Healthcare CEO Death

Reactions to the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare has generated as much news coverage and speculation as the killing itself. From fear that other healthcare industry heads might be targeted to praise for the killer in doing something that so many Americans may have contemplated after being denied, delayed or deposed during the processing of a claim, the response to this death has been widespread. While there are still more details to come, I thought it was time to express my thoughts at this time.

Generally, I am against violence as a means to achieve a goal or make a point. Killing never changes anyone's mind, never creates thoughtful dialogue between those advocating for death and those experiencing the fallout from such actions.

And, if we are to continue to believe that we are a Christian nation, meaning a people who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, then I feel confident when I say that the commandment "thou shalt kill" does not include an asterisk with caveats such as "unless they are one's enemy" or "except in revenge" or "to illustrate the hypocrisy of CEO's who create policies that increase profit over the lives of its customers".

Still, it is also true that I published a story in 2013 in which violence was used to make a point, and that in the story said violence is successful in creating change. Here is a link to that story if you are interested or have forgotten its message.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-conspiracy-that-changed-america.html 

So, that being said, what is my take on this killing?

First, while I attempt to be consistent in my writings, in the expression of my thoughts and opinions, as I have posted over 600 entries under this blog, I do not apologize for what some may interpret as flip flopping on any topic. 

Opinions evolve, perceptions change with new experiences, the passing of time effects how the present and (somewhat) limited future is considered, is expected to transpire.

In this case, if the behavior of those who make the macro decisions about our healthcare system changes, whether through policy or the use of certain algorithms, and starts to lean away from profit and more towards better health care results for Americans, then I join in the chorus of those who consider the alleged killer a folk hero, especially when one realizes that this young man has sacrificed his future, a future that had all the advantages that can be conveyed on someone born to privilege. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the case, which means that both the loss of a future for the young man, and the loss of life for the CEO (and pain which will last decades in the lives of his wife and children), will have been for naught. 

Because the reality is that America's healthcare system will never focus on healthy outcomes as long as large sums of money can be made by those who control the levers of the system, and that in earning those large salaries and profits, care for patients is secondary.

It's not hard to find evidence of just how much money is made by executives of health insurance companies, how much profit these same companies have made, and how far down the list of best health care systems in the world as graded by outcomes, America falls.

Maternal death rates, infant mortality rates, longevity rates are just a few of the metrics that demonstrate how poor are some health outcomes in our country. And this isn't just an indictment of the health care system, as it is we, the people, who are just as much to blame. 

From the elevation of certain individuals who choose to block out the history of vaccines in preventing death and disease, to the rampant conspiracy theories that were prevalent during the Covid years which discounted actual medical research in favor of internet cures and quack theories, and, worse of all, our communal resistance to a  universal healthcare system because of the fear of the dreaded S word, socialism, we prefer a system that provides the best healthcare in the world but only to those who can afford it.

Proof of this assertion? We continue to elect public servants who take large sums of money from the very health care insurance companies that we all despise. We rail about the system, complain till we are blue in the face, then vote for people who tell us that treating health care as a commodity is going to make outcomes better. Every time we enter a voting booth, we conveniently forget that the sickest among us are usually those with the least resources to pay for the care they need, all the while somehow believing that when we or someone in our family faces a serious health crisis, our care will somehow be valued more than the premiums we have paid. That capitalism will take a sidebar when someone in our families needs care regardless of ability to pay.

One of the very first post I wrote, in March 2010, was under the topic of healthcare. After reading it, I feel sad that the issues we faced along these lines almost fifteen years ago, have not changed all that much. And the questions I pose in the post, are no where near to being answered. Here is a link if your are interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-reform.html

The truly sad part to all of this, is that our national schism as pertaining to politics, overlaps and engulfs this important topic while to me, affordable, accessible health care for all Americans should be a bipartisan issue where the debate is how to achieve it, not whether it should be a right or not.

Answers? Like most issues, there are answers, both complex and simple. But like most issues in America, there are far too many monied special interests that pollute the conversation, that provide reams of misinformation and downright lies, that prefer their piles of money and power and influence over the health of their fellow citizens. 

In past posts, I have proposed a universal health system run by eah state. Federal rules that create a framework which might include basic catastrophic coverage with low premiums but higher deductibles for the generally young, healthy, single population, up to guaranteed maternal/paternal paid leave, higher premiums and lower deductibles for those with multiple family members, and some in between choices that balance premiums, deductibles and complexity of coverage. 

But, again, administered at the state level, so that each state, within the framework of federal rules, can work with those health insurers that choose to participate to craft policies and programs that target the needs of its citizens. 

That being said, I do believe that over time, some states may combine their programs to attain better rates, especially those states with low populations. I can envision a number of regional systems developing over time, but those decisions would be left to the legislators of those states, and the citizens who elect them.

Health insurance would still be mandatory, either as part of a parental plan or individually once the age of 26 is reached, pre-existing conditions exclusions would still be unlawful, and, hopefully, the concept of medical bankruptcy would be eliminated.

While doctors might still need to understand the coverage details of a patient's chosen plan, they would not be employed by the state, would not be paid by the state, but still be reimbursed for their services by the insurance company and patient. 

Of course, those with more resources would still be able to seek medical care wherever they wanted, without going through an insurance provider, but would still need to pay a premium into the system to support its viability.

Whether this system would work can certainly be debated. And, while the president elect might have a concept of a plan to replace the ACA, I am skeptical if he will look beyond the structure that capitalism offers us when contemplating a change in our health care industry.

