Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 58







Post#1426 at 03-26-2010 11:59 AM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
03-26-2010, 11:59 AM #1426
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by fruitcake View Post
Calm down KIA. Brian is trying to rattle your cage. Let me tell you how he operates.
The fundamental basis of Brian Rush's position is intellectual dishonesty.

*everybody together now* It's not what they tell you --> it's what they DON'T tell you.


My favorite example is those public transit / Light rail advocates that like to say: "a single light rail line has the capacity of 8 freeway lanes" This is technically true but....

intellectual dishonesty 1)
Capacity and ridership are two completely different things. There is no light rail system anywhere in the USA where a single line transports the passenger equivalent of 8 freeway lanes.

intellectual dishonesty 2)
To accomplish such a goal would require upgrading train control systems up to spec and also creating a grade separated system aka cost much more $$$

intellectual dishonesty 3)
To accomplish such a goal you'd have to run the trains every 2 minutes and all trains must be packed to crushload capacity and how realistic is this?...NOT

*getting back to health care*
I'm not going to attempt listing all the intellectual dishonesty......I'd have to sit here all day.
I see no point in intellectually going around and around about something that is quite obviously a piece of socialist/LW s--t which has EVENTUAL financial/economic failure written all over it. I took Brian out of his current shoes (the shoes of an independent salesmen) placed him in another pair of shoes (the shoes of a screwed or jobless insurance worker) and introduced him to his future pair of shoes (the shoes of a govt recipient or socialist slave of the state).







Post#1427 at 03-26-2010 12:15 PM by Xer H [at Chicago and Indiana joined Dec 2009 #posts 1,212]
---
03-26-2010, 12:15 PM #1427
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Chicago and Indiana
Posts
1,212

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
BTW - You can find polls to say most anything if you look hard enough. Still, my reading is that the polls have hardly budged. BR has made the point that being against the law from the left is not the same as being for repeal so its hard to draw firm conclusions. But I doubt the dems in swing districts are feeling very comfortable.
James, you are so right... you have to know which polls to listen to, and which to ignore. One the leading pollsters in history just made that point: see Lou Harris comment on the Pulse of Politics.







Post#1428 at 03-27-2010 01:55 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
03-27-2010, 01:55 PM #1428
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

I have a question for the Pro-HCR bill/law folks, and others too.

And I apologize if this has been already covered recently here on the board. I am having trouble searching from what I am looking and there is A LOT to cover in the threads.

1. What do you make of the Origination Clause in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution saying that any legislation approving of taxation must originate in the House and then move to the Senate? Because it seems in the case it technically went the other way. But I also know that the AG of Va, who absolutely hates this bill, is dropping the Section 7 portion of his objection because Deem and Pass did not occur. This leads me to believe that an origination problem is somehow not a problem in this case. I'm confused.

2. I have read but cannot get confirmation that a clause was included in the legislation that allows individual states to opt out of the Individual Mandate if they as a state government so choose. Is this true?

3. I have read that Mitt Romney's HCR in Massachusetts included an individual mandate (which he interestingly supported on "conservative principles"). Is that mandate the same as what is being proposed in the current federal bill/law and was the Massachusetts mandate ever attacked in court?

Any help is appreciated!
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#1429 at 03-27-2010 02:35 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
03-27-2010, 02:35 PM #1429
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

Like I said - the polls haven't budged on HCR since passage.

http://bit.ly/4dtZIv

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1430 at 03-27-2010 02:58 PM by scotths [at joined May 2009 #posts 321]
---
03-27-2010, 02:58 PM #1430
Join Date
May 2009
Posts
321

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
Like I said - the polls haven't budged on HCR since passage.

http://bit.ly/4dtZIv

James50
The graph smoothing hides the trend since we only have one set of data points since the bill passed...

CBS News March 22-23 (March 18-21) 42/46 (37/48) +7
Qunnipiac March 22-23 (March 16-21) 40/49 (36/54) +9
USA Today/Gallup March 22-23 49/40 (45/48* or 46/48**) +11 or +12
(*Gallup March 4-7 45/48 Most recent pre-passage gallup)
(**USA Today/Gallup Dec. 11-13 46/48 Most recent pre-passage USA Today/Gallup)

(I show older results for both gallup and USA Today/Gallup as their isn't a USA Today/Gallup that was taken recently and I am not sure if the Gallup is the same)

Trends of this nature seem to take a bit of time to set in, so we should get more information in subsequent polls.







Post#1431 at 03-27-2010 04:27 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-27-2010, 04:27 PM #1431
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by scotths View Post
The graph smoothing hides the trend since we only have one set of data points since the bill passed...

CBS News March 22-23 (March 18-21) 42/46 (37/48) +7
Qunnipiac March 22-23 (March 16-21) 40/49 (36/54) +9
USA Today/Gallup March 22-23 49/40 (45/48* or 46/48**) +11 or +12
(*Gallup March 4-7 45/48 Most recent pre-passage gallup)
(**USA Today/Gallup Dec. 11-13 46/48 Most recent pre-passage USA Today/Gallup)

(I show older results for both gallup and USA Today/Gallup as their isn't a USA Today/Gallup that was taken recently and I am not sure if the Gallup is the same)

Trends of this nature seem to take a bit of time to set in, so we should get more information in subsequent polls.
I follow statewide polls more closely because the States elect the President, and the American people don't. If you don't believe that, then remember that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

Since the passage of Health Care Reform I have seen only two statewide polls that have been taken entirely after the passage of HCR. One is in Hawaii, where President Obama has a 77% approval rate from "likely voters", and North Dakota gives a 44% approval rating. Hawaii is about as likely to vote against Obama in 2012 as Oklahoma is to vote for him in 2012, which says much about where the states are on the political spectrum.

