Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS

Intelligent Nutrients

Intelligent Nutrients

The Organic Harmonic Science of Health and Beauty

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps

Dr. Bronner's
Magic Soaps

Best Selling Organic Soap in the US

Botani Organic

Botani Organic

Organic, Naturally Occurring Vitamins & Supplements

Aloha Bay

Aloha Bay

Organic Palm Wax Candles and Himalayan Salts

Eden Organics

Eden Foods

Nurturing more than 350 North American organic family farms

Frey Vineyards

Frey Vineyards

America's Oldest Organic Winery

Organic Valley

Organic Valley

Co-op of Family Farmers Providing Organic Dairy

Why We Need to Dump Health Insurance Corporations

  • Investing in Cancer
    Private Insurance is Bad for Your Health
    By JOHN JONIK
    CounterPunch, January 18, 2008
    Straight to the Source

Private health insurance is "oil" in the "water" of Public Health. They do not belong together. We have heard much about the redundancy, and excess, unnecessary costs of private insurance, and a lot about the horrors faced by those with and without coverage. But there are other basic, root issues that so far have not been widely addressed. The presidential campaign traveling show now offers opportunities to raise some of these questions.

* Private insurers are invariably investors, with what was our health care money, in all sorts of industries, many of them being notorious for causing health problems.

We know, from SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) material, that top insurers have been or still are multi million dollar investors in cigarette manufacturing! They may also invest in tobacco pesticides and even the firms that supply carcinogenic radioactive (!) fertilizers to tobacco growers...not to mention chlorine interests that are responsible for presence of dioxin in the smoke from adulterated products, agricultural firms that supply pesticide-contaminated crop ingredients, paper/pulp, sugar, burn accelerants, and flavorings/sweeteners/aromas etc from pharmaceutical firms.

This glaring Conflict-of-Interest goes far to explain why we have a war on undefined, unanalyzed, unpatentable tobacco plants, and on smokers...on the unwitting victims of these fraudulently-marketed concoctions...instead of on the manufacturers and adulterant suppliers and their compliant agents in regulatory positions.

No insurer with cigarette production holdings ought be anywhere near our health care system, and they certainly ought not be among those participating in compulsory programs.

* If an insurer is invested in, or does business insurance with, pharmaceutical firms, such an insurer has motive, opportunity and fiduciary duty to promote its investment property's drugs over others that may be cheaper, more effective, and safer. Apparently, no laws prohibit this. Such an insurer has same motives to ignore, or not even look for, problems with drugs made by its investment properties. Such an insurer might also work to discredit, prohibit, or not authorize traditional natural unpatented drugs, herbs, vitamins, minerals and supplements.

* An insurer invested in pesticides or bio-tech firms has a huge motive to ignore the harms and risks of pesticides (in typical cigarettes or elsewhere) and Genetically Engineered foods, and to fail to advise proper prevention such as avoidance of toxics and synthetics, and the use of organics.

* With whatever control private insurers have over HMOs, hospitals, doctors, etc., one has to worry that patients may not receive proper medical diagnoses if medical staff avoids even looking for body burdens of industrial chemicals or radiation. It is hard to imagine how proper care can be administered if certain causes of illnesses are not sought or found.

What we have with private, investor insurers is a "Company Doctor" situation like in the old Coal Mine Towns where a doctor finds that a miner has "a cold", not black lung disease caused by unsafe work conditions.

Not a day goes by without reports that some natural thing, or peoples' "behavior", or natural plants (like tobacco), or "faulty" genes, or bad diet, or something ,causes such-and-such problems. We only hear about Industrial Causes when a problem becomes too big to cover-up.

* Insurer investments create problems all over the board...as many, most, or all customers would not care to have this second-handed economic investment relationship with firms they may oppose for religious, moral, political, environmental or even business reasons. But who is told where an insurer invests? Who thinks to even ask? One would have to go to the significant trouble of navigating the SEC EDGAR Database, if they even knew such a thing existed.

* No matter how the issue is sliced, one who patronizes a private insurer, either willingly or under gov't compulsion, therefore contributes funds to things that have nothing whatever to do with health OR the Public Interest. Besides the investment funds, these include advertising, campaign gifts to politicians, CEO bonuses, corporate conventions, corporate jets, lobbying, and even lawn care and brass polish at corporate headquarters. With no Public Interest relating to those matters, it is hard to see how compulsory insurance patronage can even be legal.