But again, there are no changes that can be made if we continue to reward those companies and CEO's and, indirectly through campaign donations, our elected officials, with large profits and salaries. 

Perhaps it is naive to think we could ever evolve our system to a low or no profit one which would be my preference, but I don't think it is out of the question for health insurance companies to make a nice profit while also providing all Americans with affordable and accessible health care. 

At least it should be possible if we are to continue to believe we are the greatest country ever.... 

   

 

Notre Dame, Gender Roles and Solar Fuel

I recently finished the December issue of National Geographic. The highlight was a spectacular article on the restoration process for the cathedral of Notre Dame which was completed last week. For those of you who have forgotten, the iconic building was severely damaged by fire in April of 2019.

I was struck by two particular aspects of the restoration project. First, the effort was a cooperative effort which included a couple thousand individuals from a myriad of backgrounds and disciplines. While I am sure there was someone, or a few someones who led the project, it was clear from reading the article that opinions, perspectives and viewpoints from countless artisans, craftsmen, historians, engineers, even fire safety experts, among others, were instrumental in creating the end result. 

For me, it confirms my belief, despite the current popularity of me first philosophies, that our greatest accomplishments are cooperative in nature.

The second amazing feature is the simple fact that the final product will combine the styles and innovations of three eras of construction, medieval, 19th century and today. Again, I am sure there were some compromises from people who represented those three eras, yet mutual respect and support among them produced the end result.

If possible, I recommend you access the article online, or by purchasing a copy of the edition. As it is the December issue, which historically includes dozens of pictures of the year, it is worth having on that score as well.

Another interesting article in this edition touched on research into gender roles, or more specifically, how a new tool for studying human remains is upending what we thought we knew about gender in past societies.

For instance, in 2008 archaeologists discovered a tomb in Spain which contained lavish goods. At the time, scholars estimated the site to be 4500 to 5200 years old, and, based on the apparent age of the skeleton, and the luxuriousness of the burial, it was assumed that this was a man who had held an elite position in that society.

Flash forward to 2023 when a team of researchers used a new method to infer the biological sex, the protein from a tooth. Their conclusion was that this body was female, not male, a determination that could challenge our understanding of the importance and role of women in past societies.

Now certainly, one tomb of a women with elite status within their community, does not a trend make. However, it is also true that when interpreting information, our biases often dictate the direction which our conclusions might follow. In other words, if we assume all past societies were led by men, we assume all evidence of stature and influence align with our prejudice for male dominated societal structures, then any evidence of elite female burials must assume a secondary position to the husband, father, brother, etc.

This simple deduction, that when research fields are dominated by men who live in societies controlled by men, the vast percentage of discoveries and analyses of those discoveries will tend to emphasize a male dominated explanation. One might even say that should someone offer the suggestion of a female dominated society, much ridicule would follow. 

I say this, despite the adage that behind every successful man, there is a woman, because even when that saying is remotely believed, at the end of the day it is still the man in question that receives the praise and adulation.

One of the numerous advantages to reading history, not just his story, is that there are indeed a plethora of women who made huge contributions to our culture, although they have most likely been overlooked, not just by their contemporaries, but by the history books as well.

As simple proof of this claim is that while stories of women taking on male pseudonyms to hide their gender is replete in history, it is difficult to name a male who took on a female pseudonym. It just wasn't necessary and in fact, would most likely have created the opposite effect.

Interestingly, another recently reevaluated discovery, this time of two side by side skeletons holding hands, was determined to be two males. And so, again, it makes one wonder how and why the difficulty with homosexuality evolved. 

While I am no scientist, hold no advanced degrees, have not spent my life researching this topic, I don't need to have any sort of extensive knowledge base to comment on my theory. It is both the beauty and the beast of the internet, of having the ability to communicate with the entire world, and be able to access information from that world without filter for fact or truth.

My theory then? It is religion that has created much of the bias against strong female leaders and against love between same sex partners. Religion, that world-wide industry of control which exists to save us from the "other", and which, no coincidence, is controlled by men.

One last note on this topic. Over the summer, during a conversation with relatives, when I suggested that there weren't a lot of women fighter pilots in America's military because women were not historically allowed to attempt to qualify, my response was met with derision by someone who truly believes that my contention was typical of those who believe in diversity, equity and inclusion. You know, us woke people. 

This is not to say that this particular person doesn't think there may be exceptions, the occasional women who can be successful in a man's job, but his belief is that we have gone too far in thinking that any women who believes they can do it, deserves the support and opportunity to do so. He was unable to understand that his own niece, who is currently employed in a profession that women were not allowed to pursue just a few generations ago, just needed the chance to try, a chance not afforded to women in the recent past.

While it is encouraging that my niece has been able to achieve her dream, it is still frustrating to see that the pendulum seems to have stopped in these past eight to ten years. I see this trend away from gender equality in the odious abortion laws that are resulting in the death of young women, and in the equally repulsive laws that are isolating people who are struggling with their gender identity and who have now been labelled the lepers of our culture.

One other interesting item along these lines is that there was a brief article detailing the all women crew who are studying climate change at the top of the world in an environment that women "could not handle", or so was believed not that long ago. Another example of women achieving despite the prevalent belief that they just can't.

Lastly, there was a brief mention in the December issue about a new form of energy made from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. Could this solar synthetic fluid replace fossil fuels in the next fifty years?

One could easily imagine that what will hold it back, may simply be the same axiom that women have faced for most of history; that it just can't be done. Of course, such an advancement in energy might also face an uphill battle from the fossil fuel industry, who like some men who are unwilling to surrender the possibility that they are the dominant sex, will not willingly give up their position of dominance, power and money.