Obamacare Facts: The Devil is in the Details

A Single-Payer Healthcare Plan - Boon or Bust

from the Curmudgeon's desk: GA Anderson - A discussion of Obamacare and Single-player healthcare plan proposals

Understand that this is an opinion piece on the real Obamacare facts and details. What else would you expect from a curmudgeon? I first discarded the idea doing an Obamacare piece. I knew enough to have an opinion about it, but the political fight to pass it left me so disgusted with the subject, I just left it alone. Plus, because of the massive TV face-time both sides blasted the media outlets with, almost any discussion will sound like it's being read from a "talking points" hand-out, and I hate "talking points" discussions.

But, a recent discussion has changed my mind. To intelligently continue that discussion I went looking for some single-payer healthcare plan information, and what I found truly frightened me.

I understand that, speaking from the heart, free national healthcare for all is an admirable goal. But when you examine the nuts and bolts of what it will take to get there - with rational, rather than emotional, thought. A single-payer plan is not the way America works.

The Demons of Obamacare and Single-payer Healthcare plans
The Demons of Obamacare and Single-payer Healthcare plans | Source

The Demons are called Saints

What frightened me was what I found on a prominent pro and apparently credible, (note the apparently qualifier), single-payer website that was dominating the first page of Google search results. Anybody that was looking for national single-payer healthcare plan information was going to find this information first.

Remember the battle to get Obamacare passed? It was a time when the Democrats controlled the game. They had the Presidency, and they controlled both houses of the Congress, and it still took billions of dollars of Federal trough money to bribe enough votes to pass it.

Sure you can take issue with that last statement, but another time. The point is - it was a Battle!

The Republicans were screaming about the demons in the bill. Death panels, healthcare decision panels, the end of the private healthcare industry, socialized medicine, etc. etc. etc. You remember.

The Democrats were praising it as the savior of our citizens, free guaranteed healthcare, long life, love and hosanna for all, etc. etc. etc. I'm sure you remember that too.

But for me, it was the combination of the Federal bribery it took to get the passing votes, and Nancy Pelosi's declaration - "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it!", or something close to that, that made me the most skeptical of the greatness of its beneficial claims.

I didn't like Obamacare. I don't like Obamacare. And I don't trust the claims made of it as a great step forward. (I almost said Great Leap Forward)

Sorry, I'll get back to the point. That stuff was just to lay the groundwork.

As I was about to say. What I found at that prominent website was that, they were touting as benefits, all the demons that the Republicans were claiming would be the downfall of American healthcare. I really was frightened by what I read. Could intelligent people read this stuff and not see it for the propaganda that it was?

Well, now that my position is established, let's move to the content.

For the full text - here is the website

This is a nationally sponsored website of doctors - which means they have credibility and know what they're talking about right? Once more, what frightened me was that if a reader doesn't look beyond the cheese, they won't see the trap.

*note: the page referenced includes data and projections referring to years as far back as 2002, and 2004. This does not mean the rest of the site isn't current and up-to-date - just that the format of this page was the best vehicle for this comparison.

The doctor's explanation of a single-payer national healthcare plan.

1. What is a single-payer healthcare plan

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.

True, but misleading. It implies it's just an administrative mechanism. But it is much more, it involves treatment decisions, technology decisions, payment and practice systems. The scary part? They actually tell you this, but with phraseology that hides it - one entity—a government run organization... but they say it in the context of finances and administration. It may appear that I am misstating its context, but my point will be more clear further on - about what that phrase really means.

2. Single-payer healthcare access and benefits

All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits... all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures...based on need, not on ability to pay.

Sounds great, get the medical healthcare you need, all in a single-payer system. But three things to note. 1) their list of covered services appears to be just an illustrative example, but again, as you will see further on, it is almost the entire menu, wait until you see how they hint at the services you won't be able to get under this system. 2.) Did you skip right over ...medically necessary services? It doesn't say all available medical services, or medical services you want, it says necessary services, and guess who is going to decide what is necessary? 3.) and another phrase that appears to mean one thing in the context of its use... based on need. Further on it will be clear who they have in mind to decide your need.

