TX stand your ground.....

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

123 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Karolina:

I am not talking about authoritarianism in the workplace. I am saying that the corporate system is inherently evil and dehumanizing. The entire system must be changed.

Got you.... good point. Just interested in your views and wanted to read more.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

To what communism, socialism?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:To what communism, socialism?

Now there's a great thought—public corporations, in Constitutional Republics with democratic governments!

All over the world!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

To what communism, socialism?

Do you have any suggestions?

Here are a few options: Cooperatives and collectives (this model is being used in the Silicon Valley today) are long standing forms of operationing an enterprise. Employee owned and operated companies are a traditional in modern society.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote Karolina:

Unlike guns which arguably are not inherently evil (but some shooting people are), corporations actually are evil because most, if not all of them are manifestations of a system based on the idea of authoritarianism, with absolutely no humanism.

Corporations promote sociopathology in human beings, which means that those who want to thrive in a corporate system have to foreit the creativity, imagination, intuition, and spiritual consciousness that the human brain is capable of. In essence they are encouraged to physically & mentally regress to the consciousness of being either livestock or predators.

That sounds like it was written by some one who has never worked for a living. Cotporations do not want mindless atomitons. They want people who can work on their own.

Without creativity, imagination or intution there would be no computers, no Cell phones, no building, no cars, no advertising And no t.v. But the list goes on.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote camaroman:

Mellon Family grants and the March of Dimes.

Salk, though he was hailed as a miracle worker and a national hero, remained shy of the public eye. He declined to apply for a patent for the vaccine, saying that he was more concerned with people having access to it than the money it would bring him. After working on the vaccine for eight years, Salk made the vaccine available to the public. He later founded the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, allowing others to perform their research.

We may have philanthropic individuals like Salk, but, today I would susupect that they are owned, as is their work, by a big pharma wanting to make billions off of a discovery like the polio vaccine.

Do you think that vaccine would be made widely affordable and available today? I would wager NOT!!!

He used his fame (PR bump) to set up his insitute And attrach reseachers or do you think they just showed up out of the blue. Releasing a cure for anything major is worth way more than the money you make off of treatments. Corporations understsnd this And well use it to their advantage the same as salk.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

What makes you think companies are so evil they Will sit on the cure inorder to make a few extra dollars.

Simple, workingman. Corporations have no moral or ethical principles (unless openly forced--and, then, they have 'right to privacy' in their 'personhood rights' to hide behind)--and profit is their only motive. Do you think, otherwise? You were the one that was allowing corporations to gain their profits by withholding their product even if it would save someone's life that couldn't afford it. So, using that same form of 'incentive' and rationale, are you saying that corporations wouldn't withhold cheaper cures if it cost them profits off of their more lucrative treatments if they could get by with it? Come now, workingman, just how much twisting are you going to do on the corporation's behalf and expect people to swallow your bullshit? And, you call yourself 'workingman'. How honest is that description of you being 'workingman' coming from someone that does nothing but condone any and every corporate profit-taking, every corporate personhood right, every corporate contract advantage, every corporate 'freedom' against any and all moral and ethical principles and any other real person's interest--or options of 'freedom' to choose from? Huh, 'workingman'?

Quote workingman:

Like you said it takes decades to develop And get through the trial process.

You said that, dipshit. And, of course, so do corporations. But, the discovery of penicillin as an antibiotic was done by an astute observer almost instantly, Alexander Fleming--while doing generalized and original research. How much corporate research in medicine today is 'original'--vs. just alterations of research already done (that has been proven 'profitable' in the past)? So, if it's just looking to adjust those things that are already known as profitable treatments in order to eek out so-called 'new' products to profit with (when they are really just, in effect, 'designer drugs as if new treatments' that just alter already the chemical structures of known treatment agents enough to have them be patented all over again--for a new round of profits off of an old line of treatment--and I guarantee you that that is most, if not virtually all, 'corporate research' into 'therapeutic drugs'--after all, how would they be sure any original research was going to end up with a profitable agent? Corporations don't mind government taking that kind of risk--as long as, if government finds something, corporations will be able to take advantage of its discovery)--so, really, workingman, how likely are corporations going to come across a 'cure' absent such original research, workingman?

Quote workingman:

So even though they make money on the treatment the cure could And would also make them money.

Not if the cancer cure were as cheap to make and reproduce as penicillin for infections was, workingman. The cancer 'industry' is set up with quite expensive radiation equpment and beset with very costly, and dangerous, chemotherapy agents....billions and billions of dollars invested here. If a cheap and easy alternative that could cure--instead of just treat--cancer came along, with the lack of moral and ethical principles that corporations have, and the sole interest in such corporations being for pure profit (at all costs, so to speak), what do you think corporations are more likely to do? Since you already gave corporations the right to withhold life-saving medicine from someone that couldn't afford it, are you saying that coporations wouldn't 'suddenly' have a change of heart and give cheaper cures if it cost them profits off of their more expensive 'treatments'? Come now, workingman, who are you trying to fool?

Quote workingman:

Plus it would be a huge pr bump for them being able to say they cured cancer. Just like the hpv shot.

Even if it costs them billions and billions in profits--after decades and decades of that 'expensive research' into such other 'treatments'? Even if it would only cost them $20,000 to give out just one of their life-saving pills to someone that needed it, workingman--and you have already said they have the 'freedom' to do that? What other 'freedom' do they have that has no qualms of usurping any and all moral and ethical principles for profit here? Come now, again, who are you trying to fool, workingman? I bet they would be more likely to use that 'corporate interest and power' with 'government' to block the release of the cheaper cure while they 'recoup their costs' on their more lucrative treatments....as is to their advantage when corporations collude with governments....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

What makes you think companies are so evil they Will sit on the cure inorder to make a few extra dollars.

Simple, workingman. Corporations have no moral or ethical principles (unless openly forced--and, then, they have 'right to privacy' in their 'personhood rights' to hide behind)--and profit is their only motive. Do you think, otherwise? You were the one that was allowing corporations to gain their profits by withholding their product even if it would save someone's life that couldn't afford it. So, using that same form of 'incentive' and rationale, are you saying that corporations wouldn't withhold cheaper cures if it cost them profits off of their more lucrative treatments if they could get by with it? Come now, workingman, just how much twisting are you going to do on the corporation's behalf and expect people to swallow your bullshit? And, you call yourself 'workingman'. How honest is that description of you being 'workingman' coming from someone that does nothing but condone any and every corporate profit-taking, every corporate personhood right, every corporate contract advantage, every corporate 'freedom' against any and all moral and ethical principles and any other real person's interest--or options of 'freedom' to choose from? Huh, 'workingman'?

Quote workingman:

Like you said it takes decades to develop And get through the trial process.

You said that, dipshit. And, of course, so do corporations. But, the discovery of penicillin as an antibiotic was done by an astute observer almost instantly, Alexander Fleming--while doing generalized and original research. How much corporate research in medicine today is 'original'--vs. just alterations of research already done (that has been proven 'profitable' in the past)? So, if it's just looking to adjust those things that are already known in order to eek out 'new' products to profit with, how likely is that going to come across a 'cure', workingman?

