What about 2nd?
Seriously; not presupposing anything - I just want to know. Probably not much, either.
How about legislative control?
After all, it is not the President that is supposed to control the purse strings.
the government is far from benign – that’s true. on the other hand, it’s at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
what’s not benign (what’s extremely harmful, in fact) is business power, which is highly concentrated and largely transnational. business power is very far from benign and it’s completely unaccountable. it’s a totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. it’s also the main reason why the government isn’t benign.
You mistake "Government Power" with individuals in the government and THEIR power RIGHT NOW. Individuals are accountable. "The Government" is not; nor does the Government have a history of giving back power once it has been usurped. The biggest corp in the World, at least twice, has been busted up by the Government.
If not for its control of government officials, an international corps designs, or anything else would be a (largely) moot or irrelevant point.
In fact, I compete with some of the biggest "International Business Interests" in the world on a daily basis; and I make a good living doing that. Only now, when the government is going to get involved, is my company's existence at REAL risk (legislated out of existence). POOOOOOOF.
is this supposed to serve as one singular premise or am i to infer from this broad statement that the implied conclusion is: government hinders as opposed to abets corporate growth?
are you saying that it is necessary for corporate lobbyists to infiltrate washington so as to keep the government accountable ?
No.
Government is (much) more powerful than any Corporation.
No.
I would like for Govt. power to be so limited that there is no point in sending lobbyists to Washington; there is little to gain.
is the current government acting in such a manner that corporate america is being hindered? if so, give some specific examples of legislation that has handicapped corporate america extensively. and reason away that which has benefitted corporate america. can you quan atively demonstrate that the regulation of corporations has created less freedom for corporations versus the deregulation of corporate restrictions such as glass-steagall having created more corporate autonomy?
and do not get me wrong. as i stated, i am not a fan of big government at all and i think we are on the same side of the fence on that point. but, where we disagree is on the point that our current government is not corporate friendly.
Last edited by rjv; 09-01-2009 at 04:18 PM.
so why is that corporations find it so worthwhile to spend so much capital and time investing in not just current politicians but also potential candidates?
Because they want to control/influence/manipulate/buy/bribe/gain access to/cajole/coerce those who have the reigns of waht is more and more limitless power.
...not too bad, neoliberals have been calling out Obama on his ' business interests' longer than any Limpbaugh cry of socialism came of his Oxycontin-stained lips , Of course, no wing-nut radio blowhard would dare trail down this road....
.I'd like to see you spend the time you obviously spent to write this article, to reseach
health care systems in other countries....
More food for the fodder..
Health Insurance Company Abuses..
LinkThe 41 page report do ents thousands of cases of obscene abuse by health insurance companies. They regularly cheat people out of coverage to which they are contractually en led because they often get away with it and at worst pay an inconsequential fine. Individuals are losing their lives and being forced into bankruptcy because of the corrupt behavior of these companies. We as taxpayers foot the bill for the governmental agencies and courts trying to keep these crooks honest.
Just a few excerpts from the report by Health Care for America Now (HCAN):
• It would be hard for PacifiCare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group Inc., to argue that 133,000 mishandled claims were just a mistake. For the violations, California regulators hit the company with a record $3.5 million fine – a penalty that may ultimately reach $1.3 billion when an investigation is completed. The laundry list of alleged health insurance misdeeds: wrongfully denying covered claims, failing to properly manage provider networks, making incorrect payments, making multiple requests for previously provided do entation, and so on. Here’s some of the damage, courtesy of the Sacramento Bee: A surgeon was blocked from scheduling surgeries for six months; more than 200 patients of a pediatrician were told he wasn’t in the insurer’s network anymore; a father fought for 11 months to get claims paid for his autistic child while his wife put off heart-stress tests.
o "PacifiCare fined record $3.5 million," by Gilbert Chan, Sacramento Bee, January 30, 2008 (www.sacbee.com/103/story/672192.html )
• An Oregon woman who complained to the state after PacifiCare Life Assurance Company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group Inc., denied six of her seven medical claims, helped launch a state investigation that overturned nearly 5,000 other claim denials. Regulators fined PacifiCare $46,000 for failing to conduct reasonable investigations before denying claims, making policyholders with pre-existing conditions wait more than six months for coverage of those conditions, and for failing to act promptly on a claim. As a result of the investigation, PacifiCare reviewed more than 10,000 denied claims and determined it should have paid 4,928 of them. It also discovered that it erred in denying some claims involving pre-existing conditions.
o “Insurer fined for improperly denying health claims,” Press Release, Insurance Division, Department of Consumer & Business Services of Oregon, December 30, 2008 (http://www.oregon.gov/DCBS/docs/news...08/nr_ins_12_3... )
• According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s Health Net Inc. “avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006.” This secret came out when a hairdresser fought back after Health Net dropped her during her chemotherapy. Now, California is investigating the state’s top health plans – and finding that Health Net wasn’t the only one ripping up people’s policies.
o “Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders," Los Angeles Times, Lisa Girion, November 9, 2007 (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...09,0,4409342.s... mostviewed-storylevel)
• On March 25, 2009 a class action lawsuit was filed in the federal court in California alleging that WellPoint Inc., owner of Blue Cross Blue Shield franchises in 14 states, engaged in a conspiracy with other health insurers to underpay physicians for out-of-network services, with financial consequences to both physicians and their patients. Similar lawsuits were filed against Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. in February 2009. The three lawsuits allege a conspiracy with Ingenix, a division of UnitedHealth Group Inc., to fix prices and set artificially low prices to be paid to non-participating physicians. The lawsuits followed an investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demonstrating intentional rigging of the Ingenix database to shortchange reimbursements. The American Medical Association, California Medical Association, Connecticut State Medical Society and Medical Association of Georgia have joined the WellPoint actions.
