Haunting Echoes of 'Health' Insurance

Way back in June of 2006, I had done a post ("Money or Medicine" - click the title link) on the shenanigans of health insurers and particularly a group called United Health (at that time hiding behind a quiet buyout of Oxford) who had earned a rather rich write-up in the NY Times. I was therefore less than surprised to see this heading at NPR today on my Google Homepage: "N.Y. Attorney General Accuses Insurers of Fraud".

Part of the answer must be that it's a bit like life insurance - you don't really know much about what you've actually got for your investment till it is (far) too late to make any changes. Folks that get really sick and then get shafted are already in such bad shape both financially and personally that their feeble voices are well below our threshold.

We will insist on believing the slick sales talk, and continue to be awed by the shiny brochures and the oh-so-well-designed websites that we forget that all that cosmetic costs real money and its coming out of the premium that so quietly gets deducted from your paycheck every month. Effective cosmetic cover is only really needed when there is no intrinsic beauty to reveal. Individual horror stories are a dime a dozen, but few seem to be aware that their fates are a result of careful planning and cleverly hidden execution. The return on investment for the shareholders is the permanent goal. Shafting and systematically cheating a few thousand here or there is the acceptable collateral damage along the path to that ROI.

Granted that the present U.S. government is more concerned about protecting the turf of such big businesses than overly worried about the healthcare that the general populace does or does not get. Still, I wonder how such corporations can continue to convince people to pay the dues that keep them raking in the money even when their primary aim is to take folks for a cheap but royal sounding ride?

We are so proud to be among 'the protected' and we will continue to be proud until it's too late and we are too far gone to be able to do anything about it but cry.

Thanks to Peter Kuper for the wonderfully apt illustration.

License To Kill - But Why?

Bloodshed is bad but it's even worse when it is purportedly done for religion and race.The war against the Lebanese is obviously both racial and religious. Lebanon has nothing like a real army. The Hezbollah 'villain' is a shia religious organisation made up of haters of Israel but they happen to be Lebanese and live, vote, and even hold a minority of parliamentary seats in Lebanon. The "Party of God" came into being for self defense sometime after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Hamas, on the other hand is a suni religious organisation. It is claimed that Hamas learned how to use suicide bombers from Hezbollah. The Israelis are of course simultaneously continuing their incursions into Palestine (though this is far less reported on than the war in Lebanon).

The world and the media have been surprised by the Israeli inability to quickly destroy Hezbollah. The continuing horrors of civilians being massacred in Lebanon has supposedly put both Blair and Bush in a bit of a tight spot. But, I have my doubts on that reading of the situation. It almost seems that they want such horrors to occur that the world will heave a sigh of relief and not worry too much about the fine print of the resulting ceasefire!

For, it seems that a tacit goal of the present campaign is to win for Israel a neutral zone covering large parts of Palestine and Lebanon. That is to say that Israel wants complete control over swathes of these two countries. The current negotiation really involves who will provide security in these "buffer areas" of Lebanon/Palestine. And that's why I think the 'security council resolution' (itself not even really demanding a ceasefire) never made it out of the security council.

Public outcry from around the world has had no effect on those in a position to stop this war. The stakes are perhaps too high. In any case neither Bush nor Blair are going to be around for very much longer as heads of state. So, they have nothing to lose. The real question is, what do they have to gain?


I see two strong contenders. 1. A diversion from the horrible quagmire that they have been wallowing in in Iraq. 2. An opportunity to get Iran involved in the imbroglio - the first salvo on that front was the lopsided attempt to shut down Iran's nuclear activities. Now, the 'war on terror' gets to carry the baton.

In the meantime Israelis, Palestinians and Lebanese pay the ultimate price.

There was never a hope of 'success' in Iraq for it was always a no-win situation. A strong, democratically elected government there would have to have been shiite and therefore trouble (from a neocon perspective). Under the eye of the world, the chances of setting up another puppet government in Iraq is slender. Don't forget that both the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein were puppets set up, trained and funded by U.K.-U.S. as a bulwark against the Soviet Union during the cold war. the main possibility of doing the puppet act and getting away with it only arises if an Iraqi civil war takes place...hmmm

I also wonder to what extent 'filthy lucre' (or "mammon" as the bible also calls it) is involved, for with the predictable rise in oil prices, whether or not the long term goals are achieved, in the short run Bush and his coterie will make a killing

The Perpetrators have nothing to lose; the horrors of war? That's all just a bit of necessary, and therefore unavoidable, collateral damage.

(check out the interview with Seymour Hersh (click on the title) that came out 2 days after I posted this blog)