In the previous week, President Obama had approval ratings of 39% in Indiana, 42% in North Carolina, and 43% in Florida. Same pollster -- Rasmussen. Obama barely won all three states. Such happened during the poisoned atmosphere of the health care debate, when the health insurance racket was flooding the airways with Orwellian advertising.

Obama lost North Dakota by about 9%, and a 44% approval rating for an incumbent President nationwide (Nate Silver so says) gives about a 50-50 chance of winning which drops off rapidly with lower approval and rises quickly with higher approval, and I figure that that also applies to States. That's with Gallup and not Rasmussen, Rasmussen tending to be more conservative in its selection of "likely voters". North Dakota hasn't voted for any Democratic nominee for President since LBJ in 1964.

The way things go (and I wish that this Forum would offer an electoral map), approval ratings of 40% or so in states that Obama barely won in 2008 are now grossly obsolete.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 03-28-2010 at 01:18 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1432 at 03-28-2010 01:32 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-28-2010, 01:32 AM #1432
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I have a question for the Pro-HCR bill/law folks, and others too.

And I apologize if this has been already covered recently here on the board. I am having trouble searching from what I am looking and there is A LOT to cover in the threads.

1. What do you make of the Origination Clause in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution saying that any legislation approving of taxation must originate in the House and then move to the Senate? Because it seems in the case it technically went the other way. But I also know that the AG of Va, who absolutely hates this bill, is dropping the Section 7 portion of his objection because Deem and Pass did not occur. This leads me to believe that an origination problem is somehow not a problem in this case. I'm confused.
If it went from the House to the Senate to the House again and then to the Senate, then the direction would have been correct at least once. "Deem and Pass" would have been a different matter. So far as I can tell, bills are almost never declared unconstitutional because of matters of legislative process. Content is the usual issue.

2. I have read but cannot get confirmation that a clause was included in the legislation that allows individual states to opt out of the Individual Mandate if they as a state government so choose. Is this true?
As I recall that related to a Public Option were there one. States cannot opt out of federal taxation or deny their residents access to federal programs.

3. I have read that Mitt Romney's HCR in Massachusetts included an individual mandate (which he interestingly supported on "conservative principles"). Is that mandate the same as what is being proposed in the current federal bill/law and was the Massachusetts mandate ever attacked in court?
I can't tell now, but if a statewide mandate can be enforced without forcing a decision that it is unconstitutional, then so can a Federal mandate.

... You did not mention a "severability" clause normal in legislation that states that if a portion of a law is rescinded by subsequent legislation or is declared unconstitutional, then non-offending sections of the Act remain in force. There might have to be adjustments made to the bill, for example finding a different means of funding -- such as increased income or FICA/Medicare taxes, or a new tax such as a national sales tax (analogous to the Canadian GST, perhaps). That could be a legislative mess, but one presumes that we elect members of the House and Senate to solve such problems.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 03-29-2010 at 02:05 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1433 at 03-28-2010 05:17 AM by fruitcake [at joined Aug 2009 #posts 876]
---
03-28-2010, 05:17 AM #1433
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
876

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Brian Rush is in the insurance business even if he isn't in the health-insurance racket. As a salesman he knows the economics of insurance as you don't. I'm not going to say that you are a fool because you are in a different field, but I would defer to Brian's expertise on insurance and to yours on your specialty on mechanical work. Your involvement in insurance is as a customer at most. So if you and Brian were in the same town and I owned a business, then I might deal with you to repair my HVAC unit but I would rely upon Brian (if indirectly) to ensure my business in the case that my HVAC unit had a manufacturing fault that caused it to give off bad chemicals or start a fire.

You are a mechanic. I would not trust you for much insight on human nature or for political wisdom. People with strong knowledge of human nature do not ordinarily do mechanical work, and someone like Brian or me doesn't ordinarily develop such limited mechanical talent as we have.
The reason why pbrower2a is dancing in excitement as if a hamster fell down his pants is because:

1) He is sincerely impressed with Brian Rush's credentials or

2) Brian is preaching the same ideology as pbrower2a







Post#1434 at 03-29-2010 12:28 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
03-29-2010, 12:28 PM #1434
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I have a question for the Pro-HCR bill/law folks, and others too.

And I apologize if this has been already covered recently here on the board. I am having trouble searching from what I am looking and there is A LOT to cover in the threads.

1. What do you make of the Origination Clause in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution saying that any legislation approving of taxation must originate in the House and then move to the Senate? Because it seems in the case it technically went the other way. But I also know that the AG of Va, who absolutely hates this bill, is dropping the Section 7 portion of his objection because Deem and Pass did not occur. This leads me to believe that an origination problem is somehow not a problem in this case. I'm confused.
The way legislation works is that the House passes a bill and then the Senate passes a bill. If there are differences between the two bills, then a committee works on a bill that will be acceptable to both the House and the Senate, and then the House and the Senate both vote on this "reconciled" bill.