I know, that sounds like the Republican talking-points "Death Panel" mantra we all heard and dismissed as rhetoric, but bear with me... my points will be more clear as we get into the real meat of their explanations.

3. Single-payer healthcare payment mechanism

...hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses... separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc... they list these options for doctor's fees... fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices

Now follow their next sentence closely - ...Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator

Notice that they say lump-sum payment for operating expenses. What happens if operating expenses go up, through no fault of the hospital's operating management? The hospital has to absorb the extra costs. How? Reduce staffing? Reduce quality of care? New catheter every three days, instead of daily? Think I'm be overly dramatic? Give it some thought.

... and a separate budget for expansion and new technology? What about some newly developed operating room devices that are saving more lives due to their innovations? Maybe the budget can handle it, or maybe the "plan" says nope, not enough in the budget for new equipment this year. Sound okay to you? Probably won't affect your 82 year-old mother's heart surgery next month anyway. As long as she has the top surgeon on the job.

They come right out and tell you that the government will control doctor's fees! If you don't think that sounds like a bad thing... consider that they are not just talking about office visit charges. They mean all doctors fees. Medical test charges? What about an MRI? Those are multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. What if, (and I'm just picking an illustrative number), a doctor needs to charge $100 per test to be able to pay for the machine based on its planned life expectancy usage, and the government says, "No! You can only charge $25 for that test because that's all the plan can afford to pay."

Don't you suppose that would influence a doctor's decision whether or not to invest in the purchase of an MRI, when he knows he will not be able to recoup his investment based on the life expectancy of the equipment?

Can you not see the potential for a reduced availability of MRI's? Which in turn could mean waiting lists for the tests? That is exactly what happened in Britain. Canada also, except that Canada does have a secondary private-medicine industry... if you have the money.

What about surgeons? The government will now value the skills of a surgeon? The tops in the field feel they are worth $200, but the government says, Nope, the single-payer plan can only afford to pay $100, so guess what - you get the 2nd or 3rd best surgeon operating on you.

Is that okay with you? 2nd or 3rd best should be okay for your neurosurgery, right?

You will hear this again and again, but a government single-payer system is not going to provide the same healthcare as a private-economy system. That might not be the most terrible choice in the world, if there were still other options if you needed them, but as we go further, you will see two things; a single-payer plan will only work if private medicine IS NOT allowed to be available, (they actually state this), and the very construct of this system will destroy private healthcare companies. They will go out of business because the government will not allow them to make a profit.

4. How will the government pay for this single-payer plan.

...Employers would pay a 7.0 percent payroll tax and employees would pay 2.0 percent, essentially converting premium payments to a health care payroll tax.

Great no more healthcare premiums. Life is good.Just another payroll tax burden on employers. That won't affect their hiring and staffing decisions will it?

This is the least worrisome of the details. It could be conceded that this is just the cost of having national coverage, which if single-payer were something I could accept - I wouldn't be complaining about a funding mechanism like this.

And the 2% additional income tax charge? Peanuts for you right?

Oh, there was one other line...

includes a $2 per pack cigarette tax.

But you're not a smoker so no problem right? Well, maybe not. If they have that figure nailed to a specific amount, it must mean they are basing it on "x" number of smokers right? What happens when that new tax burden reduces the number of smokers, thus reducing the tax income? Just raise the cigarette tax to $3, $4, $5...? Guess where they will look for the money they planned to get from smokers - but didn't?

5. Administrative Savings through a single-payer healthcare plan

Finally, one I can agree with

GAO projects administrative savings of 10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002...

The medical billing procedures a doctor's office has to comply with are so onerous and complicated that it requires a staffing position solely for insurance company billing. The industry is somewhat standardized, in that doctor's offices use something called, a super bill, which is a page full of small-type coded services listings that must be checked off.

It's really enough just to understand that the billing/payment relationship between provider and payer is a burdensome process that works in the favor of the insurance companies.

