The Epstein Suicide - Smells Like Foul Play

Here are the facts:  Jeffrey Epstein was found unconscious on the floor of his jail cell with bruises on his neck.  Jail officials tentatively considered it an attempted suicide and placed him on suicide watch.  Six days later he was taken off suicide watch; there has been no explanation why.  

Then prison officials told the Justice Department that security would be looking in on Epstein every 30 minutes and that he would have a cell-mate.   All efforts to reduce the likelihood of suicide, although not as stringent as being on suicide watch.  

The night that he hanged himself, the guards did not check on him every 30 minutes; apparently not at all.  And, his cell-mate was moved to a different cell and he was alone.

Now let me relate a scene from The Godfather.  Don Corleone was recuperating in a hospital under police guard.  When his son visits, he finds that no police are guarding his father.  He suspects that they have been removed on purpose to set things up for another assassination attempt.  So the mob calls in its own security.  When the hit men arrive, watched over by a crooked cop, they find they were outfoxed and are forced to drive away.

When I read the facts related above, I thought immediately of the scene from The Godfather.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these facts are so odd, beyond odd for something as regimented and professional as a Federal prison, that they naturally make one suspect foul play.

I do not think, as many conspiracy theorists on the right or left have written, that Epstein was left alone so that he could be murdered.  I think he was left alone so that he could commit suicide.  A very smart move.

As to who was behind this.  Those on the right with their Clinton theories are going down the same road they have often gone before.  “Lock her up!”  Trump on Saturday not surprisingly retweeted Epstein conspiracy theories involving Clinton.  But while Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several times, I have read nothing about any personal interaction that could be considered dirt.  

Trump on the other hand has been identified as being seen with models going to Epstein’s Manhattan town house.  He and Epstein have been identified as being the only males at a private party at Mar-a-Lago with multiple women. He has also been quoted in New York Magazine as making this comment about Epstein, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”  

Trump would appear to have much more to be worried about from an Epstein investigation/trial than Bill Clinton.  No sex accusation so far has knocked him down; but this had the potential of doing him real harm, both regarding his supporters and the threat of impeachment.  

Further, Trump’s White House has been described as being a mob-like world with Trump being the mob boss.  He is known to ask himself, “What would Roy Cohn advise?  What would John Gotti do?”  The parallel is chilling.

I’m not saying that Trump ordered this.  But as an example, Henry II of England is said to have said, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest,” which led to the murder of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1170.  One could imagine Trump saying something similar and one of his henchmen arranging Epstein to be left alone.

Oscar Wilde said that life imitates art.  This may be one of those instances.  May the investigation proceed.

The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of Historic American Values

The title of this piece may strike the reader as over the top, but it really isn’t.  Because it isn’t about whether the form of democracy will survive.  It probably will despite some dark words from Trump at one point about his supporters not accepting a narrow loss.  This post is about whether the concept of democracy that led to the founding of our country and our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … will survive.

This concept is what ultimately made America great, made us a beacon to the world.  I love Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  Unfortunately, he has no idea what made America great.  It wasn’t our power, our military, our economy, or our strong middle class.  Though of course in once sense it was.  But what enabled our country to have that power, to develop in this manner compared to other countries, whether democratic or communist, was the concept of American democracy.

What are the key elements of that concept?  Note: These elements, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been or be true on the ground, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key elements of American democracy.

        Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at      the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years,          America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central.

        We are equal citizens also in the sense that we all have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  That concept is the basis for all our laws, both criminal and civil.  We do not live in an anarchy; one can’t just do what one wants to do.  Even if you are exercising a constitutional right, you cannot in so doing harm another person or restrict that person in exercising their right.  No right is absolute

        Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to be President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

        Unity with Diversity:  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as with any large groupings of people, people have from the start had disagreements, both within the groups but especially between the groups.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

       Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

        This shared sense of citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government through the paying of taxes, each according to his ability.  And when there was a military draft, all participated (except draft dodgers) and supported America, even at the cost of their lives.  Under this social contract, we are  not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

         In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and people of color, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  This does not mean that some level of us v them didn’t exist anymore; it certainly did.  And people were still discriminated against.  But it was far less.  Political correctness has been given a bad name, but there is much to be said for people feeling that it is not socially acceptable to have or utter certain thoughts, or take certain actions.