In the case of HCR, the House passed a bill, the Senate passed a different bill, and instead of going into committee to get a compromise bill, the House voted to accept the Senate bill as is. So only the House had to do a revote. So the House did act first. The only part that deviated from the traditional order was the step of the Senate voting for a compromise bill, because the House accepted the Senate's changes.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#1435 at 03-29-2010 04:42 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
03-29-2010, 04:42 PM #1435
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
The way legislation works is that the House passes a bill and then the Senate passes a bill. If there are differences between the two bills, then a committee works on a bill that will be acceptable to both the House and the Senate, and then the House and the Senate both vote on this "reconciled" bill.

In the case of HCR, the House passed a bill, the Senate passed a different bill, and instead of going into committee to get a compromise bill, the House voted to accept the Senate bill as is. So only the House had to do a revote. So the House did act first. The only part that deviated from the traditional order was the step of the Senate voting for a compromise bill, because the House accepted the Senate's changes.
Thank you.

That is essentially what I was thinking when I posted earlier that I believed that there was Constitutionally valid precedent for the method in which the final bill was passed.
IOW, the House has to start money bills, but the final Senate bill can be the basis of legislation as long as the "power of the purse" belonging to the House is adknowledged by allowing the House to begin the legislative process on budget bills.







Post#1436 at 04-02-2010 01:26 PM by James50 [at Atlanta, GA US joined Feb 2010 #posts 3,605]
---
04-02-2010, 01:26 PM #1436
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Atlanta, GA US
Posts
3,605

For all the health care optimists out there (BR I'm talking to you ), anything about this CBS poll shake you any?

"When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved. "

more here: http://bit.ly/9DSX2O

James50
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. Chesterton







Post#1437 at 04-28-2010 03:03 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
04-28-2010, 03:03 PM #1437
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Here's a little checking under the hood on health care reform rollout.

So far, grandma hasn't been called to her death panel hearing, but we do have this -

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/28/news...alth_insurance

Twentysomethings get their own health plan

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Healthy twentysomethings may not worry much about insurance, but reform aims to change that -- by creating a low-cost plan just for them.

Legislators crafted a specific provision for the under-30 set because they'll play a critical role in the reform's success -- or failure. About 60 million Americans are uninsured, and about one-third of them are twentysomethings.

It's key that these "young invincibles" sign up for a plan. Any insurance pool requires healthy people to pay into the system, so the risk pool is broad enough to keep premiums low.

"If people in their 20s don't get on board, this entire [reform] simply will not work," said Sam Gibbs, senior vice president of eHealthInsurance, an online marketplace for health insurance quotes.

That's why the law calls for a special catastrophic insurance policy that's designed to offer low monthly premiums and a $5,950 deductible. It will be offered via state-sponsored exchange programs to people under 30 who don't qualify for Medicaid and aren't covered through their jobs. Low-income households that are exempt from the insurance mandate can also choose to purchase this plan.

As with much of the reform language, details about the plan's cost and coverage are somewhat vague.

Gibbs estimates that premiums will be less than $100 a month, while Aaron Smith, co-founder of the activist group Young Invincibles, estimates a monthly cost of $138.

Some experts say the bill's language also requires that the plan include three primary care visits per year; others believe insurers will have the option to exclude that benefit. The White House did not return calls for comment about the plan's specifics.

Gibbs said the government will likely "get more specific definitions out there" by mid- to late-2011, and insurers will begin tailoring plans to fit before the laws are implemented.

'They're not invincible'
Sara Collins, vice president of independent health-care research group The Commonwealth Fund, noted many young adults will be eligible for Medicaid under an expansion that's also mandated by the reform bill. A separate provision in the bill allows people to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

"But young people who make slightly too much to qualify for Medicaid will be faced with a tough choice," Collins said. "They'll have to make sacrifices, and that will come down to the cost of the monthly premium."

And anyone who elects not to buy a policy will be subject to a penalty that starts in 2014, at $95 or 1% of income -- whichever is higher. In 2016, penalty jumps to $695, or 2.5% of income.

The Young Invincibles co-founder Smith, who is 27, thinks his peers will opt to buy a policy rather than eat the penalty. The Georgetown law student started the activist group last summer to "tell the truth about how the current system fails young people and to dispel the myth" that the under-30 set doesn't care about health coverage.

"The problem is that young people are not invincible -- not without health care," Smith said.

Although he is pleased with the basics of the under-30 plan, Smith thinks legislators "erred on the side of cheapness" and kept language too vague. In particular, he notes that young people use emergency rooms more than any other age group, and 15% of them suffer from chronic health conditions.

That's why the Young Invincibles group is lobbying for four additions to the under-30 plan, including a clear-cut requirement to include three primary-care visits with a reasonable co-pay; a mandate for one emergency room visit; and the option to add a prescription drug plan. The group also wants to add a clause that will allow young women who become pregnant to switch immediately to a more comprehensive health plan.

The future
Once the specifics of this plan are laid out, the under-30 set will have a lot of transparency about what their policy covers, said Collins of The Commonwealth Fund.

"These customers are going to have simpler choices," Collins said. "And you'll know what you'll be paying out-of-pocket, which is high on anyone's mind."

eHealthInsurance's Gibbs thinks health care premiums will go down for people 65 and older, while young people may see an increase in rates. Overall, though, he said reform will be beneficial for the entire system.

