Profits can kill. Profits can destroy. Profits can corrupt.

Regular readers know that Mr. Blunt and Cranky has had long careers in business and the arts, and is therefore not at all opposed to making money. Indeed, Adam Smith is frequently cited here: the man was a firm believer in a WELL-REGULATED free market. Because he was smart enough to see the harm that unchecked profits can cause.

Profits are not inherently bad: in the right measure, they can do a lot of good. But anything can be overdone: and the Teapublican “greed is good” mantra is an object lesson. Here, then, are three examples of the horrors that can be wrought by profits:

Number A: America’s profit-centered “health care” system kills lots of people. Including this writer’s only son. Yes, Aetna has death panels: people are denied care based on profit margins. That is why my son was kicked out of the hospital just a few hours after awakening from a coma. PROFITS CAN AND DO KILL. PROFITS KILLED MY KID.

Letter 2: American industry is constantly pushing for less (or no) regulation, in order to increase profit. Thence came disasters such as massive oil spills, poisoned rivers and aquifers, and destructive, deadly industrial accidents. Profits can and do destroy.

Thirdly: American politicos are taking bribes in record quantities to enhance the profitability of private businesses with taxpayer dollars. Yes, they call them “contributions”, but c’mon: these are bribes. Bribes that result in the theft of our hard-earned. Profits can and do corrupt.

Once again, Gentle Reader: your humble correspondent is not, repeat NOT opposed to profits. But not everything has a free-market solution. Some things are better divorced from a financial profit motive. Some things must be non-profit in order to succeed: things like health, education, public safety, and so on.

It’s long past time we put the final nail in the coffin of Reagan/Bush voodoo economics and its resulting death, destruction and corruption.

Reality is calling, America: better pick up the phone while we still can.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Two years ago today, America’s Profit-Driven Health Care system killed my only son (Warning – profanity)

You see, he died because health insurers refused to pay for the care he needed: had they paid for it, they wouldn’t have made as much profit. He died so that millionaires can get even richer, and that’s the ONLY God-damned reason he died.

So here’s a big “Fuck You” to anyone and everyone who opposes Health Care Reform. It could have saved his life.

Here’s another one to anyone who opposes the Affordable Care Act (flawed though it is, it at least kept my boy alive a bit longer).

Here’s a big “Fuck YOU, Motherfucker” to all the legislators and pundits who are still trying to block further improvements in accountability, care, coverage and quality in our national health care system.

Simply put, if you are in favor of a health care system that is purely based on greed and profit (as America’s is and has been), then you are in favor of people dying so millionaires can get even richer. And yes, Fuck You for that.

Fuck You, John Boehner. Fuck You, Mitch McConnell. Fuck You, Aetna. Fuck You, Sam Brownback. Fuck everyone who is like you, too.

You want objectivity when my kid got killed, motherfucker? Yeah, right. If it was your kid, you’d be saying the same thing I’m saying right now. So, no, I’m not objective on this topic.

And fuck it, I don’t care. Aetna banked big bucks, their people got bonuses, and where did that money come from? It came from denying care and saving money thereby: and by so doing, killing people like my son. So fuck objectivity. Sometimes, objectivity is just a bunch of rationalized, sophist bullshit.

In closing, here’s one more “FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER” FOR ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE POLICIES THAT KILLED MY KID.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

P.S. Here’s a big shout-out to the President for still standing by the ACA when so many evil, greedy motherfuckers have been buying congresscritters to try and kill more people with bad insurance. And a big boot up the asses of those bought politicos.

A Week of Harsh Truths, Day Three: There is NO Liberal Media to Not Believe In

No matter how many bumper stickers you may have seen, America does not have a “liberal media”. Nor does it have a “conservative media”. What we have, gentle readers, is a commercial media. Since the Reagan era, our media has been based on profitability, not ideology.

You can argue the last point, perhaps: there is a possible chicken/egg scenario (did profitability drive the conservative domination of media, or did the conservative dominance drive profit?). But you can’t prove a liberal bias, because the facts prove otherwise.

You also cannot dismiss the influence of profit on “news” since the Reaganistas did away with the Fairness Doctrine. The “infotainment” industry demands high ratings so as to make money from advertisers. For the past few decades, putting a ” conservative” slant in things has been the most reliable way to get ratings, which is why there has been no “liberal bias”. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Mr. B & C

How “Republicans” Kill Government Agencies and Profit Thereby

Mr. Blunt and Cranky has a daughter who is very much into horses, and has been since her days in 4-H. He therefore knows about the “impost”. This is extra weight placed on a horse to slow it down during a race. It is supposed to make a race more fair, but is sometimes used to rig a race by making sure a certain horse loses: this makes lots of shady money for certain shady individuals.

We see the same thing in other areas, of course: one example is the United States Postal Service (USPS), a government agency that is mandated by the Constitution. The “impost” placed on this “horse” by Congressional “Republicans” is a requirement to pre-fund worker pensions 75 years into the future: that includes people who haven’t even been born yet. Needless to say, none of their competitors (like FedEx and UPS) have to do anything remotely like this.

Why would Congress do something to weaken an agency that is required by the Constitution? One word: Money. You see, the private companies bribe our “representatives”, and in return they use their power to illegally support those companies that bribe them by wiping out the Postal Service.

The ultimate goal is to “privatize” postal services. That would make the bribing bastards even more money, which means even bigger bribes for the corrupt swine who suck off the trough of dollars provided to them. Of course, if you’re not one of the lucky congresscritters who have access to those millions of dollars in baksheesh, it’s a pretty raw deal.

While our millionaire “representatives” loll about their sties, we the people would be faced with a several thousand percent increase in the cost of shipping everything from birthday cards to packages. imagine sending Christmas cards when instead of paying, say, fifty cents, you’d pay $10.00 or more for each piece of mail.

