Category Archives: Political Economy

Russia & the United States:  Two Different Countries, Two Different Styles of Kleptocracy

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Stealing from Taxpayers is Kleptocratic Behavior in Any Government

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia began to transition from totalitarian communism to an oligarchy of politically connected apparatchiks and mobsters from the Soviet era.  The productive sectors of the economy such as oil and gas and manufacturing were looted in a crude takeover by a powerful criminal cabal including the KGB and high officials of the Communist Party.  There was nothing subtle about it.  The economy was dismantled and carried off by an in-group of thieves and criminal enterprises.  The health and lifestyle of the Russian people dropped precipitously.  There was no longer any pretense about an economy designed for the rise of the workers.  That era was over and kleptocracy became de rigueur.[1]

    As Soviet Communism was failing, the United States was transitioning from a “golden age of capitalism” to a dark age of government regulatory retrenchment, Wall Street dominance, loss of faith in government for the general welfare, a sinking middle class, stagnant working-class wages, and deteriorating population health.  The kleptocratic facet of the current U.S. economic dark age is far more refined than the brutish nature of the Russian oligarchy.  The conditioning of the American people has been sophisticated and in most instances difficult to recognize.

    The kleptocrats of Russia merely took what they wanted right out in the open.  U.S. kleptocrats applied an abstruse intellectual justification for weakening government checks and balances, dismantling regulatory agencies, and privatizing government services.  Mythical beliefs about a nonexistent free market were generated in leading universities and sold to legislators and the public.  Hence, a thing no more real than a unicorn was concocted by academic economists and marketed as the ultimate decision maker.  The idea of “the market” was reified into an entity – an entity has never been observed or measured – endowed by theorists with complete knowledge and the ability to make the best decision about how government should work vis a vis private industry.[2] Indeed, it has been working increasingly well for the rich and powerful.

A Kleptocrat by Any Other Name is Still a Kleptocrat: An Example

Peter G. Peterson: Multi-Billionaire Founder of Blackstone

    The late multi-billionaire Peter G. Peterson along with Stephen Schwartzman, founded the Blackstone Group, a financial services conglomerate.  Mr. Peterson dedicated a billion dollars to the privatization of Social Security and Medicare.  The trillions of dollars expended by the SS Trust Fund and Medicare program make an inviting target for a vulture capitalist.  Unfortunately, Peterson had a stellar reputation inside the Washington, D.C. beltway where cliques of corporate and individual wealth roam. His front groups such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the Concord Coalition, and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, jelled into a highly influential network of “go to” organizations for public policy.

    Maya MacGuinness, CEO of CRFB, is frequently the only person quoted when federal budgeting is covered in leading mainstream publications such as the New York Times.  Her mantra is that Social Security and Medicare are leading causes of budget deficits. This is not true and she either knows that and is lying or she is seriously incompetent and ill informed.  Either way, representatives of mainstream media – including PBS – are irresponsible for consulting her.

    Medicare is undergoing rapid privatization, and an increasing amount of public funds are diverted from care to a bevy of private for-profit financial intermediaries.  This has increased the cost of Medicare.  But this increased expenditure is not devoted to better care.  Rather it is siphoned off into shareholder earnings and benefits a few wealthy individuals.

    Medicare wasn’t privatized solely under the influence of Peter G. Peterson.  The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 included Part D – a prescription drug benefit – and was pushed by Big Pharma.  The insurance industry pushed the act because it included Part C –  privatization of the entire program under what has become known as Medicare Advantage.

    Social Security remains un-privatized and administered at a cost of ½ of 1 percent of revenue.  Wall Street would love to privatize it in the same manner as Medicare and earn huge management fees that would rake off up to 25% of revenue, which has been the experience in the privatized Chile SS program.

Nursing Home Kleptocrats

    Investors have a vast interest in frail elderly and disabled Americans institutionalized in the disgraceful U.S. nursing home system.  They can get by with a minimal, substandard, quality of care while extracting and pocketing optimal amounts of cash.  It is a shabby business carried out by sleazy businessmen in a weakly regulated government funded skilled nursing system.