The Congressional Budget Office anticipates that overall, health care premiums will be 7-10% lower thanks to the influx of young people.

Smith of the Young Invincibles hopes to see more focus on the under-30 age group in future health debates, and that the details of the bill's policy for twentysomethings will be hashed out "to make sure the catastrophic plan is not the subprime mortgage" of reform.

"In that climate of debate, legislators were so inundated that I'm not sure they had the time to focus on specifics," Smith said.

But Gibbs is confident that there will be plenty of talk about health care for twentysomethings -- out of necessity, if nothing else.

"This is the generation that has to be a major player," Gibbs said. "Everyone else is already marketed to, and I hope legislators realize that. Young people are the ones who make this a success or shut it down."
Sound like reasonable adults making some clear-headed choices for themselves and their country.

Now compare that to what the Repugs and Tea Baggers have to offer., to paraphrase --


THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOU!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! GRAB YOUR GUN!!!! AND DON'T FILL OUT YOUR CENSUS FORM!!!!

Yep, the latter group, representing permanent adolescence enshrined (apologies to young Millies), are the ones that conventional wisdom says we're going to hand back the keys to the car this coming November.

We get what we deserve.
Last edited by playwrite; 04-28-2010 at 03:08 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1438 at 04-28-2010 03:10 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
04-28-2010, 03:10 PM #1438
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Now compare that to what the Repugs and Tea Baggers have to offer --
Nice to see open minds and rejection of partisan Kool-Aid here.

I think I need to set this forum to ignore. I get more than enough political fingerpointing and intolerance of opposing viewpoints everywhere else.







Post#1439 at 04-28-2010 08:58 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
04-28-2010, 08:58 PM #1439
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Nice to see open minds and rejection of partisan Kool-Aid here.

I think I need to set this forum to ignore. I get more than enough political fingerpointing and intolerance of opposing viewpoints everywhere else.
Why do you assume I give a rat's ass?
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1440 at 04-29-2010 01:17 AM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
04-29-2010, 01:17 AM #1440
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Yep, the latter group, representing permanent adolescence enshrined (apologies to young Millies)
TBH I feel like my peers are more mature than them...

Quote Originally Posted by ziggyX65 View Post
Nice to see open minds and rejection of partisan Kool-Aid here.

I think I need to set this forum to ignore. I get more than enough political fingerpointing and intolerance of opposing viewpoints everywhere else.
Oh don't leave

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Why do you assume I give a rat's ass?
Woah! Totally uncalled for man.







Post#1441 at 05-24-2010 10:59 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-24-2010, 10:59 PM #1441
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Sick and Poor

I. Opiate of the Masses

"So, wherever the doctrine of predestination was held, the question could not be suppressed whether there were any infallible criteria by which membership in the
electi could be known.”
Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism


Our Puritan ancestors believed that wealth and good health are the signs of God’s blessing. Society is not to blame for the sick and poor. The sick and poor are to blame for their own misfortune. Some essential defect in their character keeps them from God’s grace, and so their life on earth is a misery and their life in Hell will be much the same. When illness and poverty are treated as divine justice, little effort is made to correct these problems, since who wants to go against the will of the Almighty? Instead, the sick and poor are held up as a lesson---work hard or you will end up in the garbage heap with these folks.


Our ancestor were not 100% Calvinist Protestants. Plenty of Catholics came to this shore, too. However, the Catholic notion that God creates the poor so that the rest of us can show off our virtue by taking care of them is not much of an improvement. While lepers may be told “God loves you!”, that provides little solace for the day to day misery they suffer here on earth.


Spiritual opium can not take the place of the real thing----opiate pain relievers---when you are in pain.


II. Science is Money


Poverty and illness go hand in hand. All the studies prove that. In industrialized nations, in developing countries, in the most poverty stricken areas of the Third World, you are more likely to be healthy if you are also wealthy.


Since association is not causality, we can not say “Poverty leads to illness” or “Illness leads to poverty.” However, if you read through the literature of poverty and health, you will find an emphasis on the detrimental effects of poverty on the health. Researchers keep trying to prove that if you are poor, your health will suffer. This makes a certain amount of sense. Poor folks live in homes near refineries and other polluting industry, which increase the risk of asthma, heart disease and certain cancers. They lack access to basic preventive health care. If they are lucky enough to get health insurance, it is often the type that they can not afford to use---high deductible and co-payments and many necessary treatments excluded. They lack internet access, which would allow them to learn about disease treatment and prevention. And certain types of disorders----psychiatric, substance abuse, family violence---have been clearly linked to income inequality if not to absolute poverty. Being poor and shit upon in a wealthy society causes low self esteem and hopelessness, which leads to more stress which leads to depression and alcohol abuse in a never ending cycle of despair.


What about the reverse scenerio? Disease as a cause of poverty? Scientific researchers are supposed to be unbiased. They are judged on how objective their studies are. Science is held up as the great leveler, which sweeps aside prejudice and looks for the facts---just the facts---even if they run counter to common notions.


In fact, science is just another commodity under capitalism. It is used to increase profits and cut the bottom line. If factory owners need to keep an underpaid work force----like Blacks---uneducated and disenfranchised so that their businesses will prosper, scientists will come up with theories to explain why African-Americans are
genetically inferior. If Monsanto wants to keep farmers from harvesting seeds for their next crop, they will find a scientist somewhere who is willing to design terminator seed. And every year, thousands of new engineering graduates go to work for the War Industry (aka Defense), designing weapons that will be used to kill civilians. The atomic bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed by scientists. So were DIME bombs.

In order to fund a research study, you have to appeal to someone with money. And money likes money. So, if you want to show that Plavix is better than aspirin at preventing heart attack and stroke, you will find donors lining up at your door. Good luck getting funding for a study that shows that red yeast extract is as good as patented Lipitor. If you want to study the health effects of the pollution spewing from the local big employer’s smoke stacks, you might as well give up.


Back to poverty and illness. What difference does it make which comes first? Consider public policy. If your dogma is “poverty breeds ill health”, what does that mean? Since the United States is still a puritan nation, you will find few people in favor of handing out money to the poor. They will tell you that “you can not solve the problem by throwing money at it.” They will insist that poverty is a lifestyle choice. Poor people do not take care of themselves, because they are lazy, self indulgent. If they would just get off their butts and exercise and diet, they would be perfectly healthy. This last is especially popular among health care providers.


On the other hand, if you point to illness as a cause of poverty, folks feel uncomfortable with the status quo. Disease---especially inherited disease like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, arthritis--- is not a lifestyle choice. It is bad luck. Our notions of fairness require that we do something to help a neighbor who is suffering a misfortune beyond his control. We start talking about universal access to health care and improving air and water quality----


And then we run up against a great big brick wall. For capitalism demands a permanent poor, undereducated work force in order to keep costs down. And so, rich folks, like the ones at Koch industries


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Tayl...


Will spend a lot of money to persuade us that we do not really want good health---for our neighbors. And the divided and conquered work force, which has been convinced that the economic suffering of other working class groups is
good for their own group, will nod like a bunch of bobble heads and repeat "We do not want good health---for our (insert racial or ethnic slur of your choice) neighbors." Because they do not understand that when wages are suppressed for Blacks, for women, for immigrants, everyone's wages are lower.

Yes, I know that this is Marxist talk, of a kind that is not considered politically correct in our new, improved, corporate friendly Democratic Party. To anyone who is offended---too bad. The working class in this country is under attack. Education leads to better salaries---and so our system of public education is being dismantled. Middle class wealth and financial security is in the family home----and therefore, our homes are being taken from us. Public coffers could be used for social programs---and so, all our money has been given to the War Industry and to Banksters. The recession was engineered so that Morgan-Chase and Exxon could prosper.


The attack on the public health is more of the same. Because the corporate CEOs know (though they will not admit) that illness leads to poverty. And poverty is good for business.


III. I am Sick and Therefore I am Poor


Rep. Jim Moran wrote about the economic effects of chronic illness last year. Rheumatoid arthritis is a devastating disease which causes crippling and death if not treated. Even with health insurance, the costs of treatment can be high.


But keeping Elizabeth insured has also come at a price. Her family pays $2,000 a month for just one of her medications; add to that the high deductibles and co-pays for blood tests and procedures, and the price tag is overwhelming. Elizabeth’s illness is threatening to drive her parents into bankruptcy.



http://thehill.com/special-reports/healthcare-october-2...


How many of you have $2000 dollars lying around each month in case one of your kids develops RA? What would happen to your family budget?


Now, consider the fact that autoimmune diseases, like RA, run in families. If you have a relative with RA, you are also likely to have relatives with Lupus or Grave’s Disease or other potentially crippling, fatal conditions. If one of your parents suffers from one of these disorders, you probably grew up in poverty. Since marriages can flounder when one partner is sick, you may have grown up in a single parent household, in which case you were
really poor. You probably missed school as you tried to take care of siblings at home. Even if you get to college and find a good job, there is a high likelihood that you or one of your children will develop a severe, expensive illness, too, which will plunge you back into poverty----

Medical debt, hospital bills and other unaffordable healthcare costs contributed to 62.1% of personal bankruptcy filings in 2007, according to a study published in The American Journal of Medicine in 2009.

Most people believe that poor, uneducated and uninsured or under-insured people file medical bankruptcy. They assume that having health insurance coverage can protect them from financial ruin if they end up having a chronic or catastrophic illness. The shocking truth is that they're absolutely wrong!


The surprising finding from the study showed that most Americans who filed for personal bankruptcy due to medical debt and other health care costs were middle-class, homeowners who had gone to college -- 75% reported having health insurance.



http://hubpages.com/hub/unpaid-medical-debt-leads-to-mo...


Over half the people who go bankrupt do so because a family member got sick. And almost three quarters of them had health insurance. Disease can plunge a “hard working American” family into poverty. A breadwinner may have to quit work to care for the invalid. High co-payments and deductibles may eat up the family savings. Economic hardship can strain the family, leading to divorce, violence, depression which affect the other children.


I found lots of studies about the way that poor people get sick. Many of them had conflicting results. Depression seems to be the only illness definitely associated with being poor. Here are a few studies about the way that sick people become poor.


In 2003, lost productivity due to chronic disease cost the country over a trillion dollars.


http://www.chronicdiseaseimpact.com
/

A whole lot of people have to be out of work in order to account for a trillion dollars in productivity. In the U.S.


Nearly 48 million Americans have a disability, an increase of three million from 1999, and arthritis tops the list of most common causes of disability, according to an article published today in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).