That is, you’d pay it if you could even get it in the mail. You see, another “impost” placed upon the USPS is the requirement to service anyone and everyone in the United States, no matter where you live and work. Private companies have no such requirement. In fact (and here’s another “impost”), the USPS is required by Congress to deliver items for their competitors.

Get the picture? Our “representatives” are so busy providing services to the industries that bribe them that they have no problem violating the Constitution by killing off the Post Office. Our loss, and Congress’s gain.

If that doesn’t get you angry, then you probably need an impost placed on your back. Then you might understand what it’s like to be illegally and permanently relegated to the back of the pack.

Mr. B & C

Maybe Government Should be Run Like, You Know, a Government

As your friendly neighborhood blogger blunts and cranks his way through the 2012 Silly Season, he is glad to see (and he is not the only one to have expressed this sentiment) a serious debate on the proper role of government. As a radical centrist, it is not likely that his own personal views will be put into action, but these questions have been inadequately considered for far too long now, and just the fact of a discussion could make this election year potentially more useful than has become the norm.

At one time, the U.S. Government pretty much did what nobody else could or would do: make laws, protect the public, build big stuff that didn’t make a lot of profit, set standards, make war, and such. Normal government functions, in a tradition that goes back for thousands of years. As governments tend to do, it gradually became less and less efficient, and thus more and more wasteful.

From time to time, various efforts were made to cut out waste, and these encountered various degrees of success, though none were completely successful. One idea that gained wide acceptance during the last few decades was to make government “run like a business”. In theory, an inefficient business fails of its own accord, according to market conditions. So treating government in a like manner would ensure efficiency and thus success.

This is a seemingly well-constructed bit of logic, and when presented convinced a large number of Americans to go along with the idea. However, as a student of logic, Mr. Blunt and Cranky was long ago taught to examine the premises behind any seemingly logical statement to see whether or not it is true (true is not the same thing as logical). This one fails to hold up under scrutiny.

Government is not a business: businesses sell products/services to earn a profit (or to break even in some cases). Government supports businesses, of course (for a variety of reasons) by providing services, infrastructure and incentives, but government’s core product is not inherently profitable: the maintenance of a reasonably safe and orderly society. Examples:

• Military, to protect the people from foreign threats
• Law enforcement and firefighters to protect the people from local threats
• Infrastructure like roads, utilities and such to facilitate commerce

 

There is a reason why businesses don’t tend to go into these areas: they are not profitable. Regardless of any Randian pipe dreams you may have heard, these “products” have never been profitable (some isolated bits and pieces are, and businesses do flock to those few profitable chunks), and no rational business person would ever undertake them.  Government built and/or enabled the building of nuclear power plants, our ground and air transport systems, utility grids, radio and television, communications wired and wireless, and a host of other essential services. None of these create or have ever created a profit for the government that may be viewed on a balance sheet.

 This does not mean that the services provided by government are worthless: cash is not the only measure of worth, after all. Businesses make profit in part by utilizing these government-enabled services, but the government itself does not. People profit in a certain sense by having safety, water, roads and such, but government does not record a monetary profit.

Governments “profit” not in the monetary sense: successful (“profitable”) governments are those that preside over an orderly society full of citizens who are reasonably satisfied with their lot in life, who are reasonably satisfied with the job that their government is doing; and if satisfied, they return elected officials to office for additional terms. The public-sector “profit margin” could be determined by election/re-election statistics, approval ratings and poll numbers.

If we accept that definition of governmental profit, then the margin is pretty darned low these days. Maybe government should be run like a government, since running it like a business has been steadily decreasing the “profit margins” of all three branches of government.  The experiment has failed, time to go back to what works.

Mr. B & C

Private Insurance ALREADY Rations American Health Care

As his readers will already know, Mr. Blunt and Cranky is managing a goodly list of chronic and acute maladies. Because of that experience (as well as having been an industry insider), he is more than a wee bit acquainted with the American “health care” system.

And he has had his health care rationed. But neither by our big-eared President nor his weird-haired challenger. No, it is the for-profit insurance companies that have screwed with his health care.

Rationing in America is driven by profit margins. For-profit health care is built upon this gigantic conflict of interest: making money vs. providing care.  It happens every day, people dying because of Aetna et.al.  denying them care so as to remain in the black. What this means is that people who are as rich as Bill Gates or Charles Koch get a little richer every time somebody’s care is denied.  Once again: investors make more money if you get less care.  The idea of a family member being sicker or dead just so some Wall Street suit can buy a bigger Beemer does NOT help this writer to stay in his Happy Place.

The private industries who are running this get-rich-over-our-dead-bodies (literally, that is one way they become rich) scheme are paying millions to keep things as they are, and not because they give a rat’s hiney about your health. No, they are buying TV ads, Congresscritters, Senators, and Clarence Thomas to make sure they keep on making money. They hate ObamNeyCare because it threatens a teenytiny piece of their enormous profit margin. Said margin at least substantially derived from rationed care, private sector style.

When these industries try to scare us with the bogeyman of “government health care”, we should stop for a second and consider: could government employees, who get paid the same whether they approve care or not, really do any worse by us than private sector employees who are pressured via their paychecks to deny us care?

Nope, not likely. This writer knows from socialized medicine, and can tell you it beats the living Hell out of our for-profit system.  And the reason is: people get more and better care when the primary criterion for deciding on care is whether the doctor, in their expert opinion, thinks said care will fix the problem.

Right now, your doctor is not, repeat, NOT in charge of your health care. Some accountant at an insurance company is. And they get bonuses if you get less care. This blogger calls that rationing, and it has been going on for years.

Bring on the bureaucrats. At least they won’t get paid extra for second-guessing medical professionals.

Mr. B & C