Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Plenty of Blame to Go Round

Sometimes I wonder if I don't like people's political opinions solely because they write so well [extreme examples here: feminist and libertarian--beware of random bad language]. Matt Taibbi, writer for Rolling Stone and a sort of left-libertarian critic, seems to me to have a handle on the housing bubble in his latest blog post:

...what we’ve learned in the last few years as one scandal after another spilled onto the front pages is that the bubble economies of the last two decades were not merely monstrous Ponzi schemes that destroyed trillions in wealth while making a small handful of people rich. They were also a profound expression of the fundamentally criminal nature of our political system, in which state power/largess and the private pursuit of (mostly short-term) profit were brilliantly fused in a kind of ongoing theft scheme that sought to instant-cannibalize all the wealth America had stored up during its postwar glory, in the process keeping politicians in office and bankers in beach homes while continually moving the increasingly inevitable disaster to the future.


And...

My own personal feeling is that our recent bubbles weren’t much different than pyramid scams and lotteries; they’re the handiwork of an essentially regressive and deeply cynical political organization that systematically hoovers up taxes and investment money mainly from middle-class suckers, where it eventually gets eaten in short-term cashouts and mostly blown on sports cars and tropical vacations and eye jobs for the trophy wives of Wall Street executives. Crackonomics: take literally all the spare money from four square city blocks and turn it into one tricked-out Escalade.


....To me all of these people were equally guilty of making bad decisions to benefit themselves in the here and now at the expense of the whole in the future. When it comes to bubbles, It Takes a Village, and blaming the whole mess on the “socialist” aims of a pair of government agencies seems off base — particularly since the Randian protocapitalists running the banks benefited every bit as much from this socialism as actual homeowners, and perhaps even more, when one considers that homeowners get foreclosed upon, while bonuses are forever.


What do you think?

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Why It's Important Not to Give Up

As I commented on Dave's immigration blog:

It's so discouraging to see the administration abandoning the public option. I have begun to mistrust the words "stakeholders" as much as I now mistrust "family values"--it means something different than what appears on the surface. At this point, "stakeholders" as it applies to health care reform, means "the companies who have made an obscene amount of money over past decades and want to put off true reform for at least another decade of obscene profits." It's also very disheartening to put one's faith in a a party and politicians, and discover (as one suspected all along) that they really are bought and paid for by industry lobbyists.


And as Dave reproved me:

who is this lurker? :) thanks for commenting! you should know as well as anyone the machinations of the insurance companies, fighting them as you do and having uninsured and underinsured children with children of their own.

i realized tho that the party isn't very good, but i think obama is trying to move things forward. he can't do it on his own, tho--we have to make the change ourselves, we have to be the change we want to see. no one else is going to do it for us.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Why I Love Dan Froomkin and the Washington Post Was An Idiot for Firing Him

Let's be blunt. The public option -- emphasis on the word "option" -- is a way to hold the insurance companies accountable should they (entirely unexpectedly, of course) fail to live up to their promises, ignore the rules, and keep doing things the way they have for the past several decades....

The public option is a grave threat to the regime of obscene profit-making that has left the health care industry with plenty of cash to now throw in reform's way. The growing "opposition" to the public plan is a direct result of that money. This is -- remember -- exactly how money works in Washington. It buys congressmen. It buys message. It generates publicity. It even makes presidents flinch....

Are you really confident, for instance, that the insurance industry will work hard to control health care costs? Our health insurance chieftains have been talking about that for decades. But rather than do it, they seem perfectly happy taking a big cut of an ever-bigger pie -- and focusing their cost-cutting energies on denying coverage to people when they need it. This seems to work for them. Changing the rules under which they operate may have some modest impact on their behavior, but not nearly as much as will looking over their shoulders and seeing a government-run program bending the cost curve, lowering rates, and improving service.

The presence of an alternative -- a choice -- is critical. It's also about as American as apple pie. The insurance companies themselves understand this very well. The industry-backed PR firms that are bankrolling and inciting ostensibly "grassroots" protests understand this. That's why they encourage talking points about a "government takeover" of health care, rather than anything based in reality.

Dan Froomkin


Amen.