Snip


The disability caused by arthritis often robs people of the ability to live independently. People with arthritis commonly report needing help getting around inside their home, getting out of bed or a chair, bathing, dressing, eating and other important activities of daily living.



http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/disability-num...


With that much disability, working may be out of the question.


A study done in Europe showed that chronic illness was associated with unemployment. Keep in mind that the people in this study probably had access to health care.


Among employed workers 18% reported a poor health, whereas this proportion was 37% in retirees, 39% in unemployed persons, and 35% in homemakers. A perceived poor health was strongly associated with non-participating in labor force in most European countries. A lower education, being single, physical inactivity and a high body mass index were associated with withdrawal from the labor force. Long-term illnesses such as depression, stroke, diabetes, chronic lung disease, and musculoskeletal disease were significantly more common among those persons not having paid employment.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/d11721m01641p42u
/

In the U.S., lack of universal health care complicates the picture. This study commissioned by the Robert Woods Johnson foundation found that many uninsured Americans with chronic illness do not have a source of income.


http://www.urban.org/publications/411161.html


Even if you qualify for Social Security disability---a process that can take years and require the assistance of an attorney---your problems are not over. Having Medicare helps. You are now in a situation closer to that of disabled folks in Europe, since you can see a doctor. However, your medications will probably not be covered. And, in order to qualify for Medicare, you must be unable to work---in other words, you must become poor and be willing to live in poverty. Social Security payments are likely to be a small fraction of what you made when you were working, so there will be a lot of things that you have to forgo----like recommended foods to control your condition, exercise since you probably live in a heavily polluted crime infested area where rents are dirt cheap, and, of course, the medication which your doctor swears will help you feel better if only you could afford it.


Going from employed to unemployed can be a tremendous psychological burden. People start to feel worthless, hopeless. They have nothing to do but think about their pain and misery. Since they know that any improvement in their medical condition may result in loss of their Medicare benefits, they develop a fear of getting better.


IV. Walk a Mile in My Orthopedic Shoes


Meet Jim. He is a 50 something year old social studies teacher. His school increased class sizes so that they could lay off teachers. Right now, with all the standardized testing, public schools are only hiring science, math and reading teachers. Since he has diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure and since he is only ten years away from retirement, no one wants to hire him for a new career—the kind of job that provides health insurance benefits. If he gets a minimum wage service sector job, he will not have health insurance, and therefore he will likely die before reaching the age of 65. He is not sick enough (yet) to qualify for Social Security, but just give him time. In a few more years, he will have a massive heart attack and develop congestive heart failure. Or, uncontrolled sugars will put him into renal failure---dialysis is one of the quick ways of getting your Social Security.


Meet Charlene. Her mother had lupus. The family scraped by on SSI. Charlene was the oldest, so she missed a lot of school taking care of her mother and siblings. Not that she missed much at school. Being poor, her family lived in a school district plagued by overcrowding. Charlene was passed through even though she could not read. She holds down two jobs, neither or which has health care benefits. She will never get promoted at either job, since her reading skills are poor. When her daughter, Tanya begins to develop stiff, swollen joints, she thinks about her mother. Eventually, she scrapes together the money to take her child to a doctor, who diagnoses her with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. The condition can be treated, but right now, Charlene makes too much to qualify for SCHIP. So, she quits one of her jobs. Now, Tanya can get her medication. But the family often goes to bed hungry at night.


Meet Juan. He was his family’s breadwinner, making good money in a construction job, until a drunk driver forced him off the road and damaged his spine. The driver was uninsured, so he will not be getting a fat settlement check. Instead, he will lose his job, his house. His kids will quit school and go to work to help pay the bills. His wife would look for work, but then who would look after Juan and take him to all his medical appointments? Juan qualifies for Medicare, but when his wife starts having diabetes symptoms from all the starchy, cheap food the family has to eat, there is no place for her to turn.


Patty has sleep apnea (though she does not know it). She overslept one time too many, and she was fired for cause. Therefore, she will not get unemployment. The public clinic where she now goes for health care can not afford sleep apnea testing or treatment, though they have her on round the clock narcotics for her (sleep disorder induced) fibromyaligia. Since there is no public bus system in her town, she is still driving a beat up old Honda. One day, she will fall asleep behind the wheel and die in a car crash, leaving her two teenaged kids orphaned. They will be passed from foster home to foster home, a practice which severely limits kids’ ability to get an education. This means their future financial prospects are not good. At least one of those two kids will also develop a sleep disorder. And so it goes.


V. “To each according to his needs”


The solution to our country’s problems seems clear enough. The motto “to each according to his needs” (Karl Marx) needs to be applied to healthcare. High deductibles and other out of pocket expenses may be necessary to keep healthy people from overusing their medical benefits for frivolous reasons----say cosmetic treatments---but they have no place in the care of people with severe chronic medical problems. The sicker you are, the less you should have to pay out of pocket for your care.


Everyone should have access to health care, but those most in need should have improved access. If your city does not want to pay for a bus system, then it should provide transportation to and from doctors’ offices. Social Security payments should reflect the increased needs of people with certain types of diseases. If you have to stay home to take care of an ailing family member, you need more than just the job security of the Family Medical Leave Act. You need a guaranteed income of your own.


Folks with chronic diseases who rely upon Medicare for their treatment should not be forced into the poverty of unemployment in order to qualify for their insurance. What kind of choice is death from disease versus death from starvation?