         In the halls of Congress, this unity/diversity was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.

But several decades ago, things began to change.  Ronald Reagan ushered in the “me” generation and a broad distrust of government … “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”  As the years passed, Republicans in Congress became less civil.  They went from having a conservative outlook on what government’s responsibilities were to being antagonistic towards government and the people of color and others that government helps.

Now the Trump presidency has dropped all pretense of being committed to democracy, to governing for all Americans, to being a unifying force.  Instead he has provoked and manufactured grievances that have exacerbated the already existing divisions in our society, to the point where we are polarized as possibly never before.  Where Trump supporters and those on the progressive left truly hate each other.  Where talking and compromise is no longer an option.

The dynamics of American politics and group interaction have deteriorated to such an extent that it raises serious question whether something can return this country and its people back to sanity and respectful coexistence.  But we must try.  The Democratic Party must make returning this country to its true roots the central platform of its 2020 campaign.  It must present a cohesive, positive, vision that speaks to all Americans.  It must drop the strategy of identity politics.

As I’ve suggested in the past, the best way of doing that is to turn America’s focus to the Declaration of Independence and base the Party’s vision on those words which are familiar to every American.  It is those words that are the heart and soul of the concept of American democracy.

I therefore suggest the following mission/vision for the Democratic Party:

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has the best chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … “to secure those rights”, within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and 
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.

This statement will speak to all Americans.  Most specifically, it will speak both to those aggrieved Midwestern whites who voted for Trump in 2016 and to those disillusioned blacks who did not turn out to vote for Hillary.  

There is no need for identity politics.  For there is no real conflict between the interests of the various groups in our society, so long as no group is greedy.  The right mix of policies will provide all groups with the opportunity they deserve in our democracy.  What they make of that opportunity is then up to them; that is the American way.

All the policies of the Party must flow from this mission statement.  Whether the issue is health care, immigration, education, jobs, defense, civil rights, or religion … the Democratic position must further the greater opportunity of all.  For a more detailed explication of this concept, see my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

A Lack of Humanity Is Endemic in Our Culture

Yesterday, I had two experiences that brought home a major problem of our culture … it’s inhumanity.  We tend to think of this as a corporate problem, for example the stories of insurance companies denying claims or corporations moving forward with toxic products that harm their employees and the environment.  It’s all about money, the bottom line, not about people.

But yesterday, the experience was more “up front and personal.”  When I was at the local supermarket, the deli manager did not look happy.  I usually banter with her so I asked her what was wrong.  She told me that management is not allowing her to take time off to get her brakes fixed.  And they need to get fixed.

The second experience was at a Mexican restaurant I frequent.  I said to the waitress, who is always there and very pleasant, that when I was there the last time neither she nor any of the usual staff was there.  She confided in me that the manager had put her on probation and cut her hours because she had had to take off from work because her son was in the hospital!

What is wrong with people?  This is not a situation where a corporation is dealing with someone who is anonymous, a number, where inhumanity is bad enough.  This is person to person, people who work together every day.  And still, the reaction of management is impersonal, inhumane.  The restaurant isn’t even a corporate setting.  

I’m sure that management’s response would be that they are judged by the numbers they produce.  So they have to be strict.  But this is not about being strict.  If someone has to take time off to get their brakes fixed, this is an emergency or will prevent one.  If a child is taken to the hospital and the mother feels she needs to be there, then don’t punish her.

I assume that both these individuals did not have any personal time left, if they even had any to begin with.  And I’m sure it’s an inconvenience for management to get someone else to cover their hours.  But there’s always someone looking for extra hours.  Or someone to shift around.

I have a suspicion that part of the reason for management’s reaction was that the requests were from hourly staff.  If someone salaried asked for time off for these purposes, my bet is that it would probably have been granted.  In today’s workplace, there is no respect for hourly staff; they are expendable.

The point of this post is that the inhumanity of our culture (see my various posts, for example, “Creating a Safer World for Our Children”) has seeped into all corners, even small, person-to-person settings.  People are infected by the bug of impersonality.  Their addiction to their screens and social media has made them oddly incapable of handling real live interactions; studies have shown this.  I would bet that 40-50 years ago, these two women would not have had this experience.

When Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson speaks about the need for more decency in our society, she has hit the nail on its head.  Unfortunately, having people see that need, let alone guiding them to the point where they are able to act on that need, is a lost cause for the mass of people.  They are a total captive of our culture.  The problem is not just Trump, it is our culture.

But as I always say, individuals have the ability to march to a different drummer.  They can build their own world of humanity regardless what is going on around them.  It takes great discipline and faith.  But it is possible.

Sex - Misused and Abused - A Different Perspective

The reader might well ask, what does sex have to do with preserving American values?  Well, for one thing, as we know from the #MeToo experience, the male craving for sex often impacts the independence and integrity of women.  Their freedom from such abuse should certainly be an American value.  

But also regarding the male, when an individual has a craving for anything, let alone sex, he is not free  He may be free in the political sense, but he is not free in the sense of being the master of himself. of being able to decide and do what is in his best interest.  The American value of freedom goes beyond the political.  Your ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is not just impacted by external forces, it is greatly impacted by one’s own internal forces.

And while healthy committed relationships or marriages may not be an American value as such, it is certainly something which society says it wants to foster.  And should.  It is critical that future generations of Americans be raised in supportive families, free of neurotic dynamics.  Free of the craving for “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”  We must cleanse ourselves of the scourge of addiction.

Here is the case against sex as we know it.  The lust for sex is a huge force in directing man’s actions.  Second only to the craving for money and power.   As such, it is a major source of stress, it comes between people as much as it binds them together, and it is an antagonist to spirituality.  It has ruined relationships.  It has ruined more than one political career, and in the #MeToo generation, it has brought many powerful people in different sectors of our culture low. 

Sex is a function critical to the survival of almost all species of life on Earth.  How then has sex become such a negative factor for man?  

With the exception of man, evolution has developed the function of sex to be discreet in its purpose and limited and particular as to its timing.  It’s purpose is procreation and survival of the fittest; Whether one looks at plants, fish, or even man’s closest animal relative - the apes - this is the limited function of sex.  And it can only occur during finite periods of time.

For man, however, sex has become something very different.  How did that come to be?  While women have been found to be more “lusty” during their fertile days, women, contrary to females of all other species, are “available” for sex throughout the year.  

And since males of most mammal species are horny beasts (we’ve all experienced a dog arousing himself on someone’s leg), the human male certainly takes advantage of that, even when procreation is unlikely.  Why?  Because we derive pleasure and other satisfaction from the sex act.  

That men and even women derive pleasure from sex is hardly a new phenomenon.  But in our contemporary culture, pleasure has become the primary purpose of sex … consistent with the pleasure syndrome which predominates our culture.  It also serves various psychological needs as noted below.  Procreation is now only a tangential function since through the use of various means of contraception, sex typically only results in pregnancy when you want it to, which is rarely.

The result is that sex is now one of the leading problems in relationships.  Basically said, if men especially aren’t finding sex pleasurable anymore, they either look elsewhere for that satisfaction and/or it becomes one of several factors that leads to a failed relationship and divorce. 

A related problem is that if a couple does have good sex, that gets confused, especially in the early stages of a relationship, with feeling they are in love or loved.  And that just isn’t the case.  It just means they have good sex.  Lust does not equal love.  But nevertheless couples get married based to a large extent on whether they have a good sex life because modern man does not know what love really is.  Feeling loved is thus dependent on having good sex.  When that’s gone, we want to move on.

The other ways in which sex is used in relationships to meet psychological needs are also not conducive to a healthy attitude towards sex and relationships.  For men especially, but also for women, the use or withholding of sex is an expression of power in a relationship where otherwise one may feel inadequate or weak.   When there are problems in a relationship, using sex to patch things up puts a burden on sex and rarely works for more than a limited time.  And for people who are unhappy with their work or other aspects of their life, the pleasure or release of sex is a respite, a distraction.  For all these reasons, the general attitude is that good sex is an essential part of a healthy relationship. 