Interestingly, I have not met one actual health care provider who does not believe that single payer, universal health care is the economical, sensible, eventually inevitable, and moral way to go. I could talk about the frustrating hours every month that I spend dealing with insurance companies. I could talk about hidden deductibles in the thousands of dollars, premiums that cost 50% of a family's income, people trapped in jobs solely for the health benefits, treatment decisions made by insurance demands rather than by the needs of my patients. But worst of all are those who get no health care because they have no coverage.

I understand that Medicare recipients are afraid that if others are cared for, they will lose their own fragile health security. I blame the insurance and drug companies for fanning those fears. If we lose this battle, those companies will be able to rake in the profits for another decade or so--exactly analogous to the tobacco companies fighting regulation through years and decades while they sucked up every last possible drop of money.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Bill Moyers on the Health Insurance Industry

You suspect these things, and then you find out that they're true. Single payer, universal health care is insanely overdue in this country, but the vested interests who buy Congress will keep it from happening for several more decades. John and Chris and I have good coverage. Our adult kids, not so much. Must be that they're lazy, reckless, and irresponsible, right? Or the free market would take care of them.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Big Pharma/Big Med Research Protects Its Own...

...from someone disclosing the symbiotic relationship between drug companies and researchers (the Wall Street Journal via Crooked Timber):
The Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the world’s most influential medical journals … , says it is instituting a new policy for how it handles complaints about study authors who fail to disclose they have received payments from drug companies or others that pose a conflict: It will instruct anyone filing a complaint to remain silent about the allegation until the journal investigates the charge.

The JAMA editors said Dr. Leo was guilty of a “serious breach of confidentiality” by writing about the problems with the JAMA study while the medical journal was still investigating the matter.

[JAMA editor] “flat out” threatened him and attempted to bully him during the conversation....“He said, ‘Who do you think you are,’ ” Dr. Leo said. “He then said, ‘You are banned from JAMA for life. You will be sorry. Your school will be sorry. Your students will be sorry.”
As per Crooked Timber comments,
Biz is biz.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Medical Report*

I've become organized! Unfortunately, that seems to mean less time for blogging. Not that my organized phase is apt to last very long, given my history.

The IHC diabetes management people kept calling and sending letters telling me to come in for my education Tuesday Wednesday Thursdays--afternoons or evenings!--but since that's when I have my office hours I just gave up on it. They are persistent, however, and scheduled me in my own 3-hour slot to talk to a nutritionist and a diabetes specialist. It was actually quite inspirational. I'm not technically diabetic, but borderline, with some chance of keeping my glucose levels down by "lifestyle" changes, and not having to take meds. They gave me (or charged DMBA for, no doubt) a cute little purple glucose tester that is the coolest toy ever. My doctor said check two or three times a month, but it's a lot more fun to do it twice a day, with its techie little chip-strips. Yesterday at the farm we all tested our blood sugar levels. Mine remain borderline. Maybe it takes more than ten days watching my carbs before I get it under control. I have lost the holiday 7 lb weight gain though. Yikes! Seven lbs! That was a lot of cookies!

And, I am noncompliant with my blood pressure meds. I bought another cute little computerized techie toy at Wallgreens, a blood pressure monitor, and despite the various meds--beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, ACE whatever inhibitor--my blood pressure was still incredibly variable. I read some post or something about some non-Big Pharma-funded study which showed that of all the BP meds, diuretics alone worked as well or better than the expensive drugs. So I just quit. And my BP seems the same if not better. It still ranges a little too far up there at times--no more than it did before with the meds--but maybe with my current (organized) diet and exercise it will come down on its own.

OK, boring stuff over.

*This post is for middle-aged people or older, or for people who are very interested in my health--my life insurance beneficiaries perhaps.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Money Money Money Drug Money

This properly belongs on my psych blog, but I'm having problems posting there, so here it is: a review of the tight, mutually beneficial, and corrupt relationship between medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical companies. Sit in any doctor's waiting room for an hour and you'll observe a visit by a happy drug rep bringing presents for everyone in the office. Some corruption is so brazen that it is hard to believe what you see with your own eyes. Ambien (Diovan, Lexipro, Abilify, etc. etc. etc) anyone?