Children of people suffering from chronic disease require special education services. They need scholarships and affirmative action the same way that members of certain minority groups do. Families need to be provided with internet access and computers. Healthy food and exercise facilities are also a must. Our public schools have cut out PE and increased their offering of sugary, fat foods. While we are at it, can we just plain ban cigarettes? And offer birth control where it is needed---in our schools.


None of this will break the budget. If more people with chronic disease can work, there will be more tax revenue. If fewer people get sick, because of public health disease promotion, then our (staggering) national health care costs will drop, the way that they have dropped in most of western Europe.
But the usual suspects will just call them lazy and tell them to get a job.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1442 at 05-25-2010 01:29 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-25-2010, 01:29 AM #1442
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by James50 View Post
For all the health care optimists out there (BR I'm talking to you ), anything about this CBS poll shake you any?
Nope. All temporary. I say that because I've seen a lot of polls that show that clear majorities approve of almost everything that's IN the health-care law if you ask them one by one about each provision. It's only when you ask them ABOUT the health-care law that they disapprove. So the problem here is that people don't know what the health-care law will do. Once they learn, they'll like it.

I also know that a certain percentage of that low opinion stuff is coming from progressives who are disgruntled that the law didn't contain a public option. The general attitude on the left was "Well, we really need a single-payer system, but I know we're not going to get that -- I guess this 'public option' thing MIGHT work, maybe I'll give it a chance." This among those who don't know a whole lot about how health-insurance works, which is of course most people. Liberals are upset because they focused on the public option as the only good part of the whole plan, and it's gone. But they're wrong; it WASN'T the only good part of the whole plan (though I'd prefer it was in there), and they'll figure that out eventually.

If not for those damned Senate rules, the law would have been a lot better, but that doesn't mean it's BAD. Eventually progressives will discover that. To be sure, those who oppose it because they don't want health-care reform at all will still dislike it, but those are a rather small minority.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1443 at 05-25-2010 03:15 PM by ziggyX65 [at Texas Hill Country joined Apr 2010 #posts 2,634]
---
05-25-2010, 03:15 PM #1443
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,634

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I also know that a certain percentage of that low opinion stuff is coming from progressives who are disgruntled that the law didn't contain a public option. The general attitude on the left was "Well, we really need a single-payer system, but I know we're not going to get that -- I guess this 'public option' thing MIGHT work, maybe I'll give it a chance." This among those who don't know a whole lot about how health-insurance works, which is of course most people. Liberals are upset because they focused on the public option as the only good part of the whole plan, and it's gone. But they're wrong; it WASN'T the only good part of the whole plan (though I'd prefer it was in there), and they'll figure that out eventually.
I'm not sure that the ultimate result of what's in the bill won't eventually lead to public demand for the "public option" anyway. Some insurers are jacking up premiums, not underwriting in states that won't give huge premium increases, and more. I actually think Congress was clever enough to "drop" the public option to get something done, all the while knowing the consequences of the bill would lead to a crisis in private insurance that will make some of the "socialized medicine" opponents change their tune in the next couple of years. Heck, it could even be in place by 2014 anyway.







Post#1444 at 06-21-2010 12:01 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
06-21-2010, 12:01 PM #1444
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

There was an idea I came across some years ago - HMOs (Health Maintainance Organization) for children. Don't recall title or author of the book, but it was pointed out that as a group, children are relatively healthy, so this shouldn't be a huge financial burden.







Post#1445 at 07-12-2010 04:23 PM by Poodle [at Doghouse joined May 2010 #posts 1,269]
---
07-12-2010, 04:23 PM #1445
Join Date
May 2010
Location
Doghouse
Posts
1,269

The POST OFFICE As A Model For Healthcare?!?








Post#1446 at 07-12-2010 04:34 PM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
07-12-2010, 04:34 PM #1446
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Post office, public schools, we have plenty of models of relatively successful systems that provide a cheap/free basic minimum while allowing competition on the high end to prevent shortages & rationing that would be implied by a completely single-payer system.

I don't know what is worse - that this wasn't even considered during the "reform" process, or that it is the generally right-wing USNews who has to bring it up.
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#1447 at 07-12-2010 04:38 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
07-12-2010, 04:38 PM #1447
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

This is a reality

From the article, "What We Make Our Sisters Do For Healthcare"

A woman I know - an insured woman - was diagnosed with breast cancer about six months ago. She had a double, radical mastectomy on a Tuesday and was back to work the next Monday. Her cancer, they found, had already spread to lymph nodes throughout her body. So, every Thursday for the next year, she will get her dose of chemo, and she'll wait for the devastating sickness to subside soon enough for her to return to work the following Monday. She commutes a long distance every day so she can keep the insurance through her job that allows her to have the chemo and any chance at beating her cancer. Four days sick, three days to work. Every single week. She never mentions the cancer. We cannot speak of it. It might upset her husband and children. She must simply work to pay the piper.

It is brutal. It is awful. This woman's husband owns his own small business and does not carry his own insurance; the whole family must rely on the mom with cancer to gut it out - even until she can do no more - to protect everyone. I hear the stories over and over again. Stiff upper lip and lesson to the kids? Work. Buy insurance. Get cancer. Keep working. Keep buying insurance. Get chemo. Feel awful. Snap out of it. Pour yourself in the car. Drive to work. Suck it up. Work. Work. Work.