Using sex primarily as a source of gratification, power, or bonding makes sex a source of major stress for man and is harmful to relationships.  Sex is used in the search for something which is essentially a fleeting illusion.  At the same time, its role in the procreation process is mostly negative, in that  most of the time people want to make sure that pregnancy does not result from sex.

How to improve the stability and nourishing nature of marriage and other committed relationships?  The answer is to base relationships on true love (more on that below), return sex to its primary purpose of procreation, and realize that there are other, more stable ways to establish a loving, intimate bond with a spouse/partner that do not involve the sex act.  “What?!”  the reader will undoubtedly exclaim.  “How absurd.”  

That is the ego-mind reacting.  Bear with me while I explain.  There is great comfort, satisfaction, and intimacy to be had within a loving relationship from hugging and various types of non-sexual touching … not as foreplay to sex, but just for the warmth and intimacy it engenders.  

I speak from experience.  I am in a deeply-loving, long-term relationship with my partner who is my best friend.  We are family.  We do not have sex.  But we do have a very physical relationship.  I feel more loved and more secure than in any relationship I have ever had.  I should note that we are totally committed to our relationship and are not looking for sex elsewhere because we have all the love we need and understand that to be happy sex cannot be used as a source of pleasure.

I know this will sound crazy to most readers, whether straight or gay, but that is the truth.  Sex has become so deeply engrained in our ego-drives, our self-image, that we cannot imagine life or a relationship without it; it is a craving.  But as with all other cravings, that is just a product of the ego-mind.  Yes, sex has a biological function.  But what man has turned sex into has little to do with that function.

NOTE:  The often-held belief that ejaculation is essential for a man’s health is just not true.  There is no clear evidence of a health benefit to ejaculating or risk from not ejaculating.  There is some very weak evidence that frequent ejaculation may help prevent prostate cancer, but that’s all it is.  Arousal, however, does release certain chemicals which increase feelings of wellbeing.  But those same chemicals are released by hugging and other types of touching connected with sincere affection.

For gays and lesbians, this would mean that while their relationships would be very physical and loving, sex would not be part of the relationship.  To be blunt, orgasm would not be part of their relationship or their lives.  As for their raising a family, having a sex-less relationship will obviously not impact that since sex was never part of that for them anyway; gays and lesbians have found methods to have biologically-related children without engaging in procreative sex,.

What about teenagers and older uncommitted individuals?  For them, sex would no longer be part of the right of passage into adulthood or a means of satisfying oneself or coarsely expressing oneself or having the pleasure of someone’s company by hooking up.  These are measures, often desperate, that people take to fill an emptiness in their lives.  We must instead raise children so there is no emptiness that needs to be filled.  (See my book, Raising a Happy Child.)

I am not underestimating the huge change this would entail for most people.  The initial gap in their lives.  Again people would have to be taught that there are other forms of physical interaction which are very satisfying and far less problematic.  People will have to be taught to have a different relationship with themselves.

With sex returned to its biologically-intended purpose … procreation, sex will then regain real meaning and be a source of growth and maturity.   Both male and female will be making a statement, a real commitment to the future, when they have procreative sex.  The ecstasy of sex will be connected with the desire to create a family, not satisfying some ego-desire for a high.

But there is another real kicker in my proposal … most people have no clue as to what true love is.  Yet this must form the basis of the new relationship.  

This is unfortunately not something we typically learn through our experience … not from our parents, movies, or any aspect of our culture.  Since love not sex will be the cornerstone of a relationship, this means that couples will need to learn what love really means and how to develop it between two people.   

Simply said, love develops from mutual feelings of trust, respect, caring, and thoughtfulness.  One will have to be taught this or learn it from a book since it is not part of our culture.  Shedding the cultural connection between sex and love will be difficult.  But these mutual feelings I listed are the sine qua non of a loving, lasting, relationship.  Of course issues of character and interest compatibility also play an important role in a relationship’s longevity.

I should say that I do not mean to imply that there are no lasting relationships based on true love that have sex as an integral part of the relationship, not just used for procreation.  What I’m saying is that our current attitude towards sex is for the most part destructive both to the individual and to relationships.  And so the dynamic needs to change.

The benefits of this change to both the individual and society would be significant.  For individuals, couples and their children it would bring an increased feeling of security and peace, which would in turn substantially change the dynamics within a typical family, benefiting the psyches of all.  For society it would mean a decrease in both illegitimate and unwanted pregnancies/births, a substantial decrease in the divorce rate, a decrease in all forms of spousal and child abuse, both physical and psychological, and a substantial decrease if not elimination of sex addiction.  Just for starters.  Spiritually, it would enable man to overcome a major barrier to being a master of himself.

While my proposal will sound absurd and futuristic to many, the argument that a marriage or other committed relationship should be based on true love rather than sex/lust, and that sex is actually detrimental to a relationship is not a new thought.  To my surprise, although I shouldn’t have been since Montaigne is always wise and amazingly pertinent, I discovered that the French 16th century philosopher/essayist had the following to say, after I began writing this post:

 “I see no marriages that sooner are troubled and fail than those that progress by means of beauty and amorous desires.  It needs more solid and stable foundations, and we need to go at it more circumspectly; this ebullient ardor is no good for it.”  

“A good marriage rejects the company and conditions of sex.  It tries to reproduce those of friendship.  It is a sweet association of life, full of constancy, trust, and an infinite number of useful and solid services and mutual obligations.”

It is unfortunately impossible to imagine such a change happening on a society-wide basis.  It would require a major change in the way many aspects of our culture operate, the experiences people have as they are growing up.  

But we as individuals have the ability to make these changes on our own, to listen to a different drummer, regardless what is going on around us.  It “just” requires making a commitment first to oneself and then finding another compatible soul to enter this journey.  This is something that is within your power to do.  Think about it!

This post is dedicated to my partner to whom this concept of sex was revealed recently and who shared it with me.

My Takeaway from the Mueller Testimony

The New York Times and other major media depicted Mueller’s testimony as being a loss for the Democrats.  Nothing new was revealed, no existing facts were heightened or sensationalized.  It was nothing more than a regurgitation of the Report.  Certainly nothing happened that caused any Republicans in Congress to give second thoughts about whether to stand behind Trump.

However, when Mueller was asked in his morning appearance whether he didn’t indict Trump because of the standing Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he responded, “That is correct.”  When a Republican representative followed up to clarify, he confirmed what he had just said.

But in his opening statement for his afternoon appearance, he backtracked and said that opinion kept them from even considering whether Trump had committed a crime.  That revised statement was a disappointment for the Democrats.

But wait, something doesn’t make sense.  Mueller did find that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to sustain a charge regarding collusion with the Russians.  So while he couldn’t indict, he could exonerate.  The fact that he didn’t do the same on the obstruction charge leads to the inescapable conclusion that he felt Trump committed obstruction, as he indicated in his morning testimony.  But no one asked that question.

Since it now is clear that the Special Counsel felt he could not determine whether Trump had engaged in an obstruction of justice, but just laid out the facts, it is up to the House to determine whether he engaged in obstruction and thus engaged in an impeachable offense.

The Democratic Platform for 2020?

I have argued for years that Democrats need to have a cohesive positive vision for America that speaks to the average American, and policies that flow from it (see my book, We Still Hold These Truths, and my post “The Perennial Search for the Democrats’ Mission”).  Never has that been more important than for the 2020 election.  

We have a mad President to whom roughly a third of the voting electorate is in thrall.  In typical populist style, he has whipped them to a frenzy.  The rest of the electorate is not in thrall and indeed rather disgusted by the President.  

This is an opening for Democrats.  The key to winning is getting the uncommitted people who normally vote, and who voted for Trump in 2016, to vote for the Democrat in 2020.

But If activist progressives have their way, that opening will be squandered and Trump will win another term.  Some of their ideas are just off the wall.  Others have merit but the way they are expressed and their attitude towards those who oppose them creates ill will among a far larger group of people than those they appeal to. 

They have no nuance; no willingness to compromise.  They have no understanding what leadership involves.  Because they won their seats, they think they have a mandate; they don’t understand that the rest of the country may feel very differently.