But, this is something that could be corrected with system reformation, it doesn't require switching to a single-payer system to fix it. Also, doesn't it seem curious that administrative costs savings should be touted as a major reason for a single-payer system? Implying that that is the only way to rectify an admitted imperfection.

6. Cost containment benefits of a single-payer system

GAO ...projects that single payer would reduce overall health costs by $225 billion by 2004 despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans...

This is in addition to the 10% administrative savings. Sounds great to toss out $225 billion - but where is it coming from? Going to provide more, but it will cost less - how? And don't quote the economy of scale logic, because it's apples and oranges. That applies to reducing the overall costs of the plan. This contention seems to be related to healthcare costs, not plan costs.

I only question this one because of it's lack of clarity, and my already high level of suspicion fueled by what has come before it.

Different Perspectives on the Benefits of Single-Payer

At this point, the segments switch to their, (PNHP), perspectives of the general benefits of switching to a single-payer national healthcare system.

Patient's single-payer plan benefits

...regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care ...free choice of doctors and hospitals ... receive no bills, and co-payment and deductibles would be eliminated ... would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.

The most contentious issue here is about retaining free choice of doctors and hospitals. In recent discussions, explanations, and admissions, by the political proponents of this plan, they have admitted, under questioning, that by the very nature of the changes required to implement a single-payer plan - this may not be the case.

Regarding his previous explanation, and pledge, President Obama himself, has had to back-track and admit that with these changes, you may not be able to keep those choices.

Also, as more of the details emerged after the passage of the bill; healthcare choice decision-making state panels, mandated conversion of hospitals and major healthcare facilities from privately owned for-profit entities to plan owned, (truthfully just a different way of saying nationalization of privately institutions), that statement has become harder to defend as correct and truthful.

Doctor's single-payer plan benefits

Doctors’ incomes would change little, though the disparity in income between specialties would shrink. The need for a “wallet biopsy” before treatment would be eliminated; time currently wasted on administrative duties could be channeled into providing care; and clinical decisions would no longer be dictated by insurance company policy.

*this segment also included a large text block listing medical-related association's endorsements that although pertinent to showing support, were not pertinent to this explanation - following the above provided link will allow you to see what has been omitted here.

Except to note this statement; disparity in income between specialties would shrink, which was noted earlier, seems to indicate fields of medical specialization development will possibly atrophy due to lack of motivating factors. Whether you want to admit it or not, the opportunity for profit motivates more doctors to delve into medical specialties, than the motive of altruism.

The combination of both of those motives has probably been the driving force that has produced most of the "best and brightest" medical professionals we have today. Of course this is something that can only be surmised... but is it hard to consider that if you remove half of something, you will not alter the result?

To respond to the rest of these general statements would only amount to a he said - she said discussion - which would be more properly addressed in an article devoted to just those points.

Hospital's benefits from a single-payer plan

...administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to 1,500 private insurance companies would no longer be needed ...negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses ...budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities ...hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.

yes, burdensome administrative costs would be reduced under a single-payer national healthcare plan, so it would seem to be hard to argue these points.

Except, as noted above; the potential repercussions of a ...negotiated “global budget, and ...allocated separately based on health care priorities. Also, the closing statement, ...hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills, is a deceptive strawman argument. Successfully managed hospitals don't close due to unpaid bills, marginally proficient ones do. The real reason some hospitals will close will be due to choices made by some of the plan's newly created "decisions panels" regarding necessary medical needs for different population areas, and global budget allowances.

Additionally, they address this question:

What happens to investor-owned hospitals under national health insurance?

“The NHI program would compensate owners of investor-owned hospitals, group/staff model HMOs, nursing homes and clinics for the loss of their clinical facilities, as well as any computers and administrative facilities needed to manage NHI. They would not be reimbursed for loss of business opportunities or for administrative capacity not used by NHI. Investor-owned providers would be converted to nonprofit status.

Sounds like they are saying we will pay you a worth, (that they determine), for your physical properties, and, we will pay you for the other assets we determine will be needed, (again a value they will determine), but for the rest... too bad, so sad.