* Speaking of legality, compelling the purchase of private health insurance services is importantly different from states' police-enforced compulsion on drivers to buy auto insurance. In that case, in order to comply with First Amendment prohibition on Compulsory Speech, officials point out that no one is forced to drive. However, with health insurance, the only ways to opt out legally, without penalty, would be to leave the country, or commit suicide. This Constitutional question needs to be addressed. Some presidential contenders seem resolved to commit perjury even as they take the oath of office, swearing to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution.

* Beside all that, private insurers must grow or face shareholder suits. This guarantees rate hikes forever. They have that motive and duty to charge as much as possible for services, and to provide the least possible in return. This is an unacceptable Adversarial situation.

The United States public is capable of taking care of its own health system, as citizens of other countries manage quite well, without the questionable "help"...thanks anyway...from unnecessary, parasitic private insurers.

The biggest hurdles the people face are corporatized mainstream media (including "public" broadcasting) and "public" (endless quotes, I know) officials who have gone AWOL from their duties to serve the public but who serve, instead, and above all, those insurers and any or all of their investment properties.

John Jonik lives in Philadelphia. He can be reached at: j_jonik@yahoo.com

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

Become an OCA Member! Sign up below:

First Name
Last Name
Email
Email Preference
Phone
Street
Street 2
City
State
Zip
Country

diana
post Jan 21 2008, 03:25 PM



To have private, profit-motivated, and toxin-invested corporate boards overseeing our "health" is a terrible contradiction! The *mandate* of a corporation is, legally, to maximize profits for its stockholders. That is in direct contradiction to maximizing, or even supporting, human health. --diana

kparcell
post Jan 21 2008, 03:58 PM


Thank you for expanding the deepening the argument. In a couple of years we may have mandated health insurance that forces the poor to accept huge deductables in able to lower payments. The result of this will be that millions will no longer be able to seek early treatment, resulting in further increases in infant mortality, cancer deats, etc. Some national plan, huh?

diana
post Jan 22 2008, 01:23 AM


You know, it suddenly occurred to me what we really need: a return to the midwife, or local herbal healer, someone who really knows their stuff. There is so much iatrogenic (doctor-caused) illness, and so much disincentive among "health" practitioners to actually promote health, rather than drugs, that we might just be better off scrapping the whole fool thing.

Eat organic. Can't afford it? Grow your own! To at least some extent, we can all find some sort of community or patio or shared-space garden, and grow our own food, at least part of it. Second, step away from drugs, which always have side effects, whenever possible. Take them only when they're really truly absolutely necessary, and then take as little as you can -- and only take stuff that's been out for 20 years or close to it, because then it's been tested enough to know what side effects you need to look for. Skip cholesterol-lowering drugs and big-money/ little-value garbage like that. Absolutely skip any weight-loss products. And skip vites unless you provably need them; get them from your food at every opportunity. And then look for self-care options that are sustainable and minimize buying into the consumer paradigm.

In my family, two of us are on meds. My daughter and I are narcoleptic. In my case, I can titrate caffeine, and I'm fine. That doesn't work for her, so she's on a medication that undoubtedly makes BigPharma smile. There is no generic at this point, but at least it's been around a long time (extended patent on this one, apparently). That's how it goes, and if we ever find a sustitute, we'll jump on it. For now, no go. I'm on diabetes medication, pill form, generic. If I don't take it, it really makes a difference -- messes up my BGs and *will* shorten my life. OTOH, I really manage my diabetes extremely well by eating low-carb and exercising very regularly (dog walking and exercise bike when I have to work all daylight hours). Eleven years in, the average diabetic is on several different medications and is still facing a life-shortening lack of 'control.'

Ours is not a perfect system, but it's a whole lot better than average. I was amazingly lucky to have a good doc to direct me to low-carbing for diabetes; he's one in maybe several in the country who get the idea of self-care, and LC4D. I'd love for each of us have such a doc, or a midwife or natural healer with a wealth of good information and no quackery, in every neighborhood.

Impersonal mega health care will never save us, in part because that system will never look for causes, only search for after-the-fact cures. Mega health care knows there's a cancer epidemic in this country, but sees the solution as 'treatment.' Prevention would be too challenging to other mega-money interests, to other corporations or systems in place. No, I think it'll take a much more personalized appoach to really make a difference in people's lives. Modern medicine just isn't ready for that kind of paradigm shift. Anyone read The Shock Doctrine where Naomi Klein talks about the New Orleans doctor who treats her after a car accident in that city? (She goes to the rich folks'/ white folks' hospital, where the doc has never even thought of helping out the Black folks who aren't getting care.) Nope, that paradigm is stuck on "greed." --diana