For example, while most people would like better and cheaper health insurance, most are by and large happy with their current employer-provided insurance.  They need to be convinced and allowed to choose Medicare For All, not be forced into it by eliminating private insurance off the bat.  That scares them and creates a feeling of insecurity.  Let’s get back to the initial goal of making all Americans health care secure by providing access to those who don’t have it now.  Medicare For All should initially be an option for all.

Most people want to treat immigrants and asylum seekers fairly.  On the other hand, regardless our history as a nation of immigrants, many feel that things are different now than in the 19th and early 20th century.  We cannot have open doors.  And so the idea of decriminalizing illegal entry seems wrong-headed.  And providing health care by right to all illegal immigrants would not only encourage illegal immigration, millions of our own citizens don’t have that access.  

The progressive immigration reform agenda used to be to provide a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants already here and who are part of our society and economy.  That people could understand and support, depending on the details. But that goal seems lost in the current debate.

The first Democratic debate does not bode well for winning over the uncommitted group in the middle.  Despite activist progressives representing only a small fraction of the Democratic voting base, their strong presence on social media and the Squad’s in-your-face press conferences, led most of the candidates to voice positions or raise their hands in solidarity with the activists but striking fear into the rest of us who worry about another 4 years of Trump. 

I consider myself a progressive and have argued in these pages for major changes in the relationship between government, business, and the people.  But these changes must be approached incrementally; otherwise there will be no mandate for those changes.   We need a progressive candidate who is reasonable, not strident; who will appeal to the Democratic base and beyond. 

A.O.C. and Rep. Omar scare me.  That they bring a smile to Trump’s face scares me even more.

The Need to Transform the Health Care System

There is much conversation, at least among Democrats, about the need to change the health care system from one which is based on private insurers to one which is a single payer government system …Medicare For All.  But what that would look like and how we get there is not the topic of this post.

The reform that is addressed by this post is the transformation of the health care industry, and it is an industry, from a for-profit model to a non-profit model. The model would still be capitalist, private-owned.  This is not socialism.

Why is this transformation critical, separate and apart from the need to provide universal coverage through a government insurance system.

1.  Drug/therapy development/production is currently constricted.   Under the current system, pharmaceutical companies have no interest in exploring drugs to treat illness unless they would provide, if successful, a financial bonanza.  Corporations not only have to make money, they have to keep on increasing their profits in order to please investors.

They thus have no financial incentive to test whether an existing drug, certainly one that is available as a generic, can effectively treat an illness.  They also have no interest in producing a drug if they don’t make enough profit from it.

This problem has resulted in a serious shortage of drugs to treat a broad range of illnesses.  And the development of new drugs/approaches that are extremely expensive.  It has also led to marketing ploys to increase use and thus profits.

2.  The capitalist approach is not appropriate.  When it comes to making decisions that impact an individual’s or the nation’s health, whether it regards insurance coverage of a procedure or drug research, the profit motive is not appropriate.  It should not be part of the decision process.

Now it must be truthfully acknowledged that even in a nonprofit atmosphere or with government insurance, there will be a need to take account of the cost of a procedure or a drug.  Because the availability of money is not infinite.

But the decision will be made not on the basis of it’s impact on a company’s profit, but rather whether looking at the good of all it is the best use of resources.  For  example, under the current system, the last days/weeks of life are the most expensive medically and yet they give no hope of recovery; they merely postpone, often with suffering, the inevitable end.  Many will object to what is viewed as "rationing" health care, but is this the right or even compassionate use of resources?

3.  Competition is wasteful.   Since most hospital centers are for-profit institutions, they compete with each other for business just like all other corporations.  As a result each hospital feels the need to have the latest technology across a broad range of fields.  This is a very inefficient use of very expensive technology and drives up our health care costs.

The model instead should be one of regional planning, with all hospitals having a core competence but specialization and the expensive technology that supports it being divided up among the region’s hospitals.  While that would not provide the greatest convenience for the patient, it would provide significant cost benefits for the system and thus for the patient/consumer who is ultimately paying for the system either through insurance or taxes.

For these reasons, the law should be changed so that any business involved in the health care system … insurance companies, hospitals, doctors offices, pharmaceutical companies … should be required to be organized on a nonprofit basis.