DOING THE RIGHT THING

In my last post, I included a clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responding to Chris Cuomo's challenge: "How are you going to pay for all the stuff you want?" in a way that left him almost at a loss for words. 

She said, "We write unlimited blank checks for war. We just  wrote a 2 trillion dollar  check for that tax cut, and nobody asked those folks how are they going to pay for it. So my question is: Why is it that our pockets are only empty when it comes to education and health care for kids? Why are pockets only empty when we talk about 100% renewable energy that is going to save our planet and allow our children to thrive? We only have empty pockets when it comes to the morally right thing to do. But when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires, and when it comes to unlimited war, we seem to be able to invent that money very easily, and it [betrays] a lack of moral priorities right now, especially in the Republican party."

And I say, ABSOLUTELY -- RIGHT ON!  In my opinion, if ever there were an emblem of immorality, it would be our healthcare system, which renders a lot of people too poor to live.

But this moral argument -- which I happen to agree with passionately -- is a dangerous one to make. Why? It's subjective; you can't prove it.  If I say that Single-Payer will save money, that is a claim which I can buttress with careful calculations based upon observable fact. Indeed, three research groups have come to this favorable conclusion, including one -- the Koch-funded Mercatus Institute -- which was trying to prove the opposite!

But if I say, "it's the right thing to do," then will come the rejoinder: "right according to whom? Might is right. The survival of the fittest is right; not only is it right, it's the rule of life. If I have the wherewithal to build for myself and my family a luxurious life, I am right to do so -- regardless of whom it may hurt -- that's just the way it is!  If I have an advantage, it would be WRONG of me not to pursue it. And if people starve and go hungry, who cares? I have got mine, so let them get theirs! Anything else is just the B.S. they teach in Sunday School."

Ah yes ... Sunday School, where you read about the your responsibilities to visit the sick, clothe the naked, comfort the widow, and leave some  of your ripened grain standing in the field so that the poor may take it.  And where did these responsibilities come from? From God, of course.  

I can hear some hedge fund operator crying out: "From God? Give me a break!"

Morality can be a very fluid thing. Following AOC's video clip, there were all sorts of comments, including an irate attack on her: "In your district there was an M13 killing -- you murderer!"

In spite of the above, I hold it as an article of faith that it is wrong to let someone die when you can help her live; it is wrong  to raise drug prices simply because you can; and it is wrong to give profits priority over patients -- indeed it is wrong to have our healthcare system driven in any way by the profit motive. 

Recently I was researching the financial status of the Pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer.  In not one analysis of their profit prospects was there any intimation that there were real people who would be at the receiving end of the drug "pipeline" -- if they had money enough.

The poor -- though they are less likely to receive Pfizer's drugs -- seem to be more generous than rich ones.  It's not that the poor give more -- they obviously cannot -- but that they give a greater percentage of their substance than do the wealthy. I'm guessing that because they themselves know what it is to suffer economic privation, they have more empathy for suffering than do those better off. But those with money -- or their forbears -- have worked precisely to distance themselves from any stress whatever. And the greater the distance, the less real become the sufferings of the poor. Those with money love not to be reminded of them, and of their obligation to do the right thing.

I think in our culture, doing the right thing seems to be something delegated to the woman -- especially care-giving. Our stereotype seems to be that empathy is attractive in women, but a downright hindrance to a man climbing the ladder of success. To be "hard-nosed" is a most positive attribute in a businessman, who, at home, can be very solicitous for his family's well being, but in his office, knows that to be cut-throat can increase profits.  So when he increases the price of insulin, he must calculate whether the increase in profits is worth incurring the public revulsion from the deaths that result. All too often, from my point of view, he decides that doing the right thing is to raise those prices.  And if he does it enough, he is promoted possibly to a corner office, the path to which is strewn with dead bodies. Of course, the corporate execs don't see them there. 

It's our job to make them visible, so that the country can see the full cost of what big business deems is doing the right thing.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I hope you will -- simply click on the number of comments area and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: If you or someone you know has been struggling in any way with our healthcare system, please consider sharing it. You can  be as anonymous as you like, but having a file of those stories will help persuade our state legislators to vote for our benefit.  And if you'd like to tell me in person so I can make a video of your testimony -- from the rear, if you like, so that nobody will know who is sharing this experience -- that would be fabulous.  You can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. Thanks!

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS 

NOT ALWAYS GOSPEL

On February 2nd, Jonathan Martin and Amy Goodnough in the New York Times wrote an article that unsettled me. I provide a link to it below:

Medicare For All Emerges as Early Policy Test

Prior to reading it, I had managed to feel that somehow there might be hope in our country's finally adopting a genuine single-payer program. But the article left me feeling that there was no way our elected Democrat representatives would spring for it -- or anything like it. But then I read an email circulated by Maggie Veve, an activist in the New Paltz area. What she said made so much sense that, with her permission, I'm reprinting it here:

This is a conventional article, not a good one: it's misleading (cost) and therefore, biased. In addition, the content is expected. 

