevention to be enforced?
Picture droves of Health Care Tactical Squads in bright red lab coats and ski masks descending upon a suburban neighborhood, rousting couch potatoes from their living rooms and locking them into cages with just enough room for a treadmill. "Run!" they cry, holding a stop watch. "Run! Fifteen minutes and you'll get a Twinkie." And the Twinkie will be made of dessicated bean spouts and reconstituted soy milk.
I just can't wait.
Anyway.... Change of subject....
As I was signing on to the computer, heard that the Grand Wise and Perfectly Holy Poobahs in Iran are now firing upon the people who suspect election fraud in Iran. I mean, the protesters are being shot at and at least one apparently was killed. That's a sure sign of moral impeccability -- killing people who disagree with you.
Difficult to verify what's going on, since the Iranian government -- or should we say Holy Pantheon -- is blacking out all public communications, including cell phone service, Twitter, FaceBook and so on. I'm surprised they busy themselves with such trivia as technology. Why can't they just wave their magic wands?
Looks like a preview of the US's future, if, heaven forbid, we persist in smoking cigarettes, guzzling Coca-Cola, and munching on Cheetos. I mean, don't we absolutely need to be regulated? Life is just to precious to leave how and why we live all up to us as individuals. What we need is more and more control, layers of more government to make our decisions for us.
Somehow, I can't believe this is what George Washington, Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, et. al., had in mind. And I don't believe the principles behind fair government change at all, no matter how big and complex a nation becomes. To call the USA a "free" country anymore is to misuse the word "free." Increasingly, it's becoming an over-taxed, over-regulated, and oppressive country.
My favorite quote is from Tom Jefferson: "If man is not fit to rule himself, how then can be fit to rule others?"
I guess the answer to that one is: You've got to manufacture some kind of Messiah with magical powers.
Regarding the speech itself, it raises more questions than it answers. What particularly struck me -- and I'm sure left many doctors wondering, as well -- is the changes in payment that Osama is proposing.
1.) Osama says doctors' pay should be "outcome-based." What the heck does that mean? If a patient dies, they don't get paid? If they misdiagnose something, they don't get paid? It is possible to misdiagnose something honestly, when one condition disguises another, for example, or if doctors are restricted in the diagnostic tests they can perform -- which is another proposal the prez made. Or, maybe the patient simply doesn't follow directions. Anyway, what exactly is "outcome-based pay" for doctors?
2.) Osama said doctors shouldn't be paid on a case-by-case basis, but for a whole treatment. Maybe he doesn't understand how doctors work? You don't get a cardiac surgeon to monitor after-surgery care, for example. A dermatologist might consult without contributing anything more. What constitutes a"whole treatment"?
To me, this sounds like he's suggesting that doctors take some kind of salary, no doubt determined by the Paymaster General, the new Compensation Czar Osama named last week. After all, once he's determined how much people at AIG and GM can make, this new czar will have plenty of time on his hands to try to control health care providers. Got to keep these government dudes busy or the general public might begin to wonder why, exactly, we have a Paymaster General in the first place, and that might lead to diminishing the number of people who can dictate policy without benefit of congressional input and reduce Osama's power. We couldn't have that in this administration.
3.) Osama says doctors should get bonuses when they're successful. Oh well, they used to have bonuses in the financial industry, and see how that worked out? The SEIU and Acorn didn't like it at all. It might indicate that some people are more equal than others. And exactly what kind of bonuses would doctors get? If they don't leave a sponge in your tummy after an appendectomy? If they actually cure someone? That's their job, isn't it?
Or is Osama talking about research? It's a possibility. Is research covered under Osama's health care plan? Where? In other nations with socialized medicine, research has been the first thing to go -- just too damn expensive.
4.) Osama keeps talking about preventive medicine. (He's actually says "preventative" -- which is a word that people have just made up. You really don't need the extra syllable.) Anway, preventive medicine has added considerably to the cost of health care in general. For example, getting that yearly PAP smear, mammogram, or now prostate exams. Even for people who have no family history of these problems or any symptoms. OK. Catching anything early can help to "cure" it, but the vast majority of these tests reveal nothing but a clean bill of health. And they cost the same whether doctors find anything or not.
I'm not saying regular testing is a bad idea; I'm just saying it's expensive and it won't reduce costs, except in those cases that do reveal a potential problem, and these are a very small percentage of cases.
