DUCKPOND

The “screamers” declare that the United States of America has the best health system in the world. Of course that is true for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Screamers are making political spectacle, and it is fun for the all the spectators, especially the privileged many, we aliens who inhabit the rest of the planet, who are not among those who dispossessed from from their earthly possessions if they enter hospital. Who knows what the word “socialism” means, but it is a favourite of the screamers. Now it seems the Zero man is offering National Socialism – you know O as in Orbison and as the cartoon character says. . .

Since it is almost inconcievable to think of medicine without including some social element, even fundamental aspiration to civilization and regard for others, the description socialism is appropriate. The alternative to national socialism that for the moment is driving the screamers mad, seems to be state socialism. This on the evidence might appear a more attractive and decentralized proposal, except as elsewhere the federation and the federal system is broken. Nonetheless here is the proposal of Dennis Kucinich:

Screamers how can you leave this man to give his lucid presentation?

ELSEWHERE:

Some of the identified costs of the US health system would be universally true. I notice the failure of compliance. Claim processing and overtesting are the outstanding costs. They are systemic since they are thought to be a result of “defensive medicine”.

In my case for example, I take medication to control blood pressure as a side effect raises potassium which at a significant level can disrupt heart function, something to which I am especially suseptible to because I have had my spleen removed. The medication to mitigate potassium, also diminishes the effect on blood pressure if not taken in the right sequence and time interval.

Eugene Robinson’s take on the lopsided “debate” on health care, via Truthdig, has the merit of sanity. He suggests:

We should be having two debates. One should be about the obligation to ensure universal access to health care, which will directly benefit millions of struggling families and make this a better society. The other—a more complicated, difficult and painful discussion—should be about the long-term problem of out-of-control health care costs, which would be a looming crisis even if President Obama had never uttered the word “reform.”

Conflating the two has made the nation’s nerves jump and its skin itch. And now, anything can happen.

So who is responsible for framing the debate, or allowing the discourse to run off the rails?

Once a single payer health care system is introduced with universal coverage, public opinion will keep it in place regardless of the change of government. In that sense those who benefit from it, are correct in fighting hard for the status quo. Such as proposition is pie in the sky, since the “pharmaceutical and insurance companies practically run Washington DC”:

Seems fair enough to me.

Joe Conason, takes up the journalistic clause and reports on “The Real Death Panels”.

POSTSCRIPT:

OK  I should watch what I type and maybe then catch the spelling mistakes, but when does “Farmer” have so much to do with the US health debate? Oh it is an abbreviation!