Another day passes and another attack upon PROFITS.
From today's Atlanta Journal Constitution "Pro & Con" subsection which asks "Should health care reform include a "public option," in which a government plan would compete with private insurers?
The Pro person, Henry Kahn, a physician says:
.....He (Obama) guessed wrong when he thought that commercial insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers would cooperate by substantially reducing their extraordinary profits.
PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS!!!
Its all about the profits.
Over time I have learned the importance of going out and getting a factual reference point by which to base an argument upon.
Thus above I have listed the industry profits for the two industries that have been attacked for their profiteering: "Big Health Care Insurance" and "Big Pharma"
In big pharma the top 12 companies in the industry rake in a grand total of $79,426B
In big health care insurance the top 5 companies of note rake in $10,109B
Thus the argument is that this is $89,535,000,000 that could be applied toward patient care.
Don't get me wrong. $85.5 billion is a princely sum. I would settle for lottery winnings of just $85 million. It is when one frames this argument properly that we see the selectivity and the ridiculousness of this argument.
I mentioned previously that while these two entities are being attacked for profiteering - the would be Health Insurer and Drug Negotiator for those who seek the public option - the conglomerate known as the "Federal Government" has a one year DEFICIT of $1,800 billion dollars.
The argument does not stand. The only reason why the huge deficit is not problematic as experienced by those who wish to load up the federal government with more financial burden is being they don't personally feel the effects of this tremendous negative balance (yet).
The more interesting study beyond the arguments about the right to health care and the moral requirements to do so is the underlying economic ideological issues that are present among people who are resentful of corporations and the profit motive as they prefer government and its abstracted concern for massive deficits. I have often heard that "Corporations care more about the bottom line than they do about people". I struggle to understand what these same people believe that a national government who's debt is already at $12,000 billion which is expected to grow to $21,000 billion after 10 years - What does this entity care about? It most certainly is not fiscal sustainability.
I get the strong suspicion that any short term victory in nationalized health care will be akin to the recent United Auto Worker's contract signed with General Motors - the pre-bankruptcy General Motors. After the nutrition source is brought to its knees financially then the TRUE COSTS of an entity that has no regard to the bottom line will be seen.
Those who have built up their dependency upon this centralized entity without assembling the organic capabilities to preform these services more close to home, at the periphery will be damaged the most.