Yes profit is the main goal of any company or corporation but it does not over ride releasing a cure for a major illness because they feel like it. Public opinion, fame, recongintion is worth more new business to a company than holding it back.

When penicilin was discovered you did not have to go through ten years of government trails before it could be sold to the public.

what i said was if a company comes uo with a cure And wants to sell it for 20,000 a pill the government can not force them to give it away. That is not to say that they would sell it at that cost.or even give it away if you can afford it. Being a lib i can understand how you do not know this living off if the government all these years.

I work everyday for a company that well insearch of profit also do the right thing when needed. I run into those prinicples with the other companies that we work with everyday. So i know that the evil you say is in all companies is wrong. Companies have the right to privacy from competitors not from governmeng agents. Companies have contract law to fall back on. If you call anti discrimination rules person hood rights than yes they have that too. It keeps people like you from denying a black owned business out of your White neighborhood because you hate black people.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Yes profit is the main goal of any company or corporation but it does not over ride releasing a cure for a major illness because they feel like it.

When corporations have no binding in any moral or ethical principle, they don't even have to 'feel like it'--they just operate it as 'policy' and 'standard of care'.....and, of course, have the corporate interest and power already influencing government 'regulations' accordingly.....

Quote workingman:

Public opinion, fame, recongintion is worth more new business to a company than holding it back.

Even if it cost them billions--and decades of research--dipshit? So, if they are in it for the 'public fame and opinion', what happened when they had the 'freedom' to withhold that $20,000 life saving pill from someone who needed it and couldn't afford it--and they 'chose' to withhold it (if that were public knowledge, would that be in their 'pr interest'?--or, would they, in some twisted 'right to privacy', say that is not to be public knowledge?)? And, if the public doesn't know about such a life saving cure for cancer that were that cheap and reproducible to make as if penicillin--are you claiming now that the corporations would willingly relinquish their profiting-advantages in their lucrative treatments (with their ties to the regulatory arms of government) to, now, give the corporation's support to a cheap and reproducible cure like penicillin was for infectious illnesses? Who are you trying to fool, workingman?

Quote workingman:

When penicilin was discovered you did not have to go through ten years of government trails before it could be sold to the public.

They had to test it. And, who do you think those 'prolonged government trials' (you know, it does sometimes take 'decades and decades' and 'thousands and thousands' of people for statistics to show a 'treatment advantage'--but, 'cures' can be shown in less time with less people) are to the advantage of--why those large, profitable, corporations that can pay out the money to have such 'trials'--and, of course, the other part about their being an astute observer like Flemings was for penicillin, that's not 'in the program', anymore.....you know, those 'years and years of so-called government trial' programs....that I'll bet you pharmaceutical corporations helped create.....

Quote workingman:

what i said was if a company comes uo with a cure And wants to sell it for 20,000 a pill the government can not force them to give it away.

And, of course, you at the time made no indication whatsoever that the corporation might do it as a 'pr incentive'--would they do such a 'pr incentive' if it cost them all those expenses in decades of research, workingman? Or, would the corporation, using it's so-called 'freedom' (of course, against any 'government intervention'--but, also, against any and all moral and ethical principles), to withhod that $20,000 pill to the one that cannot afford it and let that person die, anyway? Come now, workingman, you cannot have it both ways and expect me to believe you, do you? Would the corporation give that $20,000 life-saving pill to any person that needed it--whether they could pay or not--as a 'pr incentive'? Bullshit. And, since they wouldn't because it costs them money, would a corporation really condone a cure if it meant that corporation losing billions in profits for their now useless treatments? Bullshit, workingman. You and I know that corporations do not operate in a moral and ethical manner and only operate for its own profit-making--regardless of any and all other incentives and other person's interests--or 'freedoms'. Even any 'pr incentive' it may have is for its own 'profit-making'--or, if it suddeny were to gain some other more moral and ethical motive, why doesn't the corporation give that $20,000 life-saving pill to anyone that needs it whether they can pay or not? So, if it came down to 'pr incentive' or 'profit-making' for the corporation, which one would win out, workingman? So, in that light, if a cheap cure came along to usurp a corporation's profitable treatment, what do you really think that corporations would do with their interests and power with government and its regulatory arms? Again, workingman, who are you trying to fool?

Quote workingman:

I work everyday for a company that well insearch of profit also do the right thing when needed.

Can you give me some examples, workingman? And, tell me again like you've never told me before, if it came to a 'pr incentive' or a 'profit motive', which one would a corporation be more likely to follow? Come now, workingman. Since we both know that corporations have no moral or ethical principles that guide their profit making motives, why are you trying to lie to us and claim that they do? And, if they do, what was your whole point about corporations being 'free' not to give their $20,000 life-saving pill to someone that needed it but couldn't afford it? What was your point about corporations even having a choice there, workingman? IF they have the choice to withhold that life-saving pill to someone that can't afford it, then, those corporations do not operate under any moral or ethical principles but more in line with whatever it takes for them to make a profit. So, in that light, workingman, if faced with a cheap cure up against that corporation's expensive treatment, what do you really think that a corporation would do--even in using its interest and power with government and government's regulatory arm?

Quote workingman:

Being a lib i can understand how you do not know this living off if the government all these years.

Many here would disagree with you calling me a 'lib'--also, I guarantee you that I have put more money and effort in for the benefit of the government than I have ever gotten out of the government. But, that's not my problem with government. My problem with government is government 'playing favorites' in this so-called 'health care industry'--and doing so more for the interest of for-profit corporations than it does for the taxpaying consumer who does pay for the government's, the corporation's, and the non-payer's part when it comes to who really pays for health care in America. Most 'libs' on this board don't seem to mind government 'playing favorites'--I do. And, even the law does in every other role that government offers as a right to anyone--the law is very specific that if government is to do that with any one citizen, government is to do that with every citizen. But, not medicine. Why not? Who benefits from that? Taxpaying consumers? Or, corporations in the health care industry? And, remember taxpaying consumers pay for the government's, the corporation's, and the non-payer's parts in health care in America now....don't they, workingman?

Quote workingman:

Companies have the right to privacy from competitors not from governmeng agents.

As Thom Hartmann explains in his book, Unequal Protection, corporations use personhood rights to claim a right to privacy from government agents, workingman. That's the point of personhood rights. And, here's the other point that you seem to ignore, it takes government to have corporations exist with charters and corporate laws. Also, it takes an active decision on government's part (as in such Supreme Court decisions) to grant the artificial entity that is corporations the personhood rights corporations use against government--and all other people's interest. How and why? My suspicion is that even government officials acting on behalf of corporations in such a manner don't operate in a way that has moral or ethical principles involved--and the founders of our country knew that anything like personhood rights without anything like moral or ethical principles of politcial conduct was going to be the poison that ruined a truly representative democracy--and I agree with that--on many levels and with many issues.