Just imagine the contortions needed to avoid viewing this as nationalization of private property and assets.

Insurance Industry benefits from a single-payer plan

The need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

They aren't mincing words here, they come right out and tell us that the private healthcare industry will go away, (hmmm.. how then will you be able to keep your choice of doctors and hospitals?), and the plan has determined the amount needed to retrain healthcare industry workers. Okay, so what if you trained to be a nurse, sorry, but we just don't need as many buggy whips anymore. But no worries, we have a grant to help you retrain to be a .... butcher or baker or candlestick maker.

Also, this is just a snippet taken from within a larger explanation that uses "the wealthy" as the bogey-man for justification - with phrases like; "...if we allow the wealthy, or ... if the wealthy are forced",

Studies in New Zealand and Canada show that the growth of private care in parallel to the public system results in lengthening waits. Additionally, allowing the development of a parallel, private system...

Even further yet, they stipulate, (in other statements available through the link already provided), that a single-payer plan can not succeed if private healthcare services remain available. Implementation will require outlawing those private healthcare services.

Doesn't that prospect at least cause a few alarm bells to ring for you?

That's pretty much the gist of a national single-payer healthcare plan

A couple caveats:

  • Granted this article, as lengthy as it turned out to be, only addresses a very complex issue in a very simplistic form
  • Granted, most of the PNHP explanations were "cherry-picked", and not presented in their totality - BUT... that was due to the need for brevity, and to avoid publication restrictions due to "duplicate content" filters. NONE of the "cherry-picked" segments were chosen to distort the context of PNHP's full explanations, and a link to the full explanations was provided to ensure you had access to verify the context was as stated
  • Granted that much of the criticism of the described single-payer plan features are assumptive and position-biased - but isn't that true for all debated issues that aren't purely mathematically provable facts? This is not a case of 2+2=4!

Source

Eureka - I have the answer!

It's amazing, I know the answer to how to fix our nations healthcare industry!

I didn't know it when I started this article, but somewhere near the halfway point, I started to feel the glow of an inkling of a solution. And just as I was finishing the segment about the hospital issues involved - it burst upon me, fully developed, just as obviously true as the old adage about "spitting in the wind..."

It's the same answer a wise old farmer once gave when a carload of city-slickers pulled up to ask directions....

"... ya can't get there from here!"

There will be no solution to our healthcare problems, or any of the many other large problems we face... until we fix our corrupt political problems first. No matter what solution we try for any problem our government or society face -

...as long as somebody with money can buy somebody with influence,

no matter if it is healthcare or widgets, the moneyed interests will be advantaged, and the rest of us will have to live with the results. That's not a criticism of Big Money, I wish I had some of it. It is a criticism of what we allow crooked politicians to do to us.

If we had honest politicians that had the integrity to resist the bribes, it wouldn't matter how much money Big Money had.

If you want a fair and level playing field - vote intelligently!

If you vote for Obamacare...

See more GA Anderson Political articles

GA Anderson aka Gus - yes, he really is a real person
GA Anderson aka Gus - yes, he really is a real person | Source

About the Author

Writing for the Daily Constitutional, and commentary from the Curmudgeon's desk - GA Anderson

"Seeing it does not make it real, and reading it does not make it true. Use a little common-sense and trust your instincts." - GAA

*Composite image component source citations: Creative Commons images from:commons.wikimedia.org, flickr.com/creativecommons, search.creativecommons.org, http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/06/find-creative-commons-images-in-google.html. *photo and image source credits: divider and separation images - http://gaanderson.hubpages.com

More by this Author


Obamacare: The Devil's Whispers in My Ear Comments 16 comments

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Canada's single-payer system costs significantly less and produces better results. Ditto for most European countries. Insurance companies are non-value-added parasites. I do agree that the reform bill passed two years ago is not perfect, but it has several important improvements. Alone, it will not solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs and the coming insolvency of Medicare.


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@Ralph Deeds - That was fast - glad you found this new effort so quickly, and glad you took the time to comment.

but....

