General News

Private Insurance Is Incompatible With Public Health

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

Private Insurance Is Incompatible With Public Health

 

 Private health insurance is "oil" in the "water" of Public Health.  They do not belong together.  We have heard a lot about the redundancy, and excess, unnecessary costs of private insurance, and a lot about the horrors faced by those with and without coverage. .  But there are other basic, root issues that so far have not been widely addressed.  The presidential campaign traveling show now offers opportunities to raise some of these questions.

 

* Private insurers are invariably investors, with what was our health care money, in all sorts of industries, many of them being notorious for causing health problems.  We know, from SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) material, that top insurers have been or still are multi million dollar investors in cigarette manufacturing!   They may also invest in tobacco pesticides and even the firms that supply carcinogenic radioactive (!) fertilizers to tobacco growers...not to mention chlorine interests that are responsible for presence of dioxin in the smoke from adulterated products, agricultural firms that supply pesticide-contaminated crop ingredients, paper/pulp, sugar, burn accelerants, and flavorings/sweeteners/aromas etc from pharmaceutical firms.

  This glaring Conflict-of-Interest goes far to explain why we have a war on undefined, unanalyzed, unpatentable tobacco plants, and on smokers...on the unwitting victims of these fraudulently-marketed concoctions...instead of on the manufacturers and adulterant suppliers and their compliant agents in regulatory positions.

  No insurer with cigarette production holdings ought be anywhere near our health care system, and they certainly ought not be among those participating in compulsory programs.

 

* If an insurer is invested in, or does business insurance with, pharmaceutical firms, such an insurer has motive, opportunity and fiduciary duty to promote its investment property's drugs over others that may be cheaper, more effective, and safer.   Apparently, no laws prohibit this.  Such an insurer has same motives to ignore, or not even look for, problems with drugs made by its investment properties.   Such an insurer might also work to discredit, prohibit, or not authorize traditional natural unpatented drugs, herbs, vitamins, minerals and supplements.

- Advertisement -

 

* An insurer invested in pesticides or bio-tech firms has a huge motive to ignore the harms and risks of pesticides (in typical cigarettes or elsewhere) and Genetically Engineered foods, and to fail to advise proper prevention such as avoidance of toxics and synthetics, and the use of organics.

 

*  With whatever control private insurers have over HMOs, hospitals, doctors, etc., one has to worry that patients may not receive proper medical diagnoses if medical staff avoids even looking for body burdens of industrial chemicals or radiation.  It is hard to imagine how proper care can be administered if certain causes of illnesses are not sought or found. 

   What we have with private, investor insurers is a "Company Doctor" situation like in the old Coal Mine Towns where a doctor finds that a miner has "a cold", not black lung disease caused by unsafe work conditions.

 Not a day goes by without reports that some natural thing, or peoples' "behavior", or natural plants (like tobacco), or “faulty” genes, or bad diet, or something ,causes such-and-such problems. We only hear about Industrial Causes when a problem becomes too big to cover-up.

 

*  Insurer investments create problems all over the board...as many, most, or all customers would not care to have this second-handed economic investment relationship with firms they may oppose for religious, moral, political, environmental or even business reasons.  But who is told where an insurer invests?  Who thinks to even ask?   One would have to go to the significant trouble of navigating the SEC EDGAR Database, if they even knew such a thing existed.

 

*  No matter how the issue is sliced, one who patronizes a private insurer, either willingly or under gov't compulsion, therefore contributes funds to things that have nothing whatever to do with health OR the Public Interest.  Besides the investment funds, these include advertising, campaign gifts to politicians, CEO bonuses, corporate conventions, corporate jets, lobbying, and even lawn care and brass polish at corporate headquarters.  With no Public Interest relating to those matters, it is hard to see how compulsory insurance patronage can even be legal.

 

* Speaking of legality, compelling the purchase of private health insurance services is importantly different from states' police-enforced compulsion on drivers to buy auto insurance.  In that case, in order to comply with First Amendment prohibition on Compulsory Speech, officials point out that no one is forced to drive.  However, with health insurance, the only ways to opt out legally, without penalty, would be to leave the country, or commit suicide.  This Constitutional question needs to be addressed.  Some presidential contenders seem resolved to commit perjury even as they take the oath of office, swearing to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution.

 

* Beside all that, private insurers must grow or face shareholder suits. This guarantees rate hikes forever.   They have that motive and duty to charge as much as possible for services, and to provide the least possible in return.  This is an unacceptable Adversarial situation.

 

 The United States public is capable of taking care of its own health system, as citizens of other countries manage quite well, without the questionable "help"...thanks anyway...from unnecessary, parasitic private insurers.  

   The biggest hurdles the people face are corporatized mainstream media (including “public” broadcasting) and public officials who have gone AWOL from their duties to serve the public but who serve, instead, and above all, those insurers and any or all of their investment properties.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

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


Go To Commenting

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
- Advertisement -

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)

Hi John, thanks for the article... glad to see yo... by Hans Bennett on Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008 at 8:32:55 PM
Apparently,URLs can't come up here to offer refere... by John Jonik on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 7:40:14 PM