Quote workingman:

Companies have contract law to fall back on

I wouldn't put it quite that way. Corporations have contract law to impose with--especially since corporations get the 'contract advantage' of limited liability and, now, the same 'personhood advantages' against government impositions as if real persons. Since corporations don't have any moral or ethical principles to go by--or be compelled with--corporations should NOT get both 'limited liability' AND 'personhood rights' against government impositions. Someone in the interest of moral and ethical principles should be able to impose upon the corporations--even when that corporation claims the 'freedom' to withhod a $20,000 life-saving pill to someone who needs it but may not be able to afford it--unless, of course, it is a 'pr incentive', otherwise. But, if the corporation can keep from it being exposed to the public as part of that 'pr incentive', the corporation will do so--whether it involves a $20,000 life-saving pill that it doesn't want to give to a person who cannot pay for it--or whether it involves a cheap cure that usurps the corporation's lucrative and expensive treatment--and that corporation will do all it can to influence government accordingly--regardless of any and all 'moral and ethical principles'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Drug companies do deny access to medicine that costs less than a dollar. Why insurance companies don't lobby for international access is beyond me. Canadian scripts are a fraction of US. I had a prescription that cost me 30 cents a pill at home, then filled it in the US and it was $3.00 a pill. It really is worth it to drive across the borders to either Mexico or Canada. The markup is a minimum of about 4000% from cost.

True cost

One other thing, the author of the link mentions Costco [the company derided by wallstreet analysts for treating their employees too well] Costco might do mail order, I don't know. We have a national database so your script is good anywhere, US might adapt technology in the next century.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yeah, pharmaceutical companies here even claimed that the United States has 'more government regulations that cost more money' than Canada does (going along with those 'decades of proof required by government')--you know, it's strange that the 'government-controlled, socialized medicine, nation of Canada' doesn't have as much 'government regulation' (so, is that socialized medicine country actually got 'less governmental regulatory control' than the 'free country of the United States' does?). Interesting that U.S. corporations get to claim 'more freedom from government' but, then, turn around and claim 'more costs from governmental regulations' (than such socialized countries that don't have all that 'freedom from government'). Of course, they claim that it is because that makes our medicines 'safer'. But, I suspect that is because the sheeple just let anything get by as an excuse without rationalizing it--or having it rationalized. Are more people in Canada dying from 'unsafe drugs' than the United States? If 'unsafe drugs' were the interest of corporations, why are there so many drugs being put out that aren't that safe? Is this really 'for safety'--or, once again, the government's way of helping corporations make a profit against any and all interests of the sheeple? That corporate-government colluded 'profit'.......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I just came across an interesting Huffington Post article titled 'Assembly Line Justice' by John Rudolf. The title, itself, interested me because I see the corporatization of medical care in a similar fashion as 'assembly line medicine'. However, in 'assembly line medicine', there is a twist on it that appears different from 'assembly line justice'. While 'assembly line justice' appears to try to control government costs of a person's right (in the Constitution) to be represented by counsel, 'assembly line medicine' used by the corporatization of medicine is set-up just in time for health care corporations to capitalize on the money-making ability of 'coding charges to government and insurance' (again, timing it just in time for Obamacare)--and, as these health care corporations tell their workers, they do it exactly because 'government regulations are making them do it'--regulations that I bet those health care corporations helped create (with things like moving more patients in and out of the ER to hospital rooms leading to more hospitalizations, more charging procedures to be done to more of these patients, and, once hospitalized, handled by the hospitalist, who is not that patient's 'personal physician', to implement or transfer as quickly and expediently as possible in order for the 'assembly line' to keep moving--and keep charging--all claiming that it is being 'forced to do so' because of 'government regulations'--Did 'government hospitals' like in the VA and Indian Health Care ever do it in this 'rush them in and rush them out' way? That's a rational question that isn't addressed--nor answered--by such health care corporate leaders......). Here's excerpts from 'Assembly Line Justice':

At half past 5 on a cold, cloudy April morning, Ed Olexa kneels by his front door, sorting through stacks of case files for the coming day's hearings. Olexa works as a public defender in Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania, and he's quadruple-booked this morning, which means four clients are scheduled to appear at the same time before different judges.

"My choice last night was to watch 'American Idol' or get my files in order," he says.

Olexa represents nearly120 clients at a time for the Luzerne County defender's office, the majority of them charged with felonies. It's a typical caseload for the office, according to a 2011 report commissioned by the Pennsylvania legislature. The report excoriated the state system as a whole, calling it obsolete and ineffective, but singled out Luzerne as a place where inadequate training, funding and supervision of defenders contributed to a "shocking deterioration" in the quality of representation given to some poor people.

Public defenders are infamous as the workhorses of the legal system, charged by the courts with representing poor defendants in criminal matters ranging from misdemeanors to death penalty cases. The pay is low, the hours long and the turnover high. Complaints that they suffer from crushing caseloads and inadequate support staff can probably be heard in any courthouse in the country.

But the situation finally reached a tipping point in Luzerne last December, when chief public defender Al Flora, Jr., mutinied against the county government--his office's sole funding source--and began turning down hundreds of cases assigned to his attorneys by the court. Three months later, he filed a class-action suit seeking an injunction, forcing the county to provide additional resources to his office.

..............................................

The situation in Luzerne is not an isolated one. As funding fails and cases continue to flood the system, many already-stressed defender programs across the country are being pushed to the very brink of collapse. And with little hope of state or federal action to remedy the problem, a small but growing number of defender offices are rebelling, suing states and counties over excessive caseloads that their attorneys cannot handle without violating their clients' constitutional right to effective representation.

For attorneys like Olexa, the heavy caseloads follow them home. Case files are everywhere in his small rental in Trucksville, a small town just outside of Wilkes-Arre, the county seat--piled on the living room floor, the coffee table, the dining table, the dining room floor. They blanket the backseat of the rusty Subaru in the driveway, which he's borrowing from his mom while his own car is in the shop. In his cramped home office, law books, legal journals and other documents cover the floor and the windowsill, while a printer on his narrow desk churns out more pages.

...........................................................

Many public defenders in Luzerne are assigned specific geographic areas, and Olexa covers Hazleton, a blue-collar city of 25,000 about 40 miles south of Wilkes-Barre. The city is distinguished by a once-stately and now badly dilapidated downtown area, built during the region's coal boom a century ago.....More recently, the National Drug Intelligence Center identified Hazleton as an emerging regional hub for the state's heroin trade, fought over by Dominican gangs that migrated west from Philadelphia and New York. It's one of the country's tougher jurisdictions.

It's also Olexa's hometown. He graduated from the local high school and his parents live in a quiet neighborhood on the north side. The city used to feel safe, but lately he worries about his mother just taking the dog out for a walk after dark. "One of the saddest things in my life is seeing what has happened to this town," he says.

After three years in the public defender's office, Olexa's well acquainted with Hazleton's dark side. He represents nearly every criminal defendant arrested there who can't afford an attorney.....Most are young, in their 20s and early 30s, and virtually all are flat broke. Unable to make bail, they often sit in jail for months as their cases slowly wend through the system.

To handle the caseload, Olexa rises before dawn five days a week and works weekends and late into the night, reviewing police reports and tapping out briefs on his laptop while watching TV with his girlfriend, Anne Marie.....

Olexa handled nearly 260 cases last year, with more than half of them felonies......He also files his own appeals, a complicated, time-consuming process. The American Bar Association recommends that full-time public defenders handle no more than 150 felony cases in an entire year.

Olexa's caseload far exceeds those standards, but there's a twist: he technically works only part-time for the county. Like the majority of attorneys in the public defender's office, his salary of about $30,000 is based on the pretext that he carries only half the workload of a full-time attorney, and can earn a second income by taking on private clients. In reality, Olexa works a grueling schedule simply to keep pace with the constant influx of county cases and squeezes in private clients whenever he can, often by working through the weekends.

The volume of cases causes pile-ups in the courtroom. The previous week, Olexa represented 17 clients in a row before the same judge over the course of an afternoon. Authorities brought many over in shackles and orange jumpsuits from the nearby jail, and several pleaded guilty to felonies that would follow them the rest of their lives. Most wanted to discuss their cases and have the proceedings explained to them. But the pace of the hearings made it impossible for Olexa to consult with them for more than a few minutes before his next client was called. And while he'd put hours of work into preparing each case, as the hearings progressed, fatigue set in, and it took all his energy to stay focused on the task at hand.

"It becomes assembly-line justice," he says. "It's like a McDonald's drive-through--just moving the bodies along. Bottom line, the only way that it gets done right is if I work way more hours than they pay me for and do it on my own time."

.........................................

And, 'we' are going to trust this system to protect us without access to our own guns--and our own defense?

Of course, one thing that this system could do is quit arresting people to put them into prison for non-violent crimes. But, while corporations and corporatists are certainly not about anything else to do with moral or ethical principles, they are certainly about the power and control to convict and confine even peaceful drug users (as, of course, a 'moral edict')......thus, adding more to the problem.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I just came across an interesting Huffington Post article titled 'Assembly Line Justice' by John Rudolf. The title, itself, interested me because I see the corporatization of medical care in a similar fashion as 'assembly line medicine'. However, in 'assembly line medicine', there is a twist on it that appears different from 'assembly line justice'. While 'assembly line justice' appears to try to control government costs of a person's right (in the Constitution) to be represented by counsel, 'assembly line medicine' used by the corporatization of medicine is set-up just in time for health care corporations to capitalize on the money-making ability of 'coding charges to government and insurance' (again, timing it just in time for Obamacare)--and, as these health care corporations tell their workers, they do it exactly because 'government regulations are making them do it'--regulations that I bet those health care corporations helped create (with things like moving more patients in and out of the ER to hospital rooms leading to more hospitalizations, more charging procedures to be done to more of these patients, and, once hospitalized, handled by the hospitalist, who is not that patient's 'personal physician', to implement or transfer as quickly and expediently as possible in order for the 'assembly line' to keep moving--and keep charging--all claiming that it is being 'forced to do so' because of 'government regulations'--Did 'government hospitals' like in the VA and Indian Health Care ever do it in this 'rush them in and rush them out' way? That's a rational question that isn't addressed--nor answered--by such health care corporate leaders......). Here's excerpts from 'Assembly Line Justice':

At half past 5 on a cold, cloudy April morning, Ed Olexa kneels by his front door, sorting through stacks of case files for the coming day's hearings. Olexa works as a public defender in Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania, and he's quadruple-booked this morning, which means four clients are scheduled to appear at the same time before different judges.

"My choice last night was to watch 'American Idol' or get my files in order," he says.

Olexa represents nearly120 clients at a time for the Luzerne County defender's office, the majority of them charged with felonies. It's a typical caseload for the office, according to a 2011 report commissioned by the Pennsylvania legislature. The report excoriated the state system as a whole, calling it obsolete and ineffective, but singled out Luzerne as a place where inadequate training, funding and supervision of defenders contributed to a "shocking deterioration" in the quality of representation given to some poor people.

Public defenders are infamous as the workhorses of the legal system, charged by the courts with representing poor defendants in criminal matters ranging from misdemeanors to death penalty cases. The pay is low, the hours long and the turnover high. Complaints that they suffer from crushing caseloads and inadequate support staff can probably be heard in any courthouse in the country.

But the situation finally reached a tipping point in Luzerne last December, when chief public defender Al Flora, Jr., mutinied against the county government--his office's sole funding source--and began turning down hundreds of cases assigned to his attorneys by the court. Three months later, he filed a class-action suit seeking an injunction, forcing the county to provide additional resources to his office.

..............................................

The situation in Luzerne is not an isolated one. As funding fails and cases continue to flood the system, many already-stressed defender programs across the country are being pushed to the very brink of collapse. And with little hope of state or federal action to remedy the problem, a small but growing number of defender offices are rebelling, suing states and counties over excessive caseloads that their attorneys cannot handle without violating their clients' constitutional right to effective representation.

For attorneys like Olexa, the heavy caseloads follow them home. Case files are everywhere in his small rental in Trucksville, a small town just outside of Wilkes-Arre, the county seat--piled on the living room floor, the coffee table, the dining table, the dining room floor. They blanket the backseat of the rusty Subaru in the driveway, which he's borrowing from his mom while his own car is in the shop. In his cramped home office, law books, legal journals and other documents cover the floor and the windowsill, while a printer on his narrow desk churns out more pages.

...........................................................

Many public defenders in Luzerne are assigned specific geographic areas, and Olexa covers Hazleton, a blue-collar city of 25,000 about 40 miles south of Wilkes-Barre. The city is distinguished by a once-stately and now badly dilapidated downtown area, built during the region's coal boom a century ago.....More recently, the National Drug Intelligence Center identified Hazleton as an emerging regional hub for the state's heroin trade, fought over by Dominican gangs that migrated west from Philadelphia and New York. It's one of the country's tougher jurisdictions.

It's also Olexa's hometown. He graduated from the local high school and his parents live in a quiet neighborhood on the north side. The city used to feel safe, but lately he worries about his mother just taking the dog out for a walk after dark. "One of the saddest things in my life is seeing what has happened to this town," he says.

After three years in the public defender's office, Olexa's well acquainted with Hazleton's dark side. He represents nearly every criminal defendant arrested there who can't afford an attorney.....Most are young, in their 20s and early 30s, and virtually all are flat broke. Unable to make bail, they often sit in jail for months as their cases slowly wend through the system.

To handle the caseload, Olexa rises before dawn five days a week and works weekends and late into the night, reviewing police reports and tapping out briefs on his laptop while watching TV with his girlfriend, Anne Marie.....

Olexa handled nearly 260 cases last year, with more than half of them felonies......He also files his own appeals, a complicated, time-consuming process. The American Bar Association recommends that full-time public defenders handle no more than 150 felony cases in an entire year.

Olexa's caseload far exceeds those standards, but there's a twist: he technically works only part-time for the county. Like the majority of attorneys in the public defender's office, his salary of about $30,000 is based on the pretext that he carries only half the workload of a full-time attorney, and can earn a second income by taking on private clients. In reality, Olexa works a grueling schedule simply to keep pace with the constant influx of county cases and squeezes in private clients whenever he can, often by working through the weekends.

The volume of cases causes pile-ups in the courtroom. The previous week, Olexa represented 17 clients in a row before the same judge over the course of an afternoon. Authorities brought many over in shackles and orange jumpsuits from the nearby jail, and several pleaded guilty to felonies that would follow them the rest of their lives. Most wanted to discuss their cases and have the proceedings explained to them. But the pace of the hearings made it impossible for Olexa to consult with them for more than a few minutes before his next client was called. And while he'd put hours of work into preparing each case, as the hearings progressed, fatigue set in, and it took all his energy to stay focused on the task at hand.

"It becomes assembly-line justice," he says. "It's like a McDonald's drive-through--just moving the bodies along. Bottom line, the only way that it gets done right is if I work way more hours than they pay me for and do it on my own time."

.........................................

And, 'we' are going to trust this system to protect us without access to our own guns--and our own defense?

Of course, one thing that this system could do is quit arresting people to put them into prison for non-violent crimes. But, while corporations and corporatists are certainly not about anything else to do with moral or ethical principles, they are certainly about the power and control to convict and confine even peaceful drug users (as, of course, a 'moral edict')......thus, adding more to the problem.....

you are the one that is calling for the government to be in charge of our health care, housing, food purchases, cell phones, and transportation because if they give some people these are a right they have to give all of us them as a right.

this is the same group of morons that could not make money running a whore house and bar.

yes or no, do you want the government providing your health care, medication, housing, transportation, living wage, cell phone, and what kind and how much food you can buy/eat?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

I want it insuring my right and access to this. I do not want to be left to the tender mercies of corporate production and distribution.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

I'll bet that corporation would collude and sell that $20,000 pill to the government (at taxpayer expens and profit to the corporation) for the government to dispense as it saw fit.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am
Quote workingman:

you are the one that is calling for the government to be in charge of our health care, housing, food purchases, cell phones, and transportation because if they give some people these are a right they have to give all of us them as a right.

this is the same group of morons that could not make money running a whore house and bar.

yes or no, do you want the government providing your health care, medication, housing, transportation, living wage, cell phone, and what kind and how much food you can buy/eat?

This is where you conservatives always get this wrong. Nobody wants the government in charge of or responsible for providing any of those services. I want government to be my purchasing agent for those services. Mainly those involving health care. I don't want a government employed Doctor. I want the Doctor of my choice. I don't even get that with Insurance companies as my purchasing agent and the insurance companies take an unfair cut on top of it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote workingman:

you are the one that is calling for the government to be in charge of our health care, housing, food purchases, cell phones, and transportation because if they give some people these are a right they have to give all of us them as a right.

Exactly, if one person is granted a right by government, all people should be so. I do believe that is a fundamental basis to the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' to go along with 'equal application' of the law--of the now, national citizen (a basis used for the Supreme Court--especially in the Warren Supreme Court--to consider and decide upon elements of state law that conflict with each individual's conduct--including segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education), interracial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia), use of birth control (Griswald vs. Connecticut), and, of course, access to elective abortions (Roe vs. Wade), whether or not that follows the local 'majority rule' in any one area at the time or not (that's the real political priority of individual rights to real individuals--not artificial, concocted entities such as corporations claiming anything like 'rights' and 'freedom' for itself....) . If government 'plays favorites' in granting such rights to some but not others, that, in itself, is in direct opposition to the main thesis of a representative democracy--if 'equal representation' doesn't mean 'equal protection' of rights and 'equal application' of the law, what does 'equal representation' of a government to the people mean, workingman? But, alas, the thing that has conflicted and contradicted such 'equal protection' is, in any way, placing the artificial entities of corporations as if that entity deserved 'equal protection' up against natural persons so protected by the 14th Amendment's 'national citizen' status--as Thom Hartmann so aptly described in his books titled Unequal Protection.

But, if you want to get down to it, I do blame government for playing its part in allowing corporations such advantages--and even increasing such endorsements that encroach on natural persons' rights that has occurred especially over the last two decades (but has been present there for the Gilded Age Supreme Courts to use since the First Gilded Age court in the latter 19th century had the write-up to include 'equal protection of corporations' in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad up to the present Second Gilded Age court that now claims unilimited funding 'to any organization' as if that represented 'free speech in politics'' in Citizens United). A government whose primary purpose is to support corporations is not a government that can, at the same time, support people.as national, and natural, citizens with 'equal protection'' and 'equal application'. As artificial, 'concocted', entities, corporations should have no freedoms. And, the bigger corporations get, 'freedom in the market' for corporations means 'confinement in the economy' for everyone else.

Quote workingman:

yes or no, do you want the government providing your health care, medication, housing, transportation, living wage, cell phone, and what kind and how much food you can buy/eat?

Since medicine is applied as a right, I want a single entity to cover the expenses to that access as a right. It's the only way that medicine's costs will be contained (the collusion will just eek out as much profit as it can despite any integrity to their actions--right up to withholding cheap cures if it costs them the profits of expensive treatments)--and medicine's universal access (already present in EMTALA and medical malpractice law as a right) reasonably and responsibly administered. In that respect, I noticed that you made no comment on how this supposed 'free market in medicine' that you claim is needed for corporations to reap all those rewards from all those 'new medicines' has, by the corporations' own excuses, more 'government regulation' than even the socialized medical country of Canada that can offer the same medicine at a fraction of the cost. Why is that, workingman? So, the point of the corporate-government collusion is that it is costing taxpaying consumers more money--not less (amd its is the taxpaying consumers that are responsible for covering the government's, the corporation's, and the non-payer's expenditures in medicine--applied as if a right to some and a bankrupting privilege to others--certainly no 'equal protection' and 'equal application' of the law here....)

As far as your attacks on 'welfare programs', I believe that government should be involved in trying to remove the incentives involved that make more disparities in wealth--since I agree with Ravi Batra that it is the increasing disparities in wealth that is the main trigger for economic depressions to occur. When the rich own most and everyone else has less to pay with, production stops because demand stops because people cannot afford the product. In sort of a twisted 'supply and demand' rationalization, the rich claim such times of gross unemployment allows employment costs to get so cheap that they can hire the poor worker back at even less expense to the rich employer producing more profits--but, again, if the disparity of wealth is enough, that won't matter, as according to Ravi Batra, an economic depression will occur (and we have more disparity of wealth now than any time in modern history--matching the wealth disparity of the 1920's before the last Great Depression). The best premise to keep an economy going is when the workers that produce a product can afford the product they produce (this was the premise Henry Ford used in hiring on his model-T assembly line workers at higher than the average worker salary at the time--and this is also in line with the English political philosopher John Locke's premise that it is labor that establishes natural economic value and labor that establishes natural private property--not 'gold or money'--or 'written law')--and, if the laborers producing it can't afford it (even if they are the ones establishing that products natural value), it will likely reach a point where no one will afford it. As Thomas Jeffeson once put it in his First Inaugural Address, it is a wise economic tenet for government (and, by extension, its corporate colluders) to 'not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned'. Increasing disparities of wealth do just that--'take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned'.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

I'll bet that corporation would collude and sell that $20,000 pill to the government (at taxpayer expens and profit to the corporation) for the government to dispense as it saw fit.

