OBAMA NAKLADA KONTROLE W SPOSOB KOMPLETNIE NIEREALISTYCZNY

....

ONLY LIES IN WASHIMNGTON DC HOW FRANCE THINKS ABOUT HELATH CARE


"US healthcare sham
by Serge Halimi
A Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton abolished a welfare
programme in 1996 under the (largely fallacious) pretext that it bred
fraud, waste and abuse. Thirteen years on, the reforms that Barack
Obama is proposing will not fundamentally change the United States’
abysmal healthcare system because those who profit from it have been
able to buy protection from the lawmakers. The welfare programme
ditched in 1996 absorbed about 1% of the US budget; today’s well-
ensconced private insurance companies swallow most of the 17% of the
budget set aside for healthcare.

Paradoxically, the US president is one of the most spirited
prosecutors of the system he has chosen to retain. Day after day he
recounts how “we are held hostage by health insurance companies that
deny coverage, or drop coverage, or charge fees that people can’t
afford for care they desperately need… We have a healthcare system
that too often works better for the insurance industry than it does
for the American people” (1).

Obama’s project initially set out with two important objectives. It
proposed compulsory health cover for the 46 million Americans outside
the system while funding the poorest amongst them. It also suggested
the creation of a public insurance system with less prohibitive
tariffs than private companies (2), which commit huge resources to
finding legal loopholes (“pre-existing conditions”) allowing them not
to pay out when their insured clients fall ill.

What is it that so alarms the right? Bobby Jindal, the Republican
governor of Louisiana, claims that “any government plan will benefit
from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss,
competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven
out of business” (3). Other more telling tales of distress might have
concerned him, particularly in Louisiana, one of the poorest US
states.

American politics is so poisoned by money flowing from industrial and
financial lobbies that the only proposals ensured a smooth ride
through Congress are those that cut taxes. Banks, insurance companies
and the pharmaceutical industry have almost nothing to fear. Max
Baucus, the Democrat chairman of the Senate finance committee, whose
approval is needed for reforms to be adopted, is also the lawmaker who
receives the most money from private hospitals, insurance companies
and doctors. However, his largest donors are hardly worried about the
problems of Montana, the small rural state he represents, since 90% of
their contributions come from elsewhere in the country, in a perfectly
legal and accountable way. Will anyone be surprised to hear that
Baucus opposes a complete overhaul of the current medical system?

A year after the crash of neoliberalism, the (small-scale) panic that
gripped the ruling classes has vanished. The political system remains
locked in their favour. From time to time, a more corrupt or unlucky
operator goes to jail; the mantra – morals, ethics, regulation, G20 –
is chanted; then it all starts again. Questioned recently about the
huge bonuses awarded to traders at BNP-Paribas, Christine Lagarde,
France’s economy minister and a former Chicago business lawyer, had
only this to say: “If we say no more bonuses, the best trader teams
will simply move elsewhere.”

Cradled in a political system that protects them (and which they in
turn protect) and profiting from the public’s widespread cynicism and
all-round despair, traders and medical insurance companies can only
pursue their parasitic ways. “Abuse” is not some aberration in their
practice, it’s their essence. So a “reform” they could agree to will
not do: what we need is their disappearance.

Le Monde diplomatique, originally published in French, has editions in
25 other languages


AMONGST 26 COUNTRIES ONLY USA GOT THIS PEACE OF INFORMATION WROMNGT.
WHY?