• Anthem Blue Cross, California’s largest for-profit health insurer, agreed to pay a $1-million fine and offer new coverage—no questions asked—to 2,330 people it dropped after they submitted bills for expensive medical care. As part of a deal that the California Department of Insurance, Anthem also offered to reimburse those people for medical expenses that they paid out of pocket after they were dropped. The company, a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., estimated that those reimbursements could reach $14 million.
o “Anthem Blue Cross agrees to take back clients, pay $1-million fine,” Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2009 (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ss11-2009feb11,... )
• California insurance regulators reached an agreement with insurer Blue Shield to provide new health coverage to 678 consumers whose policies were improperly canceled. The settlement resolved a 2007 lawsuit filed by the state insurance commissioner after Blue Shield rescinded policies over a five-year period that ended in May 2008. The deal requires Blue Shield to reimburse the consumers for medical expenses incurred because of the cancellations. The insurer also was required to change its underwriting and claims practices and set up a third-party review process to rule on future policy rescissions.
o “Calif. reaches settlement with Blue Shield,” Samantha Young, The Associated Press State & Local Wire, January 7, 2009 (http://cbs5.com/business/blue.shield.settlement.2.90168... )
• One of California’s largest health insurers reached a $25 million agreement with regulators in an effort to right the wrong of canceling coverage for nearly 1,000 policyholders when they tried to make use of their policies. Health Net Inc. agreed to offer new coverage to 926 customers who were illegally dropped from individual or family policies since 2004.
o “Health Net, state reach $25M settlement,” Long Beach Press-Telegram, September 13, 2008 (&s_trackval=GooglePM" target="_blank">http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=... )
Oh crap.
Please link where I said our govt. was not "Corporate Friendly". It certainly IS BIG Corporate friendly - at least those corps who have played the game most effectively; right now Pharma especially, and to a certain extent insurance carriers have a hand in WRITING what is coming out of congress - what I am arguing is simply that the govt. has TOO much power; that Corporations are uniquely situated with friends in govt. and PLENTY of capital to influence and control the massive power of the Govt. It is the INDIVIDUAL who is getting hosed; Me, you, the rest of America.
Do you think big insurance is pissed that EVERY American is going to be mandated to buy coverage, and that those that can't afford it are going to be given money from the Fed to PAY for it? Or, if they play their cards (congressmen) right, they can probably even figure out a way to have a "public option", that really only exists to catch those people that big insurance would rather NOT insure in the first place. I mean, , in the bill, (I've mentioned this before), company's like mine (we administer self-funded health plans) get wiped out of existence. Individually none of us really hit bit insurance's radar, but collectively (there are hundreds of TPA's like mine nationwide) we control 20% of the market. Add up the uninsured, plus THOSE employees, and you've got a NICE chunk of premium to be gobbled up by company's who, you know, have got some bad mortgage assetts on the books right about now.
Libs are getting played; they make the boogeyman out to be "insurance" and "Pharma" - then YOUR team buys them off, calls them a few names, and you fall for it hook, line and sinker! Wake up.
thanks for rehashing everything i have already been saying.
I'm slow; be patient with me.
don't know if you've been following the Rich story...
Frank Rich, Barack Obama, and the Corporatist "Punking" of America
ZMAGLet history record that on August 9, 2009 Sunday New York Times columnist Frank Rich toyed with acknowledging the manipulative, fake-progressive nature of Barack Obama and the broader corporate-managed "democracy" Obama epitomizes.
In an opinion-editorial bearing the provocative le "Is Obama Punking Us?" Rich notes the absurdity of Republican efforts to frighten the electorate by claiming that Obama is a socialist. "They have it backward," Frank observes (without bothering to explain what would be wrong with having a socialist president). "The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."
Consistent with "the larger fear," Frank observes that Obama put together an economic team headed "Robert Rubin proteges and Goldman-Citi alumni" who have fueled public cynicism by handing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street parasites and perpetrators. The president has cut a price deal with the same drug company lobbyists Obama mocked as examples of "what's wrong with Washington" during the 2008 campaign. "Now," Rich wrote, "we know why the president has ducked his campaign pledge to broadcast negotiations on C-Span."
It isn't just about Obama. Rich also notes the broader "bipartisan nature" of the "beast" "maze of powerful moneyed interests" that has made "change we can believe in" a bad joke in the nation's capital.
There's some juicy stuff going on there...
the rich, street, johnson and mccarthur articles all spell out the reality of obama's economic policies very nicely. also, chomsky has been on obama since before the elections calling him out for the neoliberal he really is and he has been proven to be correct in that assertion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote