Shortcuts

Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
[Feeds & Readers]
Follow us on Twitter!

Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!

« Texans Can Still Get Rid of Their Clunkers | Main | The spirit of Vatican II lives on »


428 Percent Growth in Profits Since 2002

By Bob Hooper
August 28, 2009

"Polls indicate the public wants healthcare reform and a public-insurance option. So the health-insurance industry is pretending to be in favor of reform while trying to kill it...says Wendell Potter, who [recently] headed corporate communications at CIGNA, a major health-insurance company..., He says [t]he industry uses 'deception, outright lies, and fear-mongering' to peel away reform's supporters." - David R. Francis, US is slipping toward plutocracy, Christian Science Monitor
Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) argued that emotions were a better guide to good sense than reason. These days, he'd find lots of knuckleheads nodding amen. He'd also find grinning corporate profiteers slapping each other's back, "Glory, glory, hallelujah! Praise be to the God of Greed."

Fear-mongering works. It trumps reason better than any other propaganda tactic. Lies and deception spread fear. Fear then leads to hatred, hatred leads to inflammatory rhetoric, and red-hot rhetoric all too often leads to violence. That, my friends, is the narrow ledge on which we teeter today. The Obama-hating screamers, fist shakers, name callers, and the testosterone addicted gun-toters who come to Town Halls and other public meetings are not harbingers of reason. And health care reform is but one arena where hatred is festering.

Turn off TV and talk radio. Leave your favorite echo-chamber (where you see and hear whatever supports your emotional side). Find a calm spot. Breathe deeply. I'm going to toss some statistics your way. You'll need a clear head.

Recall that, (1) the U.S. is the only industrialized nation not to provide some form of universal health care, (b) we pay more than twice as much for it, and, (c) we get below average health outcomes. Most of the time most of us with insurance think our doctors, nurses, med techs and hospitals are okay. We're not badmouthing them. Now, re-read (b).

I had previously written about Canada's health care system, of which approximately 86 percent of Canadians approve. Ninety percent of Canadians age 65 and older like it fine. Canada's isn't the best health care system, but at least as good as ours - at half the cost. Spain, the U.K., Israel, Ireland, New Zealand, and yes, Switzerland and many others provide universal health care with as good or better results than the U.S. and far, far cheaper. Pause. Think that over.

On October 29, 2004, FOX News.com summarized a five-nation survey finding that, "Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care even while paying more of their own money for treatment." Yeah, that was FOX.

From 1999 through 2008, average U.S. workers' earnings rose by a total of 34 percent - barely above core inflation. So, if you made eight bucks an hour in 1999, you'd be making about ten bucks and six bits now for the same work - if you still have a job.

Now get this: during the identical period, average health insurance premiums went up 119 percent. Just since 2002, premiums have increased by 87 percent. Furrow your brow. Over the last seven years, the top 10 insurance companies' profits went up by a whopping 428 percent. Are you getting the picture?

The premium for a family of four is about $12,700 per year. Figure 52 weeks at 40 hours per week. That's $6.11 per hour you're paying, you or your employer. The National Coalition on Health Care estimates that by 2018, absent health care reform, coverage for a family of four will hit $25,000.

Fewer and fewer employers offer health care. For those that do, workers themselves are often required to pony up. In my local public school district, an employee with two children pays more than $300 per month to "help out" on the approximate total cost of over $13,000 annually. Across the U.S., higher deductibles are common. So are coverage limits, buried in the fine print. So are reduced or eliminated retiree benefits.

Now think about this: Just under two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies involved back-breaking medical bills. Almost 80 percent of those people had health insurance.

For the 25 million under-insured it's bad enough. For the 47 million without health insurance, it's terrible. Many of these work at low wage jobs - not a few are out of work. For those with pre-existing conditions and "uninsurable," it's morally unforgivable. Like me, you've surely known (or know now) a few people with serious, even life-threatening health problems who should not have to work, but they do. Sick every day. Otherwise they'd lose their coverage. Some of course the boss "just had to let'em go."

A woman wrote recently that she agreed with me: Medicare Part D was essentially a rip-off. But she laid the blame at the feet of "government." She doesn't get it. The rip-off comes not from government first hand, but government second hand - from those legislators with their hands out to corporate contributions. To paraphrase a wag whose name I cannot recall: "We have a greedy corporate plutocracy that owns most Republicans and rents enough Democrats to get what they want."