 I am sure you know that politicians test the waters and politicians run scared. They run scared with the Green New Deal (GND) too. We will see the same when the fuel industry really hits back hard against the GND. It's just easier to run from Medicare for All because the fight is on with heavy hitters of the for-profit health establishment. They know health care cost is a non-partisan issue and that hearings will occur in the House. So the industry is clearly afraid of losing profits and wants to scare the populace with "socialism", "bankrupting the economy", "no choice", "long waits" to distract from the radical / root causes of the true cost of the current system. We cannot afford NOT to do what every other developed nation provides for their citizens. I think we need to educate the populace and push for what we think is right ("imagine the best of what is possible"/Deray McKesson). I also believe the narrative can be turned around by fearless belief in the right thing to do.

For an example of this fearless belief in the right thing to do, Maggie  provides a link featuring AOC answering Chris Cuomo's challenge: "How are you going to pay for all this healthcare, this Green New Deal you want?" AOC answers him with words that are for the ages:

AOC Dumbfounds Chris Cuomo

Not satisfied with that, Maggie then forwards her letter to Elissa Krauss, in these parts the lead organizer and advocate for the NYHA and Single-Payer in general. And Ms. Krauss replies with an email that nails it:

Thanks for including me in the conversation. Some thoughts:

   1.The regular Dems oppose Medicare for All. The Dem Congressional Campaign Committee specifically forbade candidates from mentioning single payer. Antonio Delgado has made clear that he does NOT favor Medicare for All. He wants a public option. More on that later.

  2. It is true that the Mercatus Center projected cost of Medicare for $32 trillion WITH A SAVINGS OF $2 trillion over 10 years. In other words, even a right wing think tank had to acknowledge that Medicare for All would cost LESS than current costs for health care. 

  3. NYHA would save New Yorkers billions in health care costs. Instead of premiums, deductibles and co-pays New Yorkers would pay a progressive tax on payroll and non-payroll income, that tax can be less than what they are currently paying.

  4. Two studies agree that NYHA would save money for New York and for New Yorkers. The RAND study agrees that single payer would cost NY less than current costs. It mistakenly predicts that some low-income New Yorkers would pay more for health care than they do now.  That’s because RAND’s analysis is based on a hypothetical tax structure that is not truly progressive and assumes that all New Yorkers would have to pay a tax. The Friedman study presumes that no tax would be paid on incomes less than $25,000.

   5. Exactly how the NYHA tax would be calculated remains to be seen.  First the bill needs to pass. Then the very important details need to be worked out. But the bill specifies a progressive tax. Remember- current private health insurance is a regressive tax. Note – NYHA is improved Medicare for All. No premiums, deductibles or co-pays,

   6. For single payer advocates I think the message of this article has to be – we have to embrace taxes as a cost-effective way to provide care to all. The fiction that all taxes are bad has been promulgated by opponents of government who have taken over the national government at the same time as they are trying to dismantle it. We need taxes. Taxes pay for police, firefighters, roads, bridges, and schools among other things. These important basics of society are all suffering because of the successful myth that taxes are inherently bad. Remember in Europe those higher taxes pay for free public education from Pre-K through college, access to medical care for all, paid family leave, longer vacations, etc.

   7. Public option. PNHP [Physicians for a National Health Plan] opposes a public option for the simple reason that if private insurance companies were competing against the government then we would see an expansion of what we are seeing now. The government provides care for the sickest, oldest and poorest. With a public option private companies could go further in limiting who they would cover and focus on the younger, healthier and richer. We would end up with an even worse two-tier system than we have now.

      So those are some thoughts on the NYT opinion piece. It is true that some studies show that when people are told that Medicare for All would increase taxes or end their private insurance, some get scared. BUT those questions do not tell them that their costs would be lower and their access to care increased.

      Let’s continue this conversation. Henry Moss is better than I am at covering these issues. I’m sure he’d be glad to come back to New Paltz to do another presentation.

Elissa

Personally, I don't believe that anybody could be much better in covering these issues than Elissa.

What  more can I say? After 57 years of marriage, I've learned to listen to women smarter than I am.

Hurray for Maggie!

Hurray for Elissa!

Hurray for AOC!

With women like these -- and thank God there are plenty of 'em -- we're in good shape!

Dio

PS: If you want to leave a comment -- and I hope you will -- simply click on the number of comments area and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: If you'd like to share your story, I'd like to help you. You can share it publicly -- if you're up to it -- or privately, with only your representative knowing it. Either way, you would be helping the cause. Our current medical system is hurting people.  If you are one of them, you deserve to be heard. You need to be heard.  Thanks!