Also, I've heard that these types of preventive tests actually are more useful for keeping machines busy to help pay down their costs. I mean, in any industry, you buy an expensive new machine, you've got to keep it going 24/7 to get any return-on-investment from it. The health care industry is not immune to this reality. It's like, you get a brand new MRI machine, you've got to start stacking up bodies to keep scanning pretty much 24 hours per day to keep up the payments on it.
And "prevention" generally means no smoking, eat a healthy diet, exercise regularly. So, how is this going to happen? Everybody already knows this. No matter how many billboards about cancer are pasted onto cigarette packs, 20% of Americans still smoke. Junk food is a whole industry. Kids don't like vegetables. I would guess that more people watch exercise on TV than actually exercise. That home stationery bicycle is useful mainly as a clothes hanger.
So how is this type of prevention to be enforced?
Picture droves of Health Care Tactical Squads in bright red lab coats and ski masks descending upon a suburban neighborhood, rousting couch potatoes from their living rooms and locking them into cages with just enough room for a treadmill. "Run!" they cry, holding a stop watch. "Run! Fifteen minutes and you'll get a Twinkie." And the Twinkie will be made of dessicated bean spouts and reconstituted soy milk.
I just can't wait.
Anyway.... Change of subject....
As I was signing on to the computer, heard that the Grand Wise and Perfectly Holy Poobahs in Iran are now firing upon the people who suspect election fraud in Iran. I mean, the protesters are being shot at and at least one apparently was killed. That's a sure sign of moral impeccability -- killing people who disagree with you.
Difficult to verify what's going on, since the Iranian government -- or should we say Holy Pantheon -- is blacking out all public communications, including cell phone service, Twitter, FaceBook and so on. I'm surprised they busy themselves with such trivia as technology. Why can't they just wave their magic wands?
Looks like a preview of the US's future, if, heaven forbid, we persist in smoking cigarettes, guzzling Coca-Cola, and munching on Cheetos. I mean, don't we absolutely need to be regulated? Life is just to precious to leave how and why we live all up to us as individuals. What we need is more and more control, layers of more government to make our decisions for us.
Somehow, I can't believe this is what George Washington, Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, et. al., had in mind. And I don't believe the principles behind fair government change at all, no matter how big and complex a nation becomes. To call the USA a "free" country anymore is to misuse the word "free." Increasingly, it's becoming an over-taxed, over-regulated, and oppressive country.
My favorite quote is from Tom Jefferson: "If man is not fit to rule himself, how then can be fit to rule others?"
I guess the answer to that one is: You've got to manufacture some kind of Messiah with magical powers.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
OK, OK. Let me see if I have this straight....
Prez Osama is proposing to reduce, cut, and ration health care to the poor and elderly -- that is Medicare/Medicaid recipients -- in order to extend "free" health insurance to... whom? The supposed 47 million people who do not have health insurance, including the young and healthy who don't want to pay for it or can't afford it, those who can afford it but don't want to spend the money, and illegal aliens.
Is this making any sense? Take it away from people who really do need it and give it to those who probably have other options, or have no real business making claims upon the tax dollars of American citizens.
I'm seeing very little logic in this, but then I'm looking for positive advantages for the human race, not the huge gains the nanny state would make in terms of controlling even the most personal aspects of everyone's lives.
So start again... If I were looking to seize control of US citizens and severely restrict their personal liberty, how would I go about it?
Oh. Ok. Now I see.
More later... We actually have some sunshine today in Chicago, which means lawn mowing and window washing.
Prez Osama is proposing to reduce, cut, and ration health care to the poor and elderly -- that is Medicare/Medicaid recipients -- in order to extend "free" health insurance to... whom? The supposed 47 million people who do not have health insurance, including the young and healthy who don't want to pay for it or can't afford it, those who can afford it but don't want to spend the money, and illegal aliens.
Is this making any sense? Take it away from people who really do need it and give it to those who probably have other options, or have no real business making claims upon the tax dollars of American citizens.
I'm seeing very little logic in this, but then I'm looking for positive advantages for the human race, not the huge gains the nanny state would make in terms of controlling even the most personal aspects of everyone's lives.
So start again... If I were looking to seize control of US citizens and severely restrict their personal liberty, how would I go about it?
