http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm
On Sep 5, 5:45 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > It is an interesting article but if one were to try to draw an analogy > between it and the current health care financing debate, and in > particular if one attempts to draw and an analogy between it and the > Obama administration's attempts to orchestrate a change in the US > medical care financing, it would be a false one. > > The implication that rationing might be applied in the future, under > an Obama heath plan, and is not applied now, without it, is the > problem with the analogy. The implication that the Hypocratic oath is > not routinely violated *now* in the medical community for profit, and > that, if we are not careful under an Obama plan it *might* be, is the > problem with the analogy. You see, right now we are seeing a kind of > game theoretical, "milking" of the medical consumer and a failure of > the ethics upon which the oath is based. We are paying too much *now* > for the care we receive and the effect on the distribution of care has > serious detrimental consequences relative to the purpose of the system > and what's worse, reduces the effectiveness of medical intervention > itself. People have even died from it. > > To be fair, we must not characterize the medical community completely > as totally profit oriented. In fact, I believe that many, and even > most, doctors' commitment to the Hypocratic oath is more than > superficial. But they are often put into untenable positions in the > game theoretical world of modern economics. And, again to be fair, we > must realize that they (the medical community in aggregate including > its managers) have failed to supply the US with modern medical care > value in accordance with demonstrated international standards with > respect to the developed world. Our medical care, when looked at from > a value point of view, is simply substandard. We have to be honest > with each other. The world is watching. > > It is that way because of the success of the economic power elite's > use of an ideologically motivated and very destructive conservative > political movement, which promolgated an irrational belief in market > mechanism as the *only* answer, and fostered an irrational fear of > regulation. They used this political movement, fostered it and > invested in it, in order to remove constraints on their power. They > have attacked the press, the legal system, government regulation, and > even education. Why? Because they attack any check on their unbridled > power. This has produced unintended consequences and has had > disastrous consequences for American competitiveness in a host of > areas (not the least of which is manufacturing, and as we have seen > corporate financing), but also in medical care and may soon even > extend to education if the conservatives ideologues end up having > their way. In the end, like the famed hindu proverb, the scorpian > stings the frog and may also die from it unless we can save them. > Business is coming around to the democratic view because they know > that their game is at stake. > > The mechanism of the destructive effect is to deligititimize strict > ethical standards in favor of a wink and the nod that acknowledges > "the way the game is played" - a kind of Machevelian or Kissingerian > realpolitic mapped onto business ethics and a kind of hail Mary hope > that the "market mechanism" will result in the "right things done for > the wrong reason". Those left trying to hold the line have a choice > between ethical behavior and economic suicide or "bending the rules" > and surviving economically. You saw it in finance, you see it in > manufacturing, and it is the same in health care. > > This program has failed and is destroying the United States in many > areas - one of them being health care. Ultimately behind all of these > is the ethical crisis that Obama has described and that is being > currently modeled in modern economic theory. If you look at the > current meltdown in the financial system and the problems with totally > privatized medical care the parallels are stunning. > > Check out a recent article in the July-August Harvard Business Review > titled "The End of Rational Economics" (It is not even about medical > care) It says in part: > > "We are now paying a terrible price for our unblinking faith in the > power of the invisible hand. We're painfully blinking awake to the > falsity of standard economic theory - that human beings are capable of > always making rational decisions and that markets and institutions in > the aggregate are healthy self regulating. If assumptions about the > way things are supposed to work have failed us in the hyper-rational > world of Wall Street what damage have they done in other institutions > and organizations that are also made up of fallible less-than logical > people." > > The "invisible hand" refers to market forces. Remember, this is the > Harvard Business Review, not some socialist diatribe. > > Another quote from the article: "A few years ago, my colleagues and I > found that most individuals, operating on their own and given the > opportunity, will cheat - but just a little bit, all the while > indulging in rationalization that allow them to live with themselves." > > From another article in the same issue: "Government's role in business > is still emerging, but it's clear that companies worldwide can no > longer operate independent of regulatory concerns." > > And from still another: > > "As the United States strives to recover form the current economic > crisis, its going to discover an unpleasant fact: The competitiveness > problem of the 1980s and the early 1990s didn't really go away. It was > hidden during the bubble years behind a mirage of prosperity and all > the while the country's industrial base continued to erode. Now, the > U.S. will finally have to take the problem seriously. Rebuilding its > wealth-generating machine - that is, restoring the ability of > enterprises to develop and manufacture high-technology products in > America - is the only way the country can hope to pay down its > enormous deficits and maintain, let alone raise, its citizens' > standard of living." > > All of these problems are interlinked and one cannot be solved without > the other. We need a reworking of our understanding of the "commons". > Bill Moyers had it right in the end: "I'm going out telling the story > that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing > media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National > Committee. We have an ideological press that's interested in the > election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in > the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent > press whose interest is the American > people."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers. > > In order to regain our competitiveness, one thing among many we need > is government intervention in the medical system. We need it and we > need to get moving on it. In general, we need to rebuild the American > commons. Don't take my word for it - read the Harvard Business Reveiw: > "Governments are often uniquely positioned to mobilize and coordinate > the efforts of the numerous organizations needed to confront these > huge challenges." > > What is being advocated is not Socialism. That is just another example > of the Republican ideologues setting fire to the "commons". No one is > advocating socialism. What is being advocated is intervention in the > market mechanism with regulation and where necessary the challenging > of the assumption that business, if it diverges from public interest, > will remain unmolested by government. Make a game without rules and > referees and you get just that. What is being advocated, in fact - > instead of the lies - is a cooperative relationship between government > and business with a real - and an improved *ethical* standard being > put in place to underpin the alliance. > > Contrary to the implication in the article, it is the Obama agenda > that is trying to *restore* the functioning of the Hypocratic oath and > ethics in general and deliver, with all its complexity, modern medical > care service in a way that is characterized by excellence. It is in > fact, a whiff of brilliance the likes of which we rarely see in > America. From the looks of the lunatics on TV worried about Obama > "indoctrinating" their children (I mean it is ridiculous) the plan is > at risk and in fact may go down. The real effect, if the goals of the > opponents to this agenda are totally realized, will be a return to > the mask of unbridled individualism behind which lies the corporate > profit behemoth unfettered and unembarrassed and frankly, just playing > by the rules that our abdication has left them with. > > In fact, the problem is our irrational behavior and we must act > rationally now in our own interests. Eliminating the threat of > government control is like removing the major competitor from the > arena. Modern economics, which is founded in part on game theory, and > has transcended the simple models that are rampant in ideological > approaches, have concluded the the real economic picture is much more > complicated and that a smart and changing mix of government > intervention and market mechanisms are needed. We must not let our > government representatives abandon the field. > > A transparent, government supervised, financing option for medical > care can be a *very* effective check and signal the end of "business > as usual" and in fact the competitive force that it can bring will be > staggering. The likely effect, if it is carried out carefully, is the > reemergence of successful managerial decisions in the private sector > (as the rules will have changed: Why foul if your are going to get > penalized?) and, due to the efficiencies of market driven > organizations, the eventual victory of those organization over their > government counterparts with the eventual elimination of the need, in > fact, for a "government option". > > What is needed is not only successful regulation. What is needed in > addition is the political awareness of the ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