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because although Canada's system does cost less, I think the statement that it produces better results is... just as easy to contest, as it is to defend. I have found ample data supporting both sides of that contention.

as for "ditto for most European countries" - for that one I have no problem saying, "Baloney!

for even a close example you would have to stick with, perhaps the Danes?

Britain, the largest and most visible of the examples of European national healthcare plans has tons of documented examples of the inefficiencies and inequities of the system.

Waiting lists for most "non-emergency" services

Limited availability due to limited medical resources

Bureaucracies that meet mandated standards, merely by throwing away current waiting lists and starting fresh ones, and more....

I won't concede this point, I think I'm right. But I'm sure you think so too, and will find just as much available data to prove it... so again, we' will just have to settle on disagreeing.

But I do find the latter part of your comment more agreeable to the information that has helped form my own opinions.

Glad to have your comments, I appreciate the opportunity for interaction with folks that disagree with me.

GA


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 5 years ago

Here's a link to a series of charts on health care in 9 advanced countries. Note that life expectancy at birth in 2006 was ninth out of the nine countries and significantly lower than Canada. (See page 59 for life expectancy.)

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Surv...


yellowstone8750 profile image

yellowstone8750 5 years ago from Taos, nm

I lived in Toronto, their system (in more ways than one) is better than ours. We cannot be filled with blind jingoism...not that you are. I have to side with deeds.



GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@Ralph - thanks for the links - I will leave them for others to check... for now.

When I get more time I will follow-up and get back to you

GA


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@yellowstone8750 - welcome, and come on in. Thanks for the read, and comment

care to elaborate on how you see it as better?

I'm sure I'm not the only one interested, and it would be nice to hear some first-hand instead of relying on the online chaff available.

GA


HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Interesting Hub, GA. I agree with you that the money in our political system corrupts it all. It hinders good legislation. I do feel that single payer would dramatically cut administrative costs. The new Healthcare Reform plan won't because it keeps insurance companies in control. The corruption of money was shown in this bill's passage with all groups getting a chance to water it down. The approval and denial of procedures is being done today by the insurance companies. At least the government would be politically responsive to citizen complaints of denied services. I still feel that we need a syatem that rewards healthy results not just services and procedures. Until then we will have a dysfunctional system. Of course that is also true with the corruption of money in our political system. The bottom line is our current healthcare system must be fixed. Continuation on this course will bankrupt us all.


claptona profile image

claptona 5 years ago from Earth

Hi GA,

Why do you post so much.

Then I have to read it and comment!

My view is pretty simple - if the government is involved in it, whatever it is, it stinks.

If people in government knew how to run a business, that's what they would be doing. They would not be forcing others to be doing somethings with threats of jail and fines.

That said, no government program is run well. The largest programs are run the worst. Welcome to the new Amerika (Spelled correctly in my opinion because it's not the America that I grew up in)

Keep punching along there, bud!

Cheers,

John D. Wilson


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

A most compelling argument, GA, and I confess that this is a topic that has many details that I have yet to learn and appreciate. Obama's Heathcare program is not single payer from what I understand. You have shown us the negatives of a single payer plan. In the face of its'socialist' implications, how would a free-market solution patch up the wound more efficiently, because the status-quo won't do? That much I do know.

I do agree with you on the influence of big money people in all of this. I have been telling the conservatives for some time that these people are wolves, whose power to inflluence and corrupt political institutions must be reined in or they will take it all!


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@credence2 - you are very correct about many details - but not just for you to learn, but all of us, including the legislators.

It is the single-payer system that I was pointing to. You are correct - Obamacare, as passed, is not a single-payer plan, but its components, I believe, if allowed to become active law, will force us to a single-payer system.

but, anyway - it was the socialism of the single-payer system as advocated that I oppose, not necessarily a national healthcare direction

As for Big Money being wolves - of course they are, (barring inheritances), they wouldn't have become Big Money otherwise.

But we are all wolves - it's just how many layers do you peel to get there, and how ambitious a personality is involved.