Oh. Ok. Now I see.
More later... We actually have some sunshine today in Chicago, which means lawn mowing and window washing.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Still don't know why
What continues to bother me about the USA's march into the dark night of socialism is... Why?
Is Prez Osama, Pazzo Pelosi and all the rest really, honestly willing to toss the whole country to the dogs to increase their base of power?
How sick is that?
Pazzo Pelosi, too, is doing all she can to stir up more anti-US hatred in the Middle East to step up the war and maximize the number of US soldiers killed there.
Why?
They all want to ensure that US citizens will live in dire poverty, hopelessness, and despair, with some subsistence-level economy, third-rate health care, and absolutely no way to improve it.
I can't even imagine the burden of hatred they carry for this country. They hate the USA so much they go through the b.s. involved in election campaigns, all the petty and brain-numbing business of government to acquire as much power as possible simply in order to .... destroy the nation.
I can understand ignorance and stupidity. But I can't understand deliberate destruction. It's so very sick and twisted.
Why?
If I hated this country that much, I'd get the hell out. They stay here and try to tear it all down.
Why?
Why don't they just leave us alone? I don't a give whit what they do, as long as they don't do it to me. Where did these jerks grow up? Surely not in America.
I'm too depressed to write anymore. I've really got to stop listening to the news.
Is Prez Osama, Pazzo Pelosi and all the rest really, honestly willing to toss the whole country to the dogs to increase their base of power?
How sick is that?
Pazzo Pelosi, too, is doing all she can to stir up more anti-US hatred in the Middle East to step up the war and maximize the number of US soldiers killed there.
Why?
They all want to ensure that US citizens will live in dire poverty, hopelessness, and despair, with some subsistence-level economy, third-rate health care, and absolutely no way to improve it.
I can't even imagine the burden of hatred they carry for this country. They hate the USA so much they go through the b.s. involved in election campaigns, all the petty and brain-numbing business of government to acquire as much power as possible simply in order to .... destroy the nation.
I can understand ignorance and stupidity. But I can't understand deliberate destruction. It's so very sick and twisted.
Why?
If I hated this country that much, I'd get the hell out. They stay here and try to tear it all down.
Why?
Why don't they just leave us alone? I don't a give whit what they do, as long as they don't do it to me. Where did these jerks grow up? Surely not in America.
I'm too depressed to write anymore. I've really got to stop listening to the news.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Socialized medicine fails to impress
Prez Osama is fond of pointing out that the US Chamber of Commerce is on-board for socialized medicine. But it isn't.
Apparently the Chamber was invited to participate in the behind-closed-doors dealings by which legislation is created in the USA today. Apparently they agreed with legislators on some points and goals for "health care reform." However, in statements released yesterday -- as Osama was in Wisconsin touting their support -- the Chamber released several statements that show just the opposite.
Regarding a health care reform bill currently being considered in the Senate, the US Chamber of Commerce states in a news release:
Now Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D., AMA president, says:
So it seems the AMA is not too happy with the way their position has been bandied about and mischaracterized by the liberal left. Uh, I mean the New York Times.
I will only comment that Rule #1 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals suggests that even if your organization is small, you should figure out a way for them to make a lot of noise so that it seems you have lots and lots of support. I guess claiming that the AMA and the US Chamber of Commerce are solidly behind the federal government's socialized medicine scheme is just one example.
Was going to call this blog "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" but the search engines wouldn't have picked up on it being about socialized medicine. They just aren't as smart as American citizens are in picking up these kinds of things.
Apparently the Chamber was invited to participate in the behind-closed-doors dealings by which legislation is created in the USA today. Apparently they agreed with legislators on some points and goals for "health care reform." However, in statements released yesterday -- as Osama was in Wisconsin touting their support -- the Chamber released several statements that show just the opposite.
Regarding a health care reform bill currently being considered in the Senate, the US Chamber of Commerce states in a news release:
Moses could change the Nile to run red, but we cannot wave a wand and create profits. The payments will come off the bottom line in some way such as lower wages and job loss and perhaps ultimately result in driving the employer out of business.
While there has been much focus on the so-called government public plan option, I believe, the issue of a new employer mandate, euphemistically called "play or pay," has largely been lost in the debate and in the press. This is highly ironic given that this is, let's be clear, a sweeping new burden on employers of unprecedented proportion in the benefits areas.