There is no compassion and no respite for this woman or thousands and thousands of our sisters in similar situations. We work. Especially when people we love rely on us, we work and we keep going even when it is close to impossible. It is a uniquely American sort of abuse and misuse of women. It's a sort of secret sorority into which we are inducted through the example of the tough women around us and from which we can almost never extricate ourselves. Show one sign of weakness at work or grumble at home, and you will be labeled as a loser.

Yet, did any of the women in our government or any of the women in positions of influence and power who had the chance to fight for women such as these do so during the last round of healthcare debates? No, they did not. And did any of the women loudly supporting the for-profit, private insurance product bailout bill sold as health reform really care to break up the brutal game injuring so many of their sisters around the nation. No, they did not. In fact, some of those who went to work every day for the powerful folks who will benefit from this most recent bail-out bill did so while gutting it through situations similar to the woman I know.

The entire plea: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/08-1
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1448 at 07-12-2010 04:51 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
07-12-2010, 04:51 PM #1448
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
From the article, "What We Make Our Sisters Do For Healthcare"

A woman I know - an insured woman - was diagnosed with breast cancer about six months ago. She had a double, radical mastectomy on a Tuesday and was back to work the next Monday. Her cancer, they found, had already spread to lymph nodes throughout her body. So, every Thursday for the next year, she will get her dose of chemo, and she'll wait for the devastating sickness to subside soon enough for her to return to work the following Monday. She commutes a long distance every day so she can keep the insurance through her job that allows her to have the chemo and any chance at beating her cancer. Four days sick, three days to work. Every single week. She never mentions the cancer. We cannot speak of it. It might upset her husband and children. She must simply work to pay the piper.

It is brutal. It is awful. This woman's husband owns his own small business and does not carry his own insurance; the whole family must rely on the mom with cancer to gut it out - even until she can do no more - to protect everyone. I hear the stories over and over again. Stiff upper lip and lesson to the kids? Work. Buy insurance. Get cancer. Keep working. Keep buying insurance. Get chemo. Feel awful. Snap out of it. Pour yourself in the car. Drive to work. Suck it up. Work. Work. Work.

There is no compassion and no respite for this woman or thousands and thousands of our sisters in similar situations. We work. Especially when people we love rely on us, we work and we keep going even when it is close to impossible. It is a uniquely American sort of abuse and misuse of women. It's a sort of secret sorority into which we are inducted through the example of the tough women around us and from which we can almost never extricate ourselves. Show one sign of weakness at work or grumble at home, and you will be labeled as a loser.

Yet, did any of the women in our government or any of the women in positions of influence and power who had the chance to fight for women such as these do so during the last round of healthcare debates? No, they did not. And did any of the women loudly supporting the for-profit, private insurance product bailout bill sold as health reform really care to break up the brutal game injuring so many of their sisters around the nation. No, they did not. In fact, some of those who went to work every day for the powerful folks who will benefit from this most recent bail-out bill did so while gutting it through situations similar to the woman I know.

The entire plea: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/08-1
My only gripe with this article, and it's a major one, is the idea that medical insurance abuse is a woman's issue. This is a human issue. For reasons known to gods on the left, liberals love to put everything in a box that can be assigned to a minority of some sort, when appeal to the universal is not only more dramatic, but it is feasible.

... and we wonder why the left never wins at anything.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1449 at 07-12-2010 05:12 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
07-12-2010, 05:12 PM #1449
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
My only gripe with this article, and it's a major one, is the idea that medical insurance abuse is a woman's issue. This is a human issue. For reasons known to gods on the left, liberals love to put everything in a box that can be assigned to a minority of some sort, when appeal to the universal is not only more dramatic, but it is feasible.

... and we wonder why the left never wins at anything.
You are correct, Health Care is an all inclusive issue. But, this particular article is about what so many women are going through today, mainly those who have breast cancer. My sister-in-law had a similar situation and died of stage four breast cancer last year. She dragged herself to work so she could have enough health insurance to cover her chemo.

This type of tragedy will continue to happen due to the for profit dysfunctional insurance system.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#1450 at 07-13-2010 09:00 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
07-13-2010, 09:00 AM #1450
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
You are correct, Health Care is an all inclusive issue. But, this particular article is about what so many women are going through today, mainly those who have breast cancer. My sister-in-law had a similar situation and died of stage four breast cancer last year. She dragged herself to work so she could have enough health insurance to cover her chemo.

This type of tragedy will continue to happen due to the for profit dysfunctional insurance system.
Believe me, I'm not interested in minimizing the pain of a major illness, nor the impunity that the insurance companies seem to adopt in dealing with people suffering from them. Breast cancer is certainly one of the worst. My concern is how we air this in public.

I'm sure that there are many diseases suffered by men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights that have similar devastating results, yet there seems to always be a need to focus on a single group or a special class. That just makes the message less powerful and potentially off-putting to non-group members. That's stupid in the extreme. The sensible way to address this issue, among many that need similar treatment, is to note the problem in its generic form, cite several disparate examples that highlight why this is a broadly shared problem, then provide a broad, generic solution.

The left has spent so many years catering to small groups with unique agendas, we have lost the ability to speak to the universal whole. While the right assembles armies of like-thinkers, we run around herding cats.

Like I said - stupid!
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 07-13-2010 at 09:09 AM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------