Help Outside, Ignore Inside

The key words for this might be: indifference, lack of priorities, lack of interest in what matters, wish to "make believe". Truth is, this is not a new phenomenon. I'm talking about the case of black people in the US who have AIDS and yet receive less aid than people abroad. It's not really making headlines in the newspapers, though it will work as excellent racist matter for white parents who wish to keep their white kids from "fraternizing" with those "infected monkeys". Oh yeah, racism is still heavy in some of the most developed parts of the world. In the brink of an election where there is a candidate who's said to be black, and really, I would have never known if someone doesn't tell me, and even so, I don't see him black (then again, I don't think Beyoncé or Halle Berry are black...), there are harsh differences made between citizens based on flimsy matters such as skin color.

In an article about the efforts made by the US Government to aid in the fight against AIDS, the reporter mentions that there are more black people in the US with AIDS than in some of the "target nations" the Government is helping. Why is the Goverment spending $19 billion in these people and let their own black citizens struggle? The article says that if they were a separated nation, the US would surely help them, and that the percentage of adults with this virus comes close to that of Uganda. Dude, that sounds bad. Why, oh why is it so? The American black population is at risk with this virus due to the fact that many black men have several sexual partners, and so the percentage of people infected among them is higher. Okay, first of all, why talk about "Black America" and "America"? Let's start with the unavoidable FACT that AMERICA is not a country, but a continent, mainly LATIN, so you are screwed. Then the U.S. is the U.S., same and only to all its citizens. It is, at the same time, rather interesting that different politics have to be issued for different groups of citizens based on the skin color. Does it means that in the US there's a "white law" and a "black law"? Or is it that you are to help the black in detriment of the white? Or the white in detriment of the black? Segregate straights from gays, Republicans from Democrats as if they were not the same? The Government should be one and only for the entire population, helping the poor and establiching the conditions for dignified living for all citizens.

For me, the schism between citizens and the aid they get separated from skin color is just another veil upon a larger fact: the people who elect the Government, and finance it with taxes, is the first neglected. It's not a matter of black or white, but a matter that good American taxes, paid with the working effort of American citizens and residents is shipped abroad to fund wars that give little to non to negative benefits for the taxpayers, and now, on top of that, after education is crumbling into abismal medicrity and there's no "health" or "care" in the taxing American Healthcare, a good chunk of that tax money is spent in other countries, to help people that did not elected the Government and didn't pay the taxes that fund that aid. All Christian values fade here. Hell, one thing is to be a rich country aidng with its excess to poorer countries, but the US has long since been a real "rich country". Wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the large portion of the population is slipping into poverty rather fast. Arrange your home first and then help others later. Stop with this campaign to get the favor of other nations, pretending to be the Big Rescuer and for once, rescue your own people.

It's All Over The Place

What makes people think that the privatizing of capitals and goods and propuctions willbe better than the socializing of them? What makes them think that privatization can finish corruption? How can people be so stupid?

I'm not at home, but at the place of a friend's parents, out in the rural Hungary. Houses look so much different from those we are used to. Foods are also different... and they have a gozillian pets. This is people too, and you find out that it's not what it used to be.

Everybody complains, always complains and people won't be people if they wouldn't complain, so, I believe this gnawing corruption grows on this matter. It's not a matter of giving things to the private enterpreneurs, but rather to clease the public administration from all those motherfuckers who think they can keep skimming the money and living the big life out of the taxes. On and on we see how many people pay LOADS for taxes and then get nothing from their money. Bad public administrations. Is it the solution to take then the matters from the public to the private? Let's say, in the best case scenarion, the tax for it would also be eliminated. Can the private make it for the public service? Better? I don't think so, and here's the economical reason why.

If you make a given service private, make it health, education, infrastructure, social insurance or whatever, it's possible it will be taken over by different enterprises (because there will be competition), or it could be taken over by one only enterprise. Unless the enterprise is a big, transnational enterprise, its costs would be higher than those the State would have, since the State can get better prices due to:

1. It's size
2. The size of it's purchase
3. It's stability, as in the State will last forever, therefore, the enterprises selling to it can be sure that if they please the State, they can have an eternal client.
4. Due to its stability and capacity of payment (States never go into bankrupcy... save very special occasions (Mexico 1982), and yet it can bounce back from it.)

These are qualities no enterprise can fulfil, therefore they can't back up a purchase or a business the same way a country, a State can.

Aside from it, it's a known fact that enterprises work for a profit, the State works for the benefit of the nation, therefore, the State offers its services either for free or for the cost of them. So, given two services, one given by an enterprise and one for the State, the one given for the State would be for free.

Here's where you run out of the economical discussion and say: "Yes, but the State is corrupt and it doesn't work, while the private business is efficient and isn't corrupt."

First, the State can be eficient if the correct controls are applied. That's not the case. At the same time, you call the private enterprises eficient? Like... AT&T? Sprint? Like the Health Insurance Companies? Humana? So, how's it again? Please break down this "private is efficient"? Then, the private is corrupt, but either they have the RIGHT to make exceptions among people, or they PUSH the public corruption through lobbying. The Public corruption has always happened due to the private interest (most of the times....)

I believe that privatizing is a direct step towards just embracing the bad, giving away the social interest, and condoning corruption, now under its twisted legalization by the market, seen as a "reasonable way for cutting prices" or "further investing, stock diversification and profit increasing".

Give me one single example of privatizing gone well.

I rest my case.

Locky The Bunny: Health in Developped Countries: A Commodity with no Warranty

Dear Lee Jordan,




Do you have an iPod? I believe you do. Well, if you are one of those "save it all" kinds, perhapy you have around the box in which it came, or the CD, and booklets that came with it. (I believe you have already stuck the stickers to the bumpers of your car or to your non-descriptive lap top of your "frankie" desktop.) Well, perhaps you could check it (but I guess you won't) the booklets. One of them is that thicker with pictures, which you will never read because is the manual, and people never read it until after the first time the iPod broke down and you found out that Apple charges you $35 just for looking at it. THEN you read it and realize it says nothing either new or either useful. The other booklet is the "boring booklet" you sure as hell will never read save the big bold letter that say "Apple One-Year Limited Warranty". It doesn't matter until the iPod brokes doen for good, and we check whether it's within the Warranty Year and if the warranty covers the damage.

You find these warranties to a large list of products, most of them technological products. Then, as we learned a few months ago, you also find a 90 warranty on health services in some hospitals in Philadelphia. Honestly, the first time I read about that I was rolling on the floor laughing. I mean, who the hell thinks about giving warranty to a health service? I mean, the job of the doctor is to sure you, and if you don't get better, you go again and the doc keeps healing you. Of course, then again, I think in our Social Insurance system, where a part of everybody's wage goes to pay health, pregnancy and retirement insurance. I get sick, I go to the doc, and the doc does his or her best to heal me. Sure, sometimes it takes a lot of time to get an appointment, but so it happens in private clinics. Well, maybe I think that way because I live in a small, "under developed" country, and I also have the experience of a "former communist" country's Health System.

Usually, for those who do not live in the US, the idea is sold that the US is like this wonderful, miracle-land where everything is the best it can be in any part of the world. There's wealth and opportunities and the best of everything. Well, allow me to differ. I won't go into the "education" part here, nor will I go into infratructure, industry, employment, production, technology, universal access to telecommunications and opportunities, but lets just tackle the topic of "health".

On the past days, weeks even, I have been alarmed by the news about budget cuttings in the "Medicaid" insurance, which is basically the health insurance program designed for low income people in America. The "better income" health insurance programm would be "Medicare". There's people who fall in between both of these. These people earn too much to be in Medicaid, but they can't afford Medicare. There's not a plan for them, but the US Government had a program set for ten years back in the nineties, to offer health insurance for the children of families in this segment. Not all children have been covered with this insurance so far, but if I recall the numbers correctly, there are round ... two million kids covered? I believe the total number of children that should be covered raises around eight million. Now, this is only the children. You might think that grown ups either manage, or pay some sort of low insurance or something, but what about the elderly? What about a family that has to take care of the Grandpa or the Grandma? No coverage for them in this program. If there are 8 million children, how many adults and senior citizens are then uncovered? Could it be, that then parents are forced to take the kids, the COVERED kids to the doc and get medicins to give to the elders?

In the face of this, President Bush decided to cut back the budget for this plan, and so far has given no signs of supporting an extention of the program, which runs to an end this year, I believe. Because of fraud and misusage? Nah, that's just my theorizing. It's because he does not agree with the requested extention and the larger budget requested. Reason? He claims he does nto agree with how it's presented, he's "willing" to give more money , but with a better plan. Sounds loable, but then again:

1. How can he request a better plan when everybody has been sucked into the war-vortex and no one has had enough time to sit down and work on a better plan?
2. Okay, has he ACTUALLY read the whole proposal before refusing it?
3. Okay, the proposal is not good, where's HIS proposal?

On this matter we can go on and on and on. One would think that yes, if you want to enjoy a good health, or at least the level of attention we enjoy in the poor and under developped, former communist countries, you have to be loaded with money. It does upset me to think that American people is forced to pay to get health, that there where doctors out there who modified their ancient "Hypocratic" oath (I have it posted somewhere) to add: "I swear to help only those who are properly covered by an insurance plan and are up to date with their payments". That was until I read this article in the New York Times about the problems with the Medicare. "Drug lists" changed with no notice, people EXCLUDED regardless they pay up to date their payments because their treatment is too expensive. And here we are talking about AIDS patients. Poor customer service attention, poor hospital attention, messy accounts, serious lack of information about the insured's rights, and so on.

So, even when you pay the big bucks for the best health insurance your money can buy, the treat you bad. They sell you a service, but then hold back and change things at their will, not consulting you, cutting you of any chance to react. People, this is the people WITH MONEY!! People with annual incomes up to $ 80 000!!! I mean, fuck here I am with my barely earned $12 000 - $15 000 a year and I don't have "drug lists". Okay, the social health plan fixes me on generics, but they work and they do the trick. (Well, now that we have been tricked into the CAFTA, who knows for how long. But maybe, if I manage to get back home, I will be again under the protective TBK, and live will be fine and healthy again.) God forbids, but if I get AIDS or Cancer or any "expensive" illness, the social insurance will keep me on medication and treatment regularly until the day I die. And here people who earn six to eight times more than me are tied to a health plan that changes without letting him know and cut them off if their sickness is no longer profitable.

What's wrong with you people?? Where's your innate, human right to health? Mankind has made so many advances in this area, why are you being cut of it? It's already bad that the Health Insurance plans aid to set apart people by their income, etching social gaps among people, cut with the axe of economical "power", but then again, has health been so undervaluated, has human life lost its worth so much that now even those who pay are denied of the minimal expected quality?

People, health, just like education are not goods, but rights earned through centuries of development and blood spilled in historical battles for the greater good. People should not be made compete for it. The economical "vote" should not apply to them. Rich, poor, black, red, yellow, white, christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, atheistic, man, woman, child, adult... everybody should be secured the right to them, and the best of them. We cannot dehumanize to this level. People, we elect Governments, we should make them responsible for the greater good of the society. Aren't health and education VITAL to that greater good. These should never be privatized. People should not be charged for them. Everybody should have access to the best attention mankind is capable of.




Love to All,

Locky The Bunny