After meeting with stakeholders behind closed doors for nearly a year, the committee released a proposal that bears almost no resemblance to the points of consensus reached, which raises significant concerns to the employer community as a whole.
Rather than focusing on improving quality and lowering cost, the proposal centers on creating new burdens on America's job creators, significantly expanding public programs, and creating a new government-run insurance company.
I don't know. Does this sound like enthusiastic support or more like indignation and a sense of betrayal?
According to the US Chamber's full testimony (like the news release, this is available at http://www.uschamber.com/ look under the MEDIA tab), the bill in front of the Senate includes providing government-subsidized health insurance for families of four with incomes of up to $110,250 per year. Jeez, is this the new "poverty level"? Seems like most of America is doing awfully good.
Or maybe the Democrats are (still) trying to buy off the middle class. On the other hand, I would guess that any family of four making more than $110,250 per year would be expected to pay, and pay, and pay, and pay for this plan.
The Chamber's full statement notes:
Must admit that the AMA (American Medical Assn.) has disappointed me in the past in their position on socialized medicine. A few weeks ago I looked at their website for statements on where they stand and could find only rather vague yet lofty pronouncments about how everyone should have access to health care. They didn't say anything specific about how this should be provided.Another concerning proposal is the creation of a new government-run health plan, euphemistically referred to as the “public option,” or brazenly referred to as “consumer driven.” Proponents say that this is necessary to “keep private insurers honest,” yet proposed market reforms should accomplish this goal without the creation of a new entitlement plan. Proponents claim that a government-run plan can compete on an equal playing field with private plans, but this would put the government in the position of being both a team owner and the referee; inevitably the government would move to give unfair advantages to the “public option,” just as they are considering doing now with the public financing of student loans.
Now Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D., AMA president, says:
Make no mistake: Health reform that covers the uninsured is AMA’s top priority this year. Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care coverage.
Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.
So it seems the AMA is not too happy with the way their position has been bandied about and mischaracterized by the liberal left. Uh, I mean the New York Times.
I will only comment that Rule #1 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals suggests that even if your organization is small, you should figure out a way for them to make a lot of noise so that it seems you have lots and lots of support. I guess claiming that the AMA and the US Chamber of Commerce are solidly behind the federal government's socialized medicine scheme is just one example.
Was going to call this blog "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" but the search engines wouldn't have picked up on it being about socialized medicine. They just aren't as smart as American citizens are in picking up these kinds of things.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Keeping the private sector honest
President Osama had me in stitches today. He was in Green Bay, Wisc., kicking off his socialized medicine putsch. When he said a government-run insurance program would "keep the private sector honest," I actually had Diet Pepsi shooting out my nose. My cat was alarmed, seeing his thumb-equipped link to the can opener actually collapsed in a heap on the floor, gasping for breath, doubled over in laughter. That was a good one, Barry!
I think I mentioned before that I write fiction, among other things. (At least I'm honest about it.) A couple months ago I was trying to contrive some dire plot for a mystery, surfin' the Web, looking for interesting crime stories. Man, I never realized that Medicare/Medicaid is such an easy mark.
If you watch any TV, you've probably seen those commercials for the padded scooters for seniors and others. They're like upholstered wheelchairs, motorized. Some of the sellers give you a "Grabber" for free if you order the scooter. And the ads always claim, "You pay nothing!!" The seller will be happy to fill out all the paper work for you and submit it to Medicare/Medicaid for payment. Then there are also other ads for companies who sell diabetes supplies and other medical equipment. They usually feature some older movie star, apparently to lend some credibility to the whole thing since Hollywood is so full of heavyweights.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on all of these companies. I suppose some are honest, especially if they've been around for a while. However....
In doing the research for the mystery, I came across many, many accounts of rather elaborate scams involving these types of companies. Sure, they'll do all the paper work. They want your Medicare/Medicaid account number and your doctor's ID number, and then they'll just keep on billin' and never look back! Whether or not you receive anything more than a scooter and a grabber, the supplier will bill Medicare/Medicaid for hospital beds, a lifetime inventory of adult diapers, all kinds of stuff. You may be surprised to learn some day that you had major surgery that one weekend you thought you spent at the casino.