That's what has to change. Real health care reform is a start.


Comments (2)

bob hooper Author Profile Page:

Thanks for the comment, Peter. Hume had a point in pointing out the emotional component necessary for truly moral thinking. I am reminded of an essay by Glen Tinder, "Can we be good without God? on the political meaning of Christianity" and I suspect that's the tack you are taking. Hume wasn't a Christian I believe, but the direction of his thought has been used by those like Tinder. However, in using the word "slave" it seems to me Hume over-reached. It might have been better to warn that it's arguably worse for emotions/passions not to be governed (or at least tempered) by reason. The question remains. Who was it who answered the question whether a man (woman) can be good without
believing in a good God? "Perhaps," the answer was, "if he (she) is a philosopher."

In the case of health care reform, and those opposing it, led not by rationality but by their emotions, and their emotions stirred up by design -- the lack of objective reason is evident and sad. Of course, one could then rebut by arguing that providing universal health care is an emotional objective, not a rational one. That case could be made as well.

tpye Author Profile Page:

Thank you Bob. I am one of those "uninsured" and I do not have any life threatening conditions, but I have enough of a history of illnesses and health problems which prevents me from getting individual health insurance.

Universal Health Care in the United States is not a new idea. The idea was first proposed in 1915 and again during the New Deal the topic was once again discussed by Progressives who sought to protect the American public!

The nay-sayers in the current debate are the same individuals who can not come with a workable alternative plan and come from the same stock of people who protested advances in the first half of the 20th century. These are the same individuals enjoy the benefits that previous Progressives fought for and won. Included in this list is Social Security, Medicare and Worker's Compensation Insurance.Despite the faults of Social Security and Medicare these programs have helped millions of elderly and disabled Americans. Worker's Compensation Insurance protects workers from unscrupulous employers who are injured or killed on the job.

Additional protections for workers were realized with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. As many Americans know, this included a maximum work-week of 40 hours without being paid overtime and a minimum wage.

Several months ago when the banking fiasco and debate was going on I heard one Republican Congressman say the government should not interfere with wages. I wondered to myself if he understood that this was part of the FLSA with the minimum wage legislation. If he does understand that does he perhaps believe that Americans should not have at least a minimum wage? A minimum wage in this economy is not a living wage but nonetheless, it prevents workers from being paid what the employers decide what should be paid and in 100 years ago often that was very little depending on how profit motivated a company was.

Post your own comment

(To create links here or for style, you may wish to use HTML tags in your comments)


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the links below, you are directly helping to support this community website:

Want to browse more blogs? Try our table of contents to find articles under specific topics or headings. Or you might find interesting entries by looking through the complete archives too. Stay around awhile. We're glad you're here.


Browse the Blogs!

You are here!

This page contains only one entry posted to Everyday Citizen on August 28, 2009 2:24 PM.

The blog post previous to it is titled "Texans Can Still Get Rid of Their Clunkers"

The post that follows this one is titled "The spirit of Vatican II lives on"

Want to explore this site more?

Many more blog posts can be found on our Front Page or within our complete Archives.

Does a particular subject interest you?

You can easily search for blog posts under a specific topic by using our List of Categories.

Visit our friends!

Books You Might Like!

Notices & Policies

All of the Everyday Citizen authors are delighted you are here. We all hope that you come back often, leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

All of our contributing authors are credentialed by invitation only from the editor/publisher of EverydayCitizen.com. If you are visiting and are interested in writing here, please feel free to let us know.

For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. EverydayCitizen.com, The Everyday Citizen, everydaycitizens.com, and Everyday Citizen are trademarked names.

Each of the authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. Our authors also welcome and encourage readers to copy, reference or quote from the content of their blog postings, provided that the content reprints include obvious author or website attribution and/or links to their original postings, in accordance with this website's Creative Commons License.

Copyright, 2007-2011, All rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by each the respective authors of each of their own individual blogs and works, and then by the editor and publisher for any otherwise unreserved and all other content. Our editor primarily reviews blogs for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual blog posts on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors.