Compassionate Drug Companies

Per the "EpiPen" outrage stirring in the news recently, I had to chuckle at the company's (Mylan) efforts to "remedy" the situation: "the company would not cut the price of the injectors, but would increase the maximum it would offer to families in its copay assistance program from $100 to $300." This gesture is not compassion or meaningful. It's a loophole drug companies now use to continue to receive the same jacked-up payment from insurance companies. In other words, drug company revenues are not affected and it keeps all of our insurance premiums high. Drug companies may create an illusion by offering "assistance programs," but those are written off in other ways that benefit the company in terms of their bottom line (net earnings- read: profit). I know. I used brand Lipitor for years and when my insurance companies tried to bring costs under control by promoting generics, Pfizer started an "assistance" program ... which had virtually nothing to do with customers who could no longer afford their products. What it did was ensure Pfizer continued to receive the same whole-cost payment from insurance companies - who would still pay for named brand ... but expect the insured to pay the difference between brand/generic, which Pfizer would now (mostly) cover with "assistance". It's another loophole the elite in Congress have created to keep the profits of the insanely rich protected, so they can continue to fund that political elite, helping them keep their jobs. It's win-win for the rich and elite. For the common folk, not so much.

Subsidizing Health-care is Smart and Effective

When people show up at the Emergency Room without health insurance, we're all paying for it. Unless, you believe for-profit hospitals eat the cost of services provided to people without health insurance. Hint: They do not. They pass it on to those of us who do have health insurance by raising the prices of drugs, services, equipment, fees, etc.

So, unless people think laws should be repealed and permit denying health services to those in need of it (something doctors could not oblige given their Hippocratic Oath), there is no getting around the fact that those of us who can afford taxes/insurance, will subsidize (one way or the other) the healthcare of those who cannot afford it.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the Affordable Healthcare Act (a/k/a Obama-care) is an improvement in that it allows people to get annual physicals and receive preventative healthcare advice, which is far less expensive than going without and showing up at an emergency room with a condition (e.g. a heart attack) that could have been prevented altogether had the person been getting annual check-ups.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

I'm reminded of a PBS documentary several years back, showing American bible-belt Christians leaving their churches on Sunday morning with smiles beaming from their faces ... making their way to watch/cheer a public lynching.

It apparently had entertainment value for followers of Christ. If only they correctly interpreted his inspired words, they wouldn't have been so horribly wrong (again). Where's that Holy Ghost when you need it?

It should teach us ALL one thing: Words don't amount to squat no matter how many flags or holy books they are wrapped in. ACTIONS (where life is) is all that matters. 

It's where the rubber meets the road. The rest is noise and distraction ... that politicians use - to great success - to get themselves (re-)elected.

No More Faux Patriotism

I remember after 9/11, when flag-wavers came out of the woodwork offering me a flag to put on my office door, even though I had one there long before it became fashionable to "wave." Then, these situational patriots had the nerve to question my patriotism when I didn't jump onboard the Bush War Train.

Patriotism isn't waving the flag when everyone else is. It's waving the flag in your heart that nobody sees during moments of peace. Like religion, patriotism does not need to be worn on one's sleeve to make it genuine. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Faddish and situational patriotism is shallow.

The American Way of Using Religion as a Stick

So, it has become known that the DNC had it in for Bernie supporters, just as his supporters suspected.

Which tells us that even Democrats are not beneath GOP-tactics of using religion to undermine a candidate.

Jew, agnostic, atheist, who cares anyway? I mean, don't actions speak louder than words? Words are cheap. Actions are where life is.

I've seen some pretty bad things done by those who carry holy books around or profess faith in a deity; and I've seen some pretty good things done by those who are not religious or may be agnostic (not-knowing) about the whole theism thing.

The point isn't to say anyone has a monopoly on "goodness." It is to say one's position on religion or theology is irrelevant to one's public behavior.

Thomas Jefferson was attacked for being an atheist, for daring people to "dare the existence of God" in the name of enlightenment.

Thomas Paine is all but forgotten, because he chose to write The Age of Reason, which undermined organized religion (even though Paine's Common Sense was a huge broadside in pushing the American Revolution forward).

It's always been the lazy politician's (or wonk's) approach to undermine a candidate by accusing him of not conforming to the majority's belief system.

Shame on those in the DNC who went down that route. And shame on the party leaders (DWS and HRC) for not calling them out and shaming them, if only internally.

How the South was Lost

I just watched LBJ (Brian Cranston) last night on HBO and was amazed (not really) how much the appearance (white/male) and rhetoric (state's rights, unconstitutional, etc.) of those opposed to civil and voting rights legislation in the 1960s is the same as today's GOP. Not much has changed. The reactionaries have objectively not evolved in half a century, other than to tone down their speech ... i.e. until Palin and Trump arrived. It does get a bit confusing though, since the South was predominantly Democratic then and that is where much of the opposition came from. LBJ accurately predicted that the Democratic dominance in the South would be lost for at least a generation as a consequence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Political party allegiances began to invert nearly immediately and has continued apace ever since, with many Democrats (starting with Strom Thurmond) bolting to the Republican Party, that was more (conservative) hospitable to remaining opposed to change (esp. regarding minorities) they felt was "too quick" and upsetting (to their racist constituents).

Republicans quickly seized on the opportunity with their Southern Strategy, that worked extremely well for them. For the country, not so much. Fifty years later, and the "Party of NO!" still thinks any change is "too quick."

19th Century Republicans = Modern Democrats

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican of the 19th century variety.

The philosophical impetus that drove Lincoln evolved since the Civil War and eventually landed in the Democratic Party (the former South/slavery-supporting party) during the mid-20th century when Civil Rights legislation passed.

After that, along with the "culture wars" since, we had an inversion in America's political parties with a good many Democrats abandoning their party to become Dixiecrats (see: Strom Thurmond) or became Republicans in protest of Civil Rights legislation (along with welfare, and liberalism) beginning around the Johnson years.

By the time Reagan came along, the political solidification of the South was already well underway which is why national "party" heat maps show the South as being predominantly "red."

Republicans invoking the name of Lincoln to establish "creds" without qualifying it with historical context is dishonest, at the very least. And, manipulative at worst.