Health Care Options: Idealistic, Pragmatic Idealism, Status Quo, Or Worse?

For decades, if not longer, the United States of America, has been discussing, the best, most responsible / responsive way, to address the delivery of health care, to our citizens! Should quality medical care, be every American's right, and should it be considered, one of those inalienable rights, we expect, and deserve? A decade ago, President Obama, fought for his so – called, hallmark program, which was enacted, as the Affordable Care Act, and, popularly , referred to as Obamacare . It seemed, for a significant period of time, his Republican opponents, made overturning it, one of the principal focuses! Several times, during that period, the GOP attempted to overturn it, unsuccessfully, and, nearly, dramatically, did so, in 2017. When Donald Trump ran for President, he promised, repealing this program, and replacing it, with something, far better, would be easy, and he would achieve it, in a short period. However, promises and rhetoric, achieve little, without a clear – cut, viable solution, and he did not articulate a meaningful alternative. Once again, we are witnessing, the political version of football, where the President is offering his complaints and blaming his predecessor, while most of the Democrats, running for the highest office in the land, are chiming – in, with their personal opinions, etc. With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, review, and discuss, some of the options and alternatives, including: Idealistic; Pragmatic Idealism; Status Quo; or something, probably worse.

1. Idealistic: Several candidates have supported, what is referred to, as Medicare – For – All. The claims are, it would be fairer, less expensive (overall), provide superior care, etc. Their positions include: a) Everyone likes Medicare, so, this is the best course; b) It would reduce overall costs; c) It would be better for individuals; d) While there would be taxes, it would cost less, in the longer – run. They point to the programs, in other nations, and their successes. Ignored, in the discussion, is, today's Medicare is not free, either. We pay into the program, during our entire working lives, and continue, paying, after age, 65. It does not pay all the costs of health care – in fact, only about 80% of Part B / Medical costs. Most, then purchase a Supplement, and, when one adds all these components, up, it's obvious, it's not free! In addition, while physicians, presently, are willing to accept the reduced payments, involved with these reimbursements, for part of their practice, how many, might not, be willing, if it was their sole payments. With the escalating costs of malpractice / litigation, etc, and the many years (and dollars), it costs, to become a doctor, would this result in far fewer, physicians? In addition, since over 150 million Americans, receive employer – paid, health insurance, would they be willing, and happy, to have to pay this, themselves, now? We are being provided with estimates, but few, are apparently, thoroughly evaluated, to include contingencies, and ramifications! Would this, have the ability to be enacted, in the political process?

2. Pragmatic idealism: Should the goal, be, providing quality care, or, demanding a specific approach, without flexibility, or, perhaps, reality? Pragmatic idealism, would create, a goal, of providing, universal health care, combining a public and private options, and offering several viable alternatives / options! Instead of, being narrow – minded, and, saying, it has to be, My way or the highway , wouldn't it make more sense, be less disruptive (think about the hundreds of thousands, who are employed by private insurance companies) , and, desirable, to combine the options, and seek a meeting, of the minds? Wouldn't it, make more sense, to address the weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act, and improve it?

3. Status quo: With the stagnation, and congestion, and partisanship, occurring in our Congress, little to nothing, seems to be occurring!

4. Worse: President Trump's apparent solution is to offer, less expensive, higher deductible, more limited, health insurance? How is that an improvement? Isn't that, far worse, both, in the present and future? How about, those with pre – existing conditions, higher health – care costs, etc?

Wake up, America, and, refuse to be, lied to, and manipulated, by politicians, with a personal / political agenda, etc? Either, you demand, responsible leadership, or, lose something, needed, and necessary?



Source by Richard Brody

This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari

Presidential Candidates, the Fed, and Status Quo

The battle for President of the United States between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump rages on towards the finish line, nasty as ever. Despite blinding differences, they each seem to rely on an historically-authoritarian style of delivery (based on dualistic thinking) to underscore their obvious superiority over the other: Insider / outsider, right / wrong, good / bad, black / white, smart / stupid, experience / no experience, etc. Yet does Nero fiddle while Rome burns? Methinks yes. Like an unattended, festering wound, deeper causation of a messed-up world undermines the lives of everyday people both left and right.

"Church of the Sacred Fed"

A September 2016 Truthout article by Dean Baker , Hillary Clinton and the Church of the Sacred Fed , only confirms the ongoing reluctance to tackle the larger issue of a broken monetary system. Mr. Baker shares the disparate views of the candidates to launch his description of the Fed's inner workings via funny religious metaphors such as Robert Rubin's "doctrine of the sacred Fed" and the "anointed" referring to members of the Federal Reserve Board.

Hillary Clinton is said to have "denounced" Donald Trump for his comments calling on the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates. Apparently, however, this was not her real reason for denouncing him. Her real reason was:

"You should not be commenting on Fed actions when you are either running for president or you are president."

Disappointing but not surprising, the article fails to venture beyond the Fed's shoreline to reveal the skewed mathematical mechanics that drive a global monetary system, and the erosive damage to economic stability left in its wake. You see, anyone who makes the effort to learn about how central banks work (The Fed for the US) discovers that, today, only the deep state of powerful self-interest (typically those at the top of money pyramid and their governmental cronies) actually benefit … and not by accident; whereas everyday people lose ground little by little over time.

In my view, this exchange between presidential candidates of differing perspective on the Fed exists safely within the shores of the status quo since there is no money in truth. Will the root cause of the lack of economic growth, increasing poverty and homelessness, incomes not keeping up with the cost of living, mounting personal debt and the stress that is literally killing people, ever be revealed and understood so genuine solutions might be put forth ?

I wonder.



Source by Susan Boskey

This article is brought to you by Kokula Krishna Hari Kunasekaran! Visit Website or Follow back at @kkkhari