Something like 15% of all Medicare/Medicaid is wasted through fraud. Though I don't have the statistics in front of me, I do believe the last number I heard was that something like $60 billion (with a b) was flushed down the toilet last year through these schemes.
The federal government doesn't have the time or the staff to double-check all the claims they get in, and it's not their money anyway. They just pay and pay and pay.... Your tax dollars at work --or actually resting comfortably in somebody's bank account in the Cayman Islands.
On the other hand, in the free market, or at least among privately-owned insurance carriers, fraud like this just couldn't be tolerated. Private companies are actually accountable to their shareholders and even to their customers. They don't have a printing press in the back room to keep grinding out hundred-dollar bills. They actually keep track of their claims and expenditures. Unlike the buffoons in Washington.
So, anyway, I had a good laugh, and after a time, my cat came out from behind the couch.
It boggles my mind that President Osama so underestimates the intelligence of the American public. Here's a news flash for you, Barry -- in the US, the brightest and the best are not in government; they work in the private sector, where they have more freedom to innovate and to grow. Until you got into office, the private sector in America offered some real freedom to do this. So apparently since you've never worked in the private sector, you're judging all of us by the butthead louts you've encountered in your government work.
Most of us private American citizens are a whole lot smarter than that, but you really have no way of knowing that, do you? Your conversations with the public usually go only one way.... for fear of encountering another Joe-the-Plumber, maybe, who might ask you an embarrasing question? Like... isn't that socialism?
Oh, hey... ol' Barry isn't a socialist. Nah.... He's.... Santa Claus.
Does anyone except Nancy Pelosi believe anything this clown says anymore? And she's probably afraid Barry will take away the Air Force jet if she questions him too closely.
I don't know how he does it. He doesn't want to run an auto company. He doesn't want to run banks and financial institutions. He's just strolling down the street and these companies glom onto him, begging him to nationalize them and seize control. It's actually amazing. Nothing like that has ever happened to me or to anyone else I've ever met. It must be part of the Messiah thing.
Because it can't all be a coincidence, can it?
By the way, I found a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and Prez Osama definitely does play by those rules. I'm paraphrasing them and will post them. Apparently Saul Alinsky, a devout communist, or his heirs, who apparently are not opposed to collecting scummy capitalist profits, have pretty tight clamps on the copyright -- they don't want to lose a penny on unauthorized circulation -- so I'll have to paraphrase to prevent a law suit.
Liars and hypocrites. It's really amazing. Well, not really amazing, considering where they come from and where they want to go.
I think I mentioned before that I write fiction, among other things. (At least I'm honest about it.) A couple months ago I was trying to contrive some dire plot for a mystery, surfin' the Web, looking for interesting crime stories. Man, I never realized that Medicare/Medicaid is such an easy mark.
If you watch any TV, you've probably seen those commercials for the padded scooters for seniors and others. They're like upholstered wheelchairs, motorized. Some of the sellers give you a "Grabber" for free if you order the scooter. And the ads always claim, "You pay nothing!!" The seller will be happy to fill out all the paper work for you and submit it to Medicare/Medicaid for payment. Then there are also other ads for companies who sell diabetes supplies and other medical equipment. They usually feature some older movie star, apparently to lend some credibility to the whole thing since Hollywood is so full of heavyweights.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on all of these companies. I suppose some are honest, especially if they've been around for a while. However....
In doing the research for the mystery, I came across many, many accounts of rather elaborate scams involving these types of companies. Sure, they'll do all the paper work. They want your Medicare/Medicaid account number and your doctor's ID number, and then they'll just keep on billin' and never look back! Whether or not you receive anything more than a scooter and a grabber, the supplier will bill Medicare/Medicaid for hospital beds, a lifetime inventory of adult diapers, all kinds of stuff. You may be surprised to learn some day that you had major surgery that one weekend you thought you spent at the casino.
Something like 15% of all Medicare/Medicaid is wasted through fraud. Though I don't have the statistics in front of me, I do believe the last number I heard was that something like $60 billion (with a b) was flushed down the toilet last year through these schemes.
The federal government doesn't have the time or the staff to double-check all the claims they get in, and it's not their money anyway. They just pay and pay and pay.... Your tax dollars at work --or actually resting comfortably in somebody's bank account in the Cayman Islands.
On the other hand, in the free market, or at least among privately-owned insurance carriers, fraud like this just couldn't be tolerated. Private companies are actually accountable to their shareholders and even to their customers. They don't have a printing press in the back room to keep grinding out hundred-dollar bills. They actually keep track of their claims and expenditures. Unlike the buffoons in Washington.
So, anyway, I had a good laugh, and after a time, my cat came out from behind the couch.
It boggles my mind that President Osama so underestimates the intelligence of the American public. Here's a news flash for you, Barry -- in the US, the brightest and the best are not in government; they work in the private sector, where they have more freedom to innovate and to grow. Until you got into office, the private sector in America offered some real freedom to do this. So apparently since you've never worked in the private sector, you're judging all of us by the butthead louts you've encountered in your government work.
Most of us private American citizens are a whole lot smarter than that, but you really have no way of knowing that, do you? Your conversations with the public usually go only one way.... for fear of encountering another Joe-the-Plumber, maybe, who might ask you an embarrasing question? Like... isn't that socialism?
Oh, hey... ol' Barry isn't a socialist. Nah.... He's.... Santa Claus.
Does anyone except Nancy Pelosi believe anything this clown says anymore? And she's probably afraid Barry will take away the Air Force jet if she questions him too closely.
I don't know how he does it. He doesn't want to run an auto company. He doesn't want to run banks and financial institutions. He's just strolling down the street and these companies glom onto him, begging him to nationalize them and seize control. It's actually amazing. Nothing like that has ever happened to me or to anyone else I've ever met. It must be part of the Messiah thing.
Because it can't all be a coincidence, can it?
By the way, I found a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and Prez Osama definitely does play by those rules. I'm paraphrasing them and will post them. Apparently Saul Alinsky, a devout communist, or his heirs, who apparently are not opposed to collecting scummy capitalist profits, have pretty tight clamps on the copyright -- they don't want to lose a penny on unauthorized circulation -- so I'll have to paraphrase to prevent a law suit.
Liars and hypocrites. It's really amazing. Well, not really amazing, considering where they come from and where they want to go.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The civil society
The civil society is a certain type of ideal where people meet and discuss issues that affect them all and try to reason out solutions that they all can live with. Notice especially that this ideal is based on reason -- the human capacity to deal with reality in the abstract, to discern cause-and-effect relationships, to project the future consequences of actions taken now. It's also closely related to the concept of "rule by law, not by man." That is, dispassionate, objective law, not the subjective, arbitrary (though maybe empathetic) personal preference of an individual authoritarian.
The Enlightenment is the historical period that made a virtue of reason. It's even called The Age of Reason. Some people believe reason has failed, but it only fails when we fail to exercise it.
And when reason fails, what are we left with?
People grabbing a gun and going down to the Holocaust Museum, or the local Army recruiting office, or an abortion clinic to fix things on their own. I could go on naming particular issues, but hopefully you get the drift.
The US government in particular is very special creation. If government in general -- any government -- is a given society's method of making decisions that are binding on all members, then the US government was devised to make such decision-making as fair and open a process as possible. The Constitution describes a government that provides a forum for reasoned and fair decision-making in areas that constitute "public" life.
The US government was never intended to serve as a moral authority in the same way that religion or philosophy is. It was never supposed to micro-manage everyone's lives, rather only to protect our ability to make personal decisions for ourselves.
Right now the US is involved in a broad argument about how extensive the reach of government should be. The argument has gotten away from the issues enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so that now apparently whatever personal decisions we are allowed come under the vague and changeable heading of The Right to Privacy.
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The public space -- that part of life that's controlled by governmental authority -- was supposed to be kept relatively small in its scope, but that's not what's happened over time.
Conservatives want government limited to one degree or another. Liberals want government expanded to control as much as possible. Everyone seems to have some hobby-horse that they believe requires the compulsion of government control. The Founding Fathers talked about "toleration," or letting others be, even if you believed they were wrong. Now special interest groups of every stripe own one or another issue that they claim needs to be legislated one way or the other for the good of all.
But you see, when you try to extend governmental -- or really any kind -- of social control, you only generate ever-accelerating controversy about what is "good" for all people, since all people will be forced to live with it or under it. Non-conformists, including creative people, often feel the pressure first, feel that they're being pushed into places that they don't want to go.
The alternative is to agree to disagree. In other words, abandon attempts at control and simply tolerate behavior that might be repugnant to us personally. As Jefferson said, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...."
The conflict is not incidentally between right and left, Democrats and Republicans, socialists and capitalists. The primary source of the conflict is between individual rights and social control.
So not only is there is a loonie firing randomly (?) at visitors at the Holocaust Museum, but the killing of Dr. Tiller, who performed abortions, and also of a US soldier by a radical muslim, all over the last couple of weeks.
Seems people of every political shade are abandoning law, since the law just isn't working out in their favor. Or maybe the law has become less and less reasonable, less and less tolerant, and more and more oppressive -- for everyone. Maybe there's just too much of it.
As government control increasingly becomes social control -- that is, polticizing every aspect of human life and carving out laws of behavior for every person in every possible situation -- there's only going to more of this kind of thing. People feeling pressured and abused, yet helpless to save themselves in any other way but to strike out at whomever they perceive to be "the enemy."
In public relations Lesson #1 is: Don't corner your opponent, because if you push them up against the wall, they have no option but to attack you.
Exactly when and who they attack is pretty much up to them, and no amount of government control and additional legislation will ever change it. In fact, harsher control only makes it worse.
The Enlightenment is the historical period that made a virtue of reason. It's even called The Age of Reason. Some people believe reason has failed, but it only fails when we fail to exercise it.
And when reason fails, what are we left with?
People grabbing a gun and going down to the Holocaust Museum, or the local Army recruiting office, or an abortion clinic to fix things on their own. I could go on naming particular issues, but hopefully you get the drift.
The US government in particular is very special creation. If government in general -- any government -- is a given society's method of making decisions that are binding on all members, then the US government was devised to make such decision-making as fair and open a process as possible. The Constitution describes a government that provides a forum for reasoned and fair decision-making in areas that constitute "public" life.
The US government was never intended to serve as a moral authority in the same way that religion or philosophy is. It was never supposed to micro-manage everyone's lives, rather only to protect our ability to make personal decisions for ourselves.
Right now the US is involved in a broad argument about how extensive the reach of government should be. The argument has gotten away from the issues enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so that now apparently whatever personal decisions we are allowed come under the vague and changeable heading of The Right to Privacy.
This is pretty much the opposite of what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The public space -- that part of life that's controlled by governmental authority -- was supposed to be kept relatively small in its scope, but that's not what's happened over time.
Conservatives want government limited to one degree or another. Liberals want government expanded to control as much as possible. Everyone seems to have some hobby-horse that they believe requires the compulsion of government control. The Founding Fathers talked about "toleration," or letting others be, even if you believed they were wrong. Now special interest groups of every stripe own one or another issue that they claim needs to be legislated one way or the other for the good of all.
But you see, when you try to extend governmental -- or really any kind -- of social control, you only generate ever-accelerating controversy about what is "good" for all people, since all people will be forced to live with it or under it. Non-conformists, including creative people, often feel the pressure first, feel that they're being pushed into places that they don't want to go.
The alternative is to agree to disagree. In other words, abandon attempts at control and simply tolerate behavior that might be repugnant to us personally. As Jefferson said, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...."
The conflict is not incidentally between right and left, Democrats and Republicans, socialists and capitalists. The primary source of the conflict is between individual rights and social control.
So not only is there is a loonie firing randomly (?) at visitors at the Holocaust Museum, but the killing of Dr. Tiller, who performed abortions, and also of a US soldier by a radical muslim, all over the last couple of weeks.
Seems people of every political shade are abandoning law, since the law just isn't working out in their favor. Or maybe the law has become less and less reasonable, less and less tolerant, and more and more oppressive -- for everyone. Maybe there's just too much of it.
As government control increasingly becomes social control -- that is, polticizing every aspect of human life and carving out laws of behavior for every person in every possible situation -- there's only going to more of this kind of thing. People feeling pressured and abused, yet helpless to save themselves in any other way but to strike out at whomever they perceive to be "the enemy."
In public relations Lesson #1 is: Don't corner your opponent, because if you push them up against the wall, they have no option but to attack you.
Exactly when and who they attack is pretty much up to them, and no amount of government control and additional legislation will ever change it. In fact, harsher control only makes it worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)