I am sure that the so-called 'private prison industry' profits in a manner just like that--until workingman gets corporations to have their own 'justice system' and their own 'mercenary armies' replacing all aspect of government, the private prison system exists only because of government--government's laws are the only thing that put people in prison and, when found guilty through such maneuvers, government's courts are the only thing that determine the time those prisoners will be there and, finally, government payments at the cost to the taxpayers are the only income such prisons get. How is the 'profit motive' in the so-called 'free market' to fit into that?

I don't think an economy of any scale is really 'free', anyway. The only real 'free trade' is two traders determining the price of their transactions at the time of the purchase. Otherwise, a remote third party entity is determining a lot that goes on in every trade, anyway--and, as such, especially with the essential gambling in the 'money markets', someone always makes 'the house rules' to go by--and, as the real gambling industry shows, those that get to make the 'house rules' never lose money (they just alter the pay-out to the 'winners' as they take more from the 'losers'). So, I don't think the economy operates by anything like a 'natural law'--in fact, 'house rules' takes someone 'writing them'--like government making all those regulations for corporate benefit in this ever-increasing influence in the economy of the corporate-government collusion.....at, of course, the increasing expense to the taxpaying consumer....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

you are the one that is calling for the government to be in charge of our health care, housing, food purchases, cell phones, and transportation because if they give some people these are a right they have to give all of us them as a right.

Exactly, if one person is granted a right by government, all people should be so. I do believe that is a fundamental basis to the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' to go along with 'equal application' of the law--of the now, national citizen (a basis used for the Supreme Court--especially in the Warren Supreme Court--to consider and decide upon elements of state law that conflict with each individual's conduct--including segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education), interracial marriage (Loving vs. Virginia), use of birth control (Griswald vs. Connecticut), and, of course, access to elective abortions (Roe vs. Wade), whether or not that follows the local 'majority rule' in any one area at the time or not (that's the real political priority of individual rights to real individuals--not artificial, concocted entities such as corporations claiming anything like 'rights' and 'freedom' for itself....) . If government 'plays favorites' in granting such rights to some but not others, that, in itself, is in direct opposition to the main thesis of a representative democracy--if 'equal representation' doesn't mean 'equal protection' of rights and 'equal application' of the law, what does 'equal representation' of a government to the people mean, workingman? But, alas, the thing that has conflicted and contradicted such 'equal protection' is, in any way, placing the artificial entities of corporations as if that entity deserved 'equal protection' up against natural persons so protected by the 14th Amendment's 'national citizen' status--as Thom Hartmann so aptly described in his books titled Unequal Protection.

But, if you want to get down to it, I do blame government for playing its part in allowing corporations such advantages--and even increasing such endorsements that encroach on natural persons' rights that has occurred especially over the last two decades (but has been present there for the Gilded Age Supreme Courts to use since the First Gilded Age court in the latter 19th century had the write-up to include 'equal protection of corporations' in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad up to the present Second Gilded Age court that now claims unilimited funding 'to any organization' as if that represented 'free speech in politics'' in Citizens United). A government whose primary purpose is to support corporations is not a government that can, at the same time, support people.as national, and natural, citizens with 'equal protection'' and 'equal application'. As artificial, 'concocted', entities, corporations should have no freedoms. And, the bigger corporations get, 'freedom in the market' for corporations means 'confinement in the economy' for everyone else.

Quote workingman:

yes or no, do you want the government providing your health care, medication, housing, transportation, living wage, cell phone, and what kind and how much food you can buy/eat?

Since medicine is applied as a right, I want a single entity to cover the expenses to that access as a right. It's the only way that medicine's costs will be contained (the collusion will just eek out as much profit as it can despite any integrity to their actions--right up to withholding cheap cures if it costs them the profits of expensive treatments)--and medicine's universal access (already present in EMTALA and medical malpractice law as a right) reasonably and responsibly administered. In that respect, I noticed that you made no comment on how this supposed 'free market in medicine' that you claim is needed for corporations to reap all those rewards from all those 'new medicines' has, by the corporations' own excuses, more 'government regulation' than even the socialized medical country of Canada that can offer the same medicine at a fraction of the cost. Why is that, workingman? So, the point of the corporate-government collusion is that it is costing taxpaying consumers more money--not less (amd its is the taxpaying consumers that are responsible for covering the government's, the corporation's, and the non-payer's expenditures in medicine--applied as if a right to some and a bankrupting privilege to others--certainly no 'equal protection' and 'equal application' of the law here....)

As far as your attacks on 'welfare programs', I believe that government should be involved in trying to remove the incentives involved that make more disparities in wealth--since I agree with Ravi Batra that it is the increasing disparities in wealth that is the main trigger for economic depressions to occur. When the rich own most and everyone else has less to pay with, production stops because demand stops because people cannot afford the product. In sort of a twisted 'supply and demand' rationalization, the rich claim such times of gross unemployment allows employment costs to get so cheap that they can hire the poor worker back at even less expense to the rich employer producing more profits--but, again, if the disparity of wealth is enough, that won't matter, as according to Ravi Batra, an economic depression will occur (and we have more disparity of wealth now than any time in modern history--matching the wealth disparity of the 1920's before the last Great Depression). The best premise to keep an economy going is when the workers that produce a product can afford the product they produce (this was the premise Henry Ford used in hiring on his model-T assembly line workers at higher than the average worker salary at the time--and this is also in line with the English political philosopher John Locke's premise that it is labor that establishes natural economic value and labor that establishes natural private property--not 'gold or money'--or 'written law')--and, if the laborers producing it can't afford it (even if they are the ones establishing that products natural value), it will likely reach a point where no one will afford it. As Thomas Jeffeson once put it in his First Inaugural Address, it is a wise economic tenet for government (and, by extension, its corporate colluders) to 'not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned'. Increasing disparities of wealth do just that--'take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned'.

Drugs are cheaper in canada because the government sets the price it will pay so the drug makers make zero profit most cases they sell the pills at a lose. Those loses are made up in the u.s. Market.

You do not seem to grasp the concept if thd government is paying for your health care they can tell you what care you can have.

Since you agree that if the government gives houses, transportation, food, and cell phone to one they have to give it to all. Who gets to dicide what house I get. example I live alone in a 4 bedroom 3 bath 3 car garage with a pool. When the government is in charge do I get to keep it or because I am single do I get the studio overlooking the pig farm.

I want no welfare to anyone fod any reason, becauss if you work for it you apreciate it more than when it is given to you.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Drugs are cheaper in canada because the government sets the price it will pay so the drug makers make zero profit most cases they sell the pills at a lose. Those loses are made up in the u.s. Market.

So? So, what you are saying is that, in Canada, when it comes to who makes the house rules that run the macroeconomy involved, government takes a more active role instead of corporations for the benefit of their taxpaying consumers--which government openly recognizes that everyone has a right to access medical care. If when you say 'those loses are made up in the u.s. Market' by, what, the same corporations, why are those corporations even selling all those drugs to the Canadians if they have such 'big losses' in doing so, workingman? Is someone holding a gun, perhaps a military threat, to some corporate executives if they don't sell?

In your constant claim that 'lack of government intervention represents freedom' (as American corporations 'have the freedom' to claim 'added government regulations' to embellish their lucrative costs), if such corporations are suffering such a loss in Canada due to 'government interventions in the market', why are those corporations even in that market? Come now, workingman, if it were really that much of a loss, as you know that I see the only corporate incentive to function is solely profit-oriented, they wouldn't be there if there wasn't a profit to be made despite such 'government interventions', would they? So, it's not so much that it is 'such a loss in Canada' for those corporations (because, if it were a real loss they wouldn't be there), it's 'such a more lucrative gain' in the American market thanks to colluding governments having corporations making more of the 'house rules' as representing the corporation's 'freedom' (even though, remember, even allowing the excuse that corporations must charge more in America due to all those 'government regulations'--neat little trick, isn't it?)--when, all along, government colluders are just going along with such corporate 'house rules' in medicine's macroeconomy against their own taxpaying consumer basis in lieu of increasing the corporate financial predators part in sucking more out of the general funds for itself (who, then, turns around and gives out handsome rewards to their government colluders for such 'freedoms'--not 'recoup their costs in a losing market'--because, if it were such a losing market in Canada, why are the corporations there, workingman?).

Quote workingman:

You do not seem to grasp the concept if thd government is paying for your health care they can tell you what care you can have.

And, you do not seem to understand that if medicine is a 'pay up or else die' privilege, those that cannot afford it get no health care at all--so, do you want 'rationed care to all'--or 'no care to some'?

But, you see, workingman, as I've been trying to tell you all along, America's medical system is actually even worse than that proposition. It is an inherently dysfunctional system as it to how medicine is applied, and paid for, because, in effect, it claims the 'freedom' for corporations to charge taxpaying consumers as their privilege to receive medical care while, then, turning around and granting some people in that same system the right to access that same care at no direct cost to them due to them getting government subsidies for it. And, the ones who actually gain such a right are generally of the 20% of the population that take up 80% of the medical budget--which, again, compounds the financial burden to the taxpaying consumer that, actually, is paying for all of it (whether on government's, corporation's, or the non-payer's, behalf) as it offers up the other 80% that take up 20% of the medical budget for corporations to reap more profits (without being burdened by the more expensive patients). Do you see that?

What the American system right now offers is some people getting to have an ambulance ride to the ER for the most meager of problems (such as a stumped toe--and I'm not exaggerating), demand and receive service for same, and not be responsible to pay for any of it--in fact, expect (and know) it is their right to receive it for free (because 'government covers them'). And even, since, now, 'the customer is always right', be able to claim discrimination to uninvolved corporate executives if they don't receive what they want as well as still retain the right to sue if it can be seen that they suffered at all for it--all at no cost to them. But, then, there are those in that same American system that must hesitate at the door for fear of going bankrupt even if their problem is a life-threatening ailment due to them being excessively burdened with the costs (or 'pay up' to the corporations for the privilege). And, what makes this even more of a travesty, those excessively burdened with their own costs (as consumers) have the added burden of paying for others that approach this as a right (as tax payers). If you think about it, it's sickening--especially in a country that claims its (now, so-called) democracy has 'equal representation' with 'equal application of the law' with rights 'equal protection of rights'. And, the only thing that makes this make sense is that such a dysfunctional set-up is to someone's, or something's, advantage or it wouldn't be that way--and I see that being the advantage of the corporate-government colluders that make such 'house rules' that treat people so differently in medical care (at the added costs to the same taxpaying consumer to the benefit of such colluders). And, Obamacare won't make that better, it will just make that worse by offering up to government and corporations more costs to those that don't 'pay up' to their privilege if they, still, aren't in the group that gets it as a right (at no requirement of directly paying at all) as some in this system do--it just complements the corporation's profits by making all those in the 80% that take up 20% of the medical budget to 'pay up or else' separately to the 'house rulers'.....

Quote workingman:

Since you agree that if the government gives houses, transportation, food, and cell phone to one they have to give it to all.

Can you show me where 'I've' said that, workingman? Or, are you just a distracting, manipulating, dipshit that refuses to really address the problem? I'm talking specifically and solely about medical care--but, if you want to compare it to anything else, I wouldn't compare it to any of your above-mentioned products, I would compare it to education which is already applied (and paid for) as if a 'right to all'--even if some of the ones that claim such a 'right' aren't even educable.....this whole damn system has become dysfunctional to the 'house rule' benefits of the colluders.....

Quote workingman:

I want no welfare to anyone fod any reason, becauss if you work for it you apreciate it more than when it is given to you.

Well, you see, when it comes to the able-bodied able to work, I agree with you--and have said nothing differently (even as you try to instill additions into this discussion that claim otherwise). But, I would still keep government into the making of such economic 'house rules' that deter the predatory tendencies of the artificial entities called corporations--whose sole existence for profit-taking can suck the general fund for an economy dry without regard to any moral or ethical principles, or such consequences against such principles, if allowed 'the freedom' to make 'the house rules' that operate such an economy. That's what I have been saying all along. And, American medicine with its mismatched application of care in conjunction with its disjointed responsibilities to its funding that has made some see this is a 'right' ('welfare recipient' and all) while others have to approach it as a bankrupting privilege (that have to 'pay up or else'). How are you really going to have that problem solved, workingman? When, you haven't even come close to acknowledging what 'that problem' is--a dysfunctional union of free rights to some and overbearing financial burdens as privileges to others as America's form of 'universal care' that the corporate-government colluders benefit from at the taxpaying consumers added expense.....and, if you want to compare this to something, don't use your products, use education, as an example....would government 'giving everyone a voucher for health insurance' be your form of 'single payer' to fund 'universal care'? And, remember, if you do that, unlike education, 20% of the population take up 80% of the health care budget....or, are you going to apply 'pay up or else' to everyone (where everyone sees it as a privilege and no one sees it as a right), workingman? Or, are you going to leave it the way it is as the colluders suck more and more out of the taxpaying consumer for this mismatched dysfunction between 'rights to some' and 'overbearing burdens to others' as the American medical system is now? And, where's the 'equal application of the law' and 'equal protection of the rights' in that?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

TX has 12 sane people

Texas ‘stand your ground’ shooter headed to prison

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote workingman:

Drugs are cheaper in canada because the government sets the price it will pay so the drug makers make zero profit most cases they sell the pills at a lose. Those loses are made up in the u.s. Market.

So? So, what you are saying is that, in Canada, when it comes to who makes the house rules that run the macroeconomy involved, government takes a more active role instead of corporations for the benefit of their taxpaying consumers--which government openly recognizes that everyone has a right to access medical care. If when you say 'those loses are made up in the u.s. Market' by, what, the same corporations, why are those corporations even selling all those drugs to the Canadians if they have such 'big losses' in doing so, workingman? Is someone holding a gun, perhaps a military threat, to some corporate executives if they don't sell?

In your constant claim that 'lack of government intervention represents freedom' (as American corporations 'have the freedom' to claim 'added government regulations' to embellish their lucrative costs), if such corporations are suffering such a loss in Canada due to 'government interventions in the market', why are those corporations even in that market? Come now, workingman, if it were really that much of a loss, as you know that I see the only corporate incentive to function is solely profit-oriented, they wouldn't be there if there wasn't a profit to be made despite such 'government interventions', would they? So, it's not so much that it is 'such a loss in Canada' for those corporations (because, if it were a real loss they wouldn't be there), it's 'such a more lucrative gain' in the American market thanks to colluding governments having corporations making more of the 'house rules' as representing the corporation's 'freedom' (even though, remember, even allowing the excuse that corporations must charge more in America due to all those 'government regulations'--neat little trick, isn't it?)--when, all along, government colluders are just going along with such corporate 'house rules' in medicine's macroeconomy against their own taxpaying consumer basis in lieu of increasing the corporate financial predators part in sucking more out of the general funds for itself (who, then, turns around and gives out handsome rewards to their government colluders for such 'freedoms'--not 'recoup their costs in a losing market'--because, if it were such a losing market in Canada, why are the corporations there, workingman?).

Quote workingman:

You do not seem to grasp the concept if thd government is paying for your health care they can tell you what care you can have.

And, you do not seem to understand that if medicine is a 'pay up or else die' privilege, those that cannot afford it get no health care at all--so, do you want 'rationed care to all'--or 'no care to some'?

But, you see, workingman, as I've been trying to tell you all along, America's medical system is actually even worse than that proposition. It is an inherently dysfunctional system as it to how medicine is applied, and paid for, because, in effect, it claims the 'freedom' for corporations to charge taxpaying consumers as their privilege to receive medical care while, then, turning around and granting some people in that same system the right to access that same care at no direct cost to them due to them getting government subsidies for it. And, the ones who actually gain such a right are generally of the 20% of the population that take up 80% of the medical budget--which, again, compounds the financial burden to the taxpaying consumer that, actually, is paying for all of it (whether on government's, corporation's, or the non-payer's, behalf) as it offers up the other 80% that take up 20% of the medical budget for corporations to reap more profits (without being burdened by the more expensive patients). Do you see that?

What the American system right now offers is some people getting to have an ambulance ride to the ER for the most meager of problems (such as a stumped toe--and I'm not exaggerating), demand and receive service for same, and not be responsible to pay for any of it--in fact, expect (and know) it is their right to receive it for free (because 'government covers them'). And even, since, now, 'the customer is always right', be able to claim discrimination to uninvolved corporate executives if they don't receive what they want as well as still retain the right to sue if it can be seen that they suffered at all for it--all at no cost to them. But, then, there are those in that same American system that must hesitate at the door for fear of going bankrupt even if their problem is a life-threatening ailment due to them being excessively burdened with the costs (or 'pay up' to the corporations for the privilege). And, what makes this even more of a travesty, those excessively burdened with their own costs (as consumers) have the added burden of paying for others that approach this as a right (as tax payers). If you think about it, it's sickening--especially in a country that claims its (now, so-called) democracy has 'equal representation' with 'equal application of the law' with rights 'equal protection of rights'. And, the only thing that makes this make sense is that such a dysfunctional set-up is to someone's, or something's, advantage or it wouldn't be that way--and I see that being the advantage of the corporate-government colluders that make such 'house rules' that treat people so differently in medical care (at the added costs to the same taxpaying consumer to the benefit of such colluders). And, Obamacare won't make that better, it will just make that worse by offering up to government and corporations more costs to those that don't 'pay up' to their privilege if they, still, aren't in the group that gets it as a right (at no requirement of directly paying at all) as some in this system do--it just complements the corporation's profits by making all those in the 80% that take up 20% of the medical budget to 'pay up or else' separately to the 'house rulers'.....

Quote workingman:

Since you agree that if the government gives houses, transportation, food, and cell phone to one they have to give it to all.

Can you show me where 'I've' said that, workingman? Or, are you just a distracting, manipulating, dipshit that refuses to really address the problem? I'm talking specifically and solely about medical care--but, if you want to compare it to anything else, I wouldn't compare it to any of your above-mentioned products, I would compare it to education which is already applied (and paid for) as if a 'right to all'--even if some of the ones that claim such a 'right' aren't even educable.....this whole damn system has become dysfunctional to the 'house rule' benefits of the colluders.....

Quote workingman:

I want no welfare to anyone fod any reason, becauss if you work for it you apreciate it more than when it is given to you.

Well, you see, when it comes to the able-bodied able to work, I agree with you--and have said nothing differently (even as you try to instill additions into this discussion that claim otherwise). But, I would still keep government into the making of such economic 'house rules' that deter the predatory tendencies of the artificial entities called corporations--whose sole existence for profit-taking can suck the general fund for an economy dry without regard to any moral or ethical principles, or such consequences against such principles, if allowed 'the freedom' to make 'the house rules' that operate such an economy. That's what I have been saying all along. And, American medicine with its mismatched application of care in conjunction with its disjointed responsibilities to its funding that has made some see this is a 'right' ('welfare recipient' and all) while others have to approach it as a bankrupting privilege (that have to 'pay up or else'). How are you really going to have that problem solved, workingman? When, you haven't even come close to acknowledging what 'that problem' is--a dysfunctional union of free rights to some and overbearing financial burdens as privileges to others as America's form of 'universal care' that the corporate-government colluders benefit from at the taxpaying consumers added expense.....and, if you want to compare this to something, don't use your products, use education, as an example....would government 'giving everyone a voucher for health insurance' be your form of 'single payer' to fund 'universal care'? And, remember, if you do that, unlike education, 20% of the population take up 80% of the health care budget....or, are you going to apply 'pay up or else' to everyone (where everyone sees it as a privilege and no one sees it as a right), workingman? Or, are you going to leave it the way it is as the colluders suck more and more out of the taxpaying consumer for this mismatched dysfunction between 'rights to some' and 'overbearing burdens to others' as the American medical system is now? And, where's the 'equal application of the law' and 'equal protection of the rights' in that?

Selling life saving drugs in to people around the world is the right thing to do. The profit margin can be made up in the u.s. However canada also Will not buy the latest drugs because they cost to much. They also only buy a certain amount if the drug when it is gone the patients either buy it them selves or go without. Even Robert riech said that universal health Care Will lead to lack of inovation And shorter life spans.

You have said if the government gives something to one person as a right it has to give it to all. Is that correct? If so when is the government going to give me a mansion on the beach or is that reserved for the single Mom of 20 with 20 different dads? Education is not paid for by all free to all it is paid for by home owners. This is a bad system those who use the system should pay for it. Also this is basic education only no advanded education so does that mean you want basic Care only paid for no advanced Care?

So for you all the evil in the u.s. Is caused by corporations? I do not see it that way at all.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am