Don't think you are a wolf too?

consider this..

four fathers, (each with young kids), standing on the perimeter of a boxing ring

their children are literally one meal away from dying from starvation.

the prize in the center of the ring is the very exact amount of food needed to save 3 children - not 1/10th of an ounce more

if the food is divided some children will die

each father has a weapon, but yours is the most lethal, and you the most able

at the bell - do you find your wolf, or allow your children to die so that others may live.

Now, that's not intended to justify or even explain Big Money - just to point out our enlightened human behavior and lofty morals and goals on only a feel peels of the onion away from the wolf that will tear your throat out for that piece of meat.

so you need another descriptor for those greedy evil Big Money folks - the ones that give other people with big money a bad name are just crummy people, and you will find those in every economic level

GA


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

GA, I still think that it is possible to have and not be greedy, to clear the board. No, GA, I could not be a wolf, certain things belong to you regardless of the money I have. The greedy will keep pulling and pulling until they pull out their own entrails. I am all for getting rich and having large sums of money, just don't use it and its influence at my expense. Those that use their resources to the detriment of the rest of us, deserve the bad name that they get.

"For the rich man, the entire world is a brothel"

Cred2


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@Credence2 - So in the 4 fathers example - you could not be a wolf - you would let your children starve instead of competing with other humans with the same reward/penalty motivation

on a societal level - with the luxury of choice, I would not choose to be greedy either, there would be a couple layers between everyday life and the wolf

but in a survival example - with only a live or die choice - I know my wolf is there.

I think yours would be too.

GA


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Sorry, GA, I did get carried away a little. I failed to check your example. Yes, of course I would use all of the advantages I had to survive. But we all know that Thurston Howell and company are not facing such dire odds of survival.

We live in a system that is driven by the profit motive and a certain amount of greed and self interests are necessary to give people the incentive to acheive. But there is that fine line and Thurston Howell is not facing a live or die choice, but a choice to provide himself unendless surpulus, fattening himself at the expense of the others.

You take all the chips from the game table and hand them to one side, the game is over and as such it will be time for the little guy to "Storm the Bastille", at such a time his money will be useless. The rich had better hope that the system in which they attain their wealth and which allows them to maintain it is in tact. It if continues to be perceived that the playing field is not level for the man in the street......

Cmon, GA, this example can't be used to describe the Enrons, Boeskys, and Madeoffs.

Cred2

If I ask for bread and some plutocrat tell me to "go eat cake", I will have his head!


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@Credence LOL - We are talking around each other

We don't disagree about the nasty folks that use their money and power to their advantage, to the detriment of others.

My problem with most of these discussions, (not just ours), is that instead of addressing the greedy immoral people behind the the problem - they instead address the tool. Money, big money. But for every example of people using the power of their corporations, or other vehicles of Big Money - there are many more big money companies and people that are good world citizens.

Stop attacking the tool and name the tool user.

For every Enron - there are many more that are like Chick-Fil-A Inc. 3.5 billion annual sales - but refuses to open franchises on Sundays - owners think it's important for employees to be with families that day

3.5 billion is pretty big money but you don't hear about them

It's the people that are bad not the money or corps.

McDonalds is Big Money - but ask any parent that has ever stayed at a Ronald McDonald house free so they could be with their critically sick children, if they think McDonalds is bad

Madoff just a plain crook on a grand scale - just a scam artist that took advantage of other people's greed

Most people that had the money to buy into his scheme of extraordinary returns were smart enough to know better

the best financial managers they could find couldn't get them better returns than anyone else in the market - so why did they fall for Madoff's scheme - greed.

anyway, I shouldn't get so carried away. But folks just try to deny that it's all just human nature, the only difference being whether a person has the character to understand what actions are right, which are wrong, and the character to make the right choice.

Greed is in all of us.

GA


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA Author

@HSchneider - all good points - that I can agree with.

If we could get politicians immune to the corruption of money, then we could get the reform we need, and still retain private healthcare companies - on a level playing field.

Competition benefits everyone - but as long as influence can be bought - we will always be on tilt

GA

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working