There's a civil suit underway alleging that a Chicago hospital's practice of charging uninsured patients nine times as much as HMO members for the same procedures disproportionately affects Hispanics and is thus racist. These sorts of disparities are actually shockingly common. One of the ways HMOs were able to lower health care inflation was by wringing huge discounts from doctors and hospitals. The parties to the suit allege, though, that the hospital is not only discounting the HMO patients but inflating the costs of uninsured patients so as to get more money out of the government when those without insurance inevitably fail to pay. That's a fascinating allegation, but not nearly as interesting as the hospital's response.
While not disputing the overcharge, the owner of the hospital chain, Tenet Healthcare, claims the whole suit is part of a Republican agenda to attract Hispanics to the party by championing the cause of the uninsured. But, wait. Didn't the Democrats already patent that maneuver? Could the Republicans really be so dastardly as to attempt to actually help a minority group?
Well, maybe. It appears that the Chilean-American head of the organization behind the suits, Consejo de Latinos Unidos, does have some scary Republican connections, having previously worked for two Democratic bêtes-noires: Steve Forbes and the Father of Medical Savings Accounts, GOPAC sugardaddy J. Patrick Rooney. More to the point:
"If what you're trying to do is attract Latinos to Republican candidates, wouldn't the problems of the uninsured be in that community's interest?" asked Harry Anderson, vice president of corporate communications for Tenet, a corporation with 116 hospitals in 17 states. "It becomes a political issue."Indeed, it may. What is most mind-tingling to me these days is the shift that has occurred between the two parties with respect to health care reform. In the last decade, the Democrats have become the more conservative party on this issue. Unlike the GOP, which has consistantly pushed innovations like tax credits and medical savings accounts, the Democrats seek to maintain the status quo. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the current system, like Tate Healthcare, greatly favors those with employer-based health care and screws everyone else. As the New York Times would tell you, the poor and minorities are hit hardest.
Just last fall, Democrats refused extensions of health care benefits to the unemployed because they were in the form of refundable tax-credits. They feared that the one-time use of such tax credits would threaten the employer-based system. Heaven forbid that anyone question the right of well-paid AFL-CIO members to shelter their sweet health benefits package from their taxable income. Better that the unemployed use the complicated and expensive COBRA system or, wait, even better(!), apply for Medicaid. Who cares if health care has become so expensive that the ranks of the working uninsured increase by tens of thousands every quarter? Not the Democrats! Not 'progressives'! In fact, their support of premium-increasing mandates and trial-lawyer-enriching rights-to-sue seems to indicate a real desire to destroy our healthcare system, that a single-payer may rise from the ash. By championing the cause of those who lose out in the employer-based system, Republicans are the only party fighting for real justice in health care reform. As the fella once said, ain't that a kick in the head?
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes in the Independent of the many British Muslims who support Saddam. Who are these young Turks? In whom do they most trust? Just how far are they willing to go? Take a look:
Younger objectors are appearing across the country and I don't mean the usual suspects of under-educated street fighters in deprived areas. I am talking of young Muslims in sharp suits who are working in the City, at our major hospitals as doctors, about nouvelle restaurant owners and dynamic entrepreneurs, and a large number of brilliant university academics. Some have never before been engaged in the politics of fervour.Charming, isn't she?They use the internet well; they know that Iraq was already 90 per cent compliant when the US deliberately provoked a new confrontation before imposing sanctions. They have been raised in a country where they have learnt important scepticism about politicians and the press. They trust only a handful of journalists, and Robert Fisk is one of them...
The majority world view sees the US as in the vanguard of sustaining an unjust world order. And that is exactly what Noor, a young British woman, said to me on the phone late last Friday night before adding: "And you know I too can kill myself in Oxford Street, no problem, I am very angry and very upset for Iraqis"
You know, I find myself these days very angry and upset for Israelis, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go blow myself up over at the Austin Islamic Center. I love life and Coca-Cola far too much to do a thing like that. Besides, it's wrong, no matter how irritated you are.
Tony Woodlief of the excellent Sand in the Gears predicts that as the new top dog of the Fortune 500, Wal-mart will soon be the target of high profile litigation. I wouldn't doubt it, though Jesse Jackson may have finally met his match in the Big W. Unlike many other large corporations, Wal-Mart no longer automatically settles to avoid the cost of further litigation. This strategy is one of the ways they keep their prices so low. Every year, thousands of people attempt to better their financial situation by suing their local Wal-Mart, often turning to lawyers who specialize in suing Sam. To combat this legal onslaught, the 'Mart aggressively fights those who would bleed them with torts and they usually win. If more corporations would follow their lead, there wouldn't be such a need for tort reform.