Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 9 (9 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   2 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Reject the CORPORATE OPTION for National Health Care

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 11/5/09

Fourteen Reasons to Reject Corporate Options for Health Care

1) Private insurers are businesses that must grow. Their inclusion in any national program almost guarantees endless cuts in service, and endless hikes in costs to the public.

2) Private insurance businesses have motive and duty to provide as little service as possible at the highest price possible. This is an adversarial situation with the public.

3) A significant chunk of what is ostensibly customers' health care money goes to contributions to political candidates that many people may not care to support. Mandatory purchase of private insurance would have our government---our sworn and paid representatives---compelling citizens to provide revenues to candidates preferred by private insurers. There is no Public Interest health-related justification for mandating this part of an insurance policy.

4) Significant revenues supplied by insurance customers go to lobbying for legislation that favors the private insurance interests rather than the interests of the public. Again, no health-related public interest exists in this part of an insurance policy.

5) Large percent of the cost of a policy goes to other non-health-related expenses such as advertising, CEO bonuses, corporate jets, business conventions, and corporate headquarters upkeep. No health-related justification exists for mandating that citizens pay for that along with the actual health benefits.


6) For-profit insurers, using revenue collected from customers, invest in all sorts of private businesses, many being among the most health-damaging ones, including cigarette manufacturing, pesticides (including many tobacco pesticides), dioxin-producing chlorine industries, genetically engineered crops, and so forth. This creates a conflict of interest in that insurers would be inclined to ignore or play down harms caused by their investment properties. This conflict motivates insurers to blame, as a distraction and PR tactic, every non-industrial thing they can think of for causing diseases.

7) For-profit insurers invest heavily in environmentally destructive industries such as mountaintop removal coal mining, oil, clearcut logging, and factory fishing.
These insurers also invest in sweat-shop operations, military contractors, and union-busting firms. Mandating that anyone contribute to any of that is an affront to all citizens who have been harmed by, or who oppose, those industries.

8) For-profit insurers, still using what was ostensibly customer's health care money, may invest in businesses that compete with a customer's own business or private investment property.

9) For-profits invest in businesses that a customer may disapprove of for moral or religious reasons. A mandate to purchase services from such an insurer would compel some people to violate their own beliefs.

10) For-profits invest in pharmaceuticals, thus creating a conflict of interest in that such an insurer would use its power to favor drugs from its own investment holdings over others that may be cheaper, more effective, or safer.
This conflict would also prompt an insurer to be lax in checking, or warning about, insufficiently-tested or harmful drugs....its own investment properties or others. After all, they can't open this can of worms at all lest it negatively affect them. This syndrome virtually guarantees that an insurer would oppose use of natural, un-patented remedies.

11) Mandates to purchase private health insurance are notably different from mandates on car owners to buy auto insurance. One may opt out of that requirement by simply not driving. But with health care, those in certain income brackets where "having" insurance is to be mandated will have no options except unacceptable ones---to a) leave the country, b) deplete assets to avoid the obligation, or c) die.

12) Mandates force people to speak to private insurers, an apparent violation of the Fifth Amendment---especially regarding the above-noted parts of the program that have no justification on health care grounds.

13) A person at an income level that will be compelled to purchase private insurance services will be paying private insurers twice---once directly, the second time via their taxes for the government to subsidize private insurance for low income people. That is, government will not just pay doctors and hospitals---it will give our tax money to private insurers to do that, at great cost.

14) When the government subsidizes private insurance for low income people, much of that money will STILL go to the non-health-related costs ---including the investments in god-knows-what, and including big campaign contributions to political candidates.

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Private Insurers do not serve the Public

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Long time activist in areas relating to industrial toxics, media content and control, death penalty, Mumia Abu-Jamal, hemp prohibition, civil rights, insurance influence in public governing, religious influence in public governing, unsafe foods, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Health Care Cartoons

"Fire Safe" Means Not Fire Safe

Health Care Cartoons II

How The Left Serves the Corporatocracy

Pesticide Industry War On Mothers

Health Care Cartoons III

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

A common refrain from those trying to defeat refor... by PrMaine on Thursday, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:20:40 PM
Great to see one of John Jonik's articles up as a ... by Hans Bennett on Thursday, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:58:13 PM