    A richly funded propaganda machine and political contributions are responsible for a veil of secrecy around the corruption of an industry with little interest in optimal care of the people in their charge and from whom they are expropriating assets that would otherwise be passed to their heirs, thereby causing even more maldistribution of wealth.  While tunnelling excess amounts of government provided revenue through subsidiaries and shell companies, they have effectuated a first-class propaganda machine that has sold lies about financial hardship and underfunding from government.  I even see this lie promoted in peer reviewed journals – mostly from economists.

    Propaganda works.  The industry lobby has an effective PR campaign that leads the public to believe that it is tough to make money running nursing homes.  They rely on the lack of financial literacy among most people by noting a general low operating margin reported by most facilities. These misleading statements regarding nursing home facility cost reports submitted to state regulators and CMS are often taken at face value by academics, the media, and advocates.  Consequently, supposedly peer reviewed publications include findings from data dumps of information taken from facility-specific reports. 

Right Wing Fanaticism Didn’t Shrink Government.  However, It Did Shrink Democracy.

    A well-known anti-government fanatic once said that he wanted to shrink government down to a size small enough that he could drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the toilet.  Cute.  Grover Nordquist is the guy we are talking about here.  Although he is clearly an idiot, politicians have lived in mortal fear of his condemnation and avoided any hint that they might raise taxes – meaning individual and corporate taxes.  Reaganites, Nordquististas,  Paul-groupies (Ron and Rand) and indeed the libertarian extremist, government hating, right-wing of American politics believe that taxes feed “the beast.”  So, they were successful in collapsing individual income tax brackets, lowering corporate income taxes, and devolving taxes to the states in the form of regressive sales, excise, and user taxes.  At the same time, executive branch agencies with the purpose of protecting the public from corruption and abuse and implementing legislation have been weakened considerably.

    The middle- and lower-income classes are not paying lower taxes.  Billionaires and corporations are.  Furthermore, an increasing amount of middle- and lower-class income and wealth is being distributed to families and individuals with the highest level of income and wealth (think “spend downs” in nursing homes).  Along with privatization of government services – especially healthcare – a weakened regulatory system has been conducive to a refined form of looting through Medicare, Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Pentagon/defense budgeting, and a multitude of other forms of privatization.  Well, maybe not so refined, if we just take a closer look at it.

    Without a robust federal regulatory framework, the rights of Americans are now trampled by special interests who have been able to tilt the tax codes in their favor and takeover government services at costs higher than would be if the services were provided by federal agencies.  One unfortunate result of this form of looting is that Americans are increasingly gouged by health insurers and paying more than their peers in Asia and Europe, but their overall health is worsening. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is About to Seriously Dilute Executive Branch Regulatory Power

    Federal laws can be sweeping and complex.  The Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety & Health Act, and the Medicare Modernization Act are examples of laws that have induced systemic change in U.S. government and society.  These laws cannot anticipate, nor can they address every contingency in day-to-day implementation.  Congress has traditionally considered technically qualified agency personnel to be responsible for filling in the “gaps” in highly complex legislation.

    Industries affected by major legislative changes have typically fought administrative regulations issued by the EPA, OSHA, FDA, and a host of other regulatory agencies.  They have attempted to blunt regulations through the courts, propaganda, and the political process. However, in the 1984 case Chevron USA, Inc v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court enhanced the legitimacy and legality of agency regulations and strengthened Executive Branch oversight.  The Court held that deference should be accorded to administrative agencies with the technical capability and scientific knowledge for addressing ambiguous issues in legislation.

    That precedent is likely to be overturned when the Court hands down decisions on two cases already heard this session: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.  The cases concern regulations issued by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).  The forthcoming decisions will address two major questions:

 1. Should Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council be overruled?

2. Does statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency?[3]

     The six conservative idealogues on the court are expected to answer question 1 in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative. This is a particularly horrendous prospect for the U.S. healthcare system, which has outsourced trillions of dollars to some of the largest corporations in the United States.  These corporate behemoths with very deep pockets or trade associations with vast resources will take their dislike of particular regulations into court and will often find  friendly judges who will interpret regulations in their favor even though they – the judges – will have no scientific credentials to make technial decisions.  This has already occurred in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration[4], which was heard before the Supreme Court last week. 

    In that case, a federal judge in West Texas issued a ruling that overrides the scientific research undertaken by the FDA in the approval process for mifepristone (also known as “RU486” and “Mifeprex”) – more commonly called “an abortion pill.”  The S.C. will no doubt find that there is no standing to sue on the part of the anti-abortion doctors.  Nevertheless, the question of whether a judge can override reasonable regulations issued by the FDA will be left open.  That is where this case intersects with the Chevron deference principle that will most likely be overturned.

    This does not bode well for women’s reproductive rights specifically and for healthcare in the U.S. generally.  As these court cases pertain to kleptocracy, a corporate friendly and extreme right-wing majority on the S.C. is in a position to neuter federal agencies and strengthen the hand of kleptocrats.

Summary

    Acts of government sanctioned cheating and stealing from the American people are permeating the multi-trillion-dollar government funded healthcare system.  As government funded medical care is increasingly privatized and corporations in the business become bigger and more powerful than the agencies regulating them, more funds will be diverted illegally from care into owners’ pockets.  For instance, I’ve noticed an increasing number of nursing home facilities maltreating and underpaying employees, which discourages applicants for work and induces turnover.  At the same time, they contract for labor from subsidiaries of their parent/holding companies at an extremely high rate.  We have examples of facilities contracting with related parties for 50 to 63 percent of their labor.  State and federal agencies have failed to even notice let alone deal with this egregiously illicit practice.

    This example of labor contracting is only one of many, many forms of cheating.  MCOs often deny authorization for physician prescribed treatment in their networks to keep their cost below capitation rates.  Hiding and distorting information on cost reports, overcharging for services, upcoding therapy services, funneling funds through shell companies to hide excessive extraction of funds, and pressuring congress through bribes (campaign contributions) to unjustifiably increasing reimbursement, i.e., rent seeking are a few more examples of cheating and stealing.  It should come at no surprise that the American people pay two to three times more per capita for healthcare than the people of our Asian and European peer countries with universal, single payer, government managed healthcare systems.

    My purpose in writing this blog post is to encourage attention to psycholinguistics in advocacy, scholarship, and public discourse in general.  Professionals and scholars are reticent about applying terms such as kleptocratic to behaviors that are best described as that.  The media avoids harsh and condemnatory terminology – even when it called for in describing events and acts.

    Stealing is stealing, thievery is thievery, whether they happen through a home/business break-in, or through cheating on forms submitted to the federal and state governments.  White collar crime is unfortunately placed on a higher plane and is less punishable than street crime generally committed by the poor and powerless members of society. How we describe behaviors and what we call them has significant influence on how they are perceived and treated in political discourse and the criminal justice system.

[1] Terms such as plutocracy, oligarchy, and kleptocracy are not mere words and are not used in this blog for name calling.  In public discourse words should be taken seriously and utilized in a technically correct manner as scholars in political philosophy would theoretically utilize them.. Kleptocracy is defined as: “ a form of government by individuals who primarily seek personal gain at the expense of those they govern.” Kleptocracy | Definition, Examples, Kleptocratic Leaders, Dekleptification, & Facts | Britannica.”  Given this broad definition of kleptocratic behavior, examples of it abound in the U.S. and are manifested even more crudely in Russia.  Terms such as oligarchy, plutocracy, and kleptocracy can all apply to any one government in any one nation state. Oligarchy pertains to rule by a small number of individuals sans democracy.  Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy – also contrary to democratic governance.  As wealth is distributed away from the masses to a small number of superrich individuals, plutocracy is intensified and becomes more salient in political processes.  Hence, the system becomes more oligarchic because the power is posited in a smaller number of individuals.  The intersectionality of plutocracy and oligarchy is of importance in this discussion.  Furthermore, the correlative increase of rule by the few in their private interest, contrary to the public interest, and the concentration of wealth in a tiny minority leads to corruption on a wide scale.  Therefore, resources that could be dedicated to elevating the health and lifestyle of the masses are diverted to a wealthy few.  For instance, government tax receipts flowing from wage and salary earners have been increasingly and excessively diverted to shareholders at the expense of government services intended to improve the health and welfare of all classes of U.S. residents.  Kleptocratic behavior is expressed in the healthcare system by the proliferating number of financial intermediaries such as insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers, etc. who drain resources from care without adding effectiveness and efficiency to the overall system.

[2] Reification is a frequent fallacy in pseudoscientific thought processes.  Naming and describing something abstractly do not prove that the thing exists concretely.  The free market as an abstraction is a description of trillions of daily interactions in which people buy and sell things.  It is fallacious to call all of those interactions a thing.

[3] Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce | Oyez

[4] AllianceForHippocraticMedicineComplaint.pdf (windows.net)

Philanthropic Foundations, Quasi-governmental Science Organizations, and Universities Often Act as Corporate Shills: How the Industrial Complexes Work.

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

President Eisenhower’s Warning

    In his 1961 farewell speech, President Eisenhower recognized danger in the development and growth of a new phenomenon in U.S. economic and political history – a permanent, massively funded, and rapidly growing complex of government agencies, military-related industries, and universities.[1]  His prescient concern was that we would pay for and get more defense than we need; that the military establishment would grow beyond reason and purpose; and that the Pentagon would become a vehicle for special interest power and enrichment – which indeed it has.

    A decade after Eisenhower’s warning about a mushrooming defense network, Barbara and John Ehrenreich suggested that an emerging medical-industrial complex was to healthcare what  the military-industrial complex was to defense.[2] In 1980, the late Arnold Relman, M.D., editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stated that “The most important development of the day is the recent, relatively unheralded rise of a huge new industry that supplies healthcare services for profit.”[3]

    Industrial complexes like healthcare and defense have proliferated over the past few decades.  We have witnessed the growth of financial services, fossil fuel, agricultural, and a host of other industrial complexes.  These systems are not static.  Rather, they are dynamic, steady state, adaptive, social systems in a constant process of elaboration and complexification.[4]  Consequently, in Washington, D.C., and state capitals these elaborate, special interest networks have become horrifyingly powerful and effective – like nothing seen before. Indeed, this unprecedented facet of U.S. history is a major threat to future generations.  Unfortunately, it is hidden from the public and rarely discussed in the mainstream media.

The Policy Planning Network[5]: A Granular Understanding of “Industrial Complexes.”

    Politicians initiate legislation but not policy.  Rather, they respond to policy proposals from institutions representing special interests.  Agglomerations of these special interests working on policy are always complex systems of interactions between foundations, non-profit entities, e.g. think tanks, for-profit corporations, and powerful individuals.  In general, organizations such as the Brookings Institute, the Cato Institute, the Johan A. Hartman Foundations, the Commonwealth Fund, the National Association of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the National Bureau of Economic Research are major players in policy percolating through special interest channels at the national level.

    Industries have their own self-serving propaganda organs and armies of lobbyists in the mix of interactions leading to policy proposals.  For instance, the real estate industry is represented by the National Association of Realtors, the pharmaceutical industry by Big Pharma, Hospitals by the American Hospital Association, Wall Street by a hoard of financial-services associations, and so on and so forth – there are too many to count.  When an issue is favorable to conservative causes or private enterprise (not necessarily capitalistic though), the Chamber of Commerce will weigh in with its immense financial resources.

    Some of these powerful entities like the John A. Hartman Foundation and the Commonwealth Fund[6] hold forth as “do gooder” organizations with no other mission than the public good.  With vast amounts of wealth pouring into their foundations, they have piled up huge amounts of capital on their balance sheets.  Since, they are required to dispense only 5% of their revenue to individuals and organizations related to their ostensible missions, they have in fact become status quo maintenance organizations and investment firms looking for optimal returns. Furthermore, they serve the interests of private wealth by ensuring that policy remains from the center to the center right. Major foundations are intent on ensuring that policy is not transformative, will not threaten the status quo, and will not upset the current distribution of wealth and power.

    In reality, these powerful players in Washington policy making are tax shelters for superrich individuals and their families who desire to keep their vast wealth out of the hands of the IRS and to maintain considerable control over public policy.  The most influential foundations typically solicit financiers and corporate executives to sit on their boards.  Representatives of labor, consumers, and the poor are not found on the boards of dominant special interest influencers in Washington, and the policy they induce reflects that fact.   

A Case Study of the Policy Planning Network: Commissions, Think Tanks, and Trade Associations that Help Keep So Many Institutionalized Elderly and Disabled “Nursing Home Patients” in Dire Conditions.

    How does a nation deal with the embarrassment of indecent and inhumane treatment of the elderly and disabled in government funded institutions run by private industry?  Recent and ongoing history tells us that the Nation’s elected representatives and agency heads have passed the problem off to foundations, think tanks, trade associations, and quasi-governmental science entities (i.e., to industrial complexes). 

    For instance, the incredible incompetence and indifference to prevention and infection control in nursing homes before and during COVID was referred to the Mitre Corporation – a shadowy Washington entity with roots in military intelligence and other defense activities. The John A. Hartman Foundation initiated a commission by the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine (NASEM)[7] in 2020.

    Consequently, we’ve had two nursing home commissions in very recent history: the NASEM Commission and the Mitre Corporation Commission, both of which glossed over the nastier side of the industry, which is the dominant side.  Neither commission covered any territory that would result in holding the industry accountable for substandard worker treatment and pay, overall low quality of care, excess extraction of funds for shareholders, unsavory, unethical, far too often criminal owners, and problematic financial reports. 

    To the contrary, the commissions seemed sympathetic to the industry’s false claims of financial hardship and lack of government support.  Indeed, the Mitre Commission concluded that the industry needed more help in the form of personal protection equipment and other government assistance.  The industry’s excuses for the deaths of 200 employees and 2000 patients were never questioned by either commission.

Whitewashing & Window Dressing[8] the Inhumane Treatment of Disabled and Elderly Americans.

   The NASEM Commission has been institutionalized as the Moving Forward Coalition – a think tank funded by the John A. Hartman Foundation. The two nursing home commissions and the subsequent MFC are basically “tweaking-organizations,” which propose changes at the margins without a serious threat to the status quo.  Furthermore, The American Healthcare Association (AHCA) and LeadingAge (LA) – the well-funded and powerful nursing home trade associations –  and other private industry representatives appear to have a dominant position in the organization.  Special interests dominate the steering committee and are represented on all the other MFC committees.[9]

    Advocates and scholars serving on the two major commissions and the MFC tend to be passive and compliant with the industry’s self-serving wankery. The systemic problems of corruption and commoditizing of human beings for the sake of cash flow are ignored while the committee members engage in pretentious noodling over meaningless technical issues and “pie in the sky” ideas that will not be implemented.[10]  

    Like most major philanthropic corporations, the John A. Hartman Foundation is a vehicle for tax avoidance and superrich control over public policy.[11] The Mitre Corporation board is primarily a mix of current and former military intelligence officials and for-profit corporation managers and executives[12] with a displaced mission to grow their organization and enhance their power. 

    Interestingly, it is very easy to find the bios of the Mitre board members, which are on their website, but finding the bios of the John A. Hartman Foundation board takes some work.  Although board members’ names are listed on the JAH website, their bios are not. However, one can safely say that consumer, poverty,  and labor representatives are notably absent from these types of foundation boards.

Summary

    Important policy affecting the rights and welfare of the American people is generally generated in an interrelated system of foundations, special interest think tanks, trade associations, advocacy groups, and former high level government officials.  The money and power behind this policy planning network is controlled by super-rich individuals/families and corporations for the purpose of protecting their wealth and maintaining control over government policy. 

    The power wielded by the American power elite through their lavishly funded network in Washington and state capitals is unrecognized by the media and hidden from public view. This system will not change without exposure initiated by scholars and honesty from those who willingly participate in it. 

    The corruption and deceit in the making of policy – including nursing home and healthcare policy – is pervasive and intensifying.  Extensive system change begins with exposure.  The Tallgrass Economics blog and the nonprofit Center for Health Information and Policy have a mission to expose policymaking on behalf of the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary Americans.  We will be discussing do gooder foundations, think tanks, trade associations, and advocates who assist them in policy contrary to the best interests of the public.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

[2] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1970/12/17/the-medical-industrial-complex/

[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198010233031703

[4] See Walter Buckley, (1960) Sociology & Modern Systems Theory

[5] Professor G. William Domhoff, an acolyte of C. Wright Mills described the major foundations, think tanks, trade associations, and other entities and individuals initiating policy on behalf of corporations and the wealthy as “the policy planning network.” See, G. William Domhoff (2010), Who Rules America: Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance, pp. 85-115.

[6] The Commonwealth Fund board includes a representative from UnitedHealth and Margaret Hamburg, former FDA Commissioner in the Obama Administration among a bevy of board members from investment banks, private equity, and other for-profit businesses.  Dr. Hamburg also serves on the board of a pharmaceutical company for which she receives compensation in the amount of $500,000 per year.

[7] Seventy percent of NASEM funding is from government agencies while 30% is from private sources.  The NASEM reputation has been sullied due to funding and influence from industries with a stake in the outcome of its commission studies.  For instance, the Sackler’s donated $19 million to the agency prior to a study on opiates. In 2011, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler’s were rewarded with a study that minimized the danger of opioid pharmaceuticals of the type manufactured and distributed by Purdue Pharma, see e.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/23/health/sacklers-opioids-national-academies-science.html  In contacting NASEM for the purpose of determining how individuals were selected for their nursing home commission, I found them to be removed from public purview and operating behind a veil of secrecy.  I could find out absolutely nothing.

[8] “Window Dressing” is used as a verb transitive in this context rather than as a noun – as in “they are window dressing an injustice.”

[9] https://movingforwardcoalition.org/committees/

[10] For instance, the effects of replacing “resource utilization groups” (RUGs) with a “patient driven payment” (PDPM), a major issue  in pervasive over billing practices, has been taken up by the JAH and MFC. This is a technical argument beyond the grasp of legislators, the lay public, and journalists that will do very little to stop the industry rip off and will certainly not improve the lives of patients.

[11] For an in depth analysis of major charitable organizations and the superrich, see:  David Wagner (2000), What’s Love Got to Do with It? A Critical Look at American Charity, pp. 89-115.

[12] https://www.mitre.org/who-we-are/our-people/our-leadership

Government Oversight of Medicaid: The Shift of Power from Federal Agencies to State Agencies has Been a Disaster for Poor Americans’ Health

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Dismantling of the Federal Administrative State

    President Ronald Reagan said this at a press conference in 1986: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This might have seemed funny at the time but by 2008 when lax federal governmental oversight of the financial services industry led to economic collapse or when in 2020 a deteriorated public health system led to a raging COVID epidemic, the people of America were screaming back to the government these five desperate words: “For God’s sake help us!”

    President Reagan’s quip was a continuation and acceleration of devolution of power from the federal government to the states that began during the Nixon administration. Consequently, the far-right dream of dismantling the federal administrative state has led to funneling federal grants to states as block grants rather than grants-in-aid, which meant less federal control over how states regulated federal-state funded programs such as Medicaid and welfare in general.   

    Some states are more enlightened than other states in how they administer welfare programs.  But during the Clinton Administration, the mistaken notion that people needing assistance for their daily needs – including medical care – would benefit from some tough love like denial of any services after a few years of receiving it.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC a grant-in-aid program) became Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF – a block granted program with a much more stigmatizing moniker).  By the late 1990s, President Clinton was declaring that “the era of big government is over” – seven very unfortunate words.

    The idea that poor people down on their luck needed some federal assistance for survival was warped into a philosophy that help from the government would induce dependency and that administrative barriers to assistance and forcing people off of aid would somehow be character building.  As has happened since the era of industrialization began, poor people were more intently looked at as irresponsible and the cause of their own plight.  By the turn of the Century, this philosophy had become de rigueur – even in states given to a more empathetic and compassionate approach to the less fortunate (which could be any of us).

How Have States Handled their Increasing Power?

    So, how have states done with the power devolved to them?  Not well.  As an example, consider the prior authorization of Medicaid that I wrote about in my last blog post.  The HHS, OIG had this to say in their recently released report:  “most State Medicaid agencies reported that they did not routinely review the appropriateness of a sample of MCO denials of prior authorization requests, and many did not collect and monitor data on these decisions.”  This seems like very familiar state regulatory behavior to me.  Having reviewed thousands of nursing home cost reports, I have yet to see one properly filled out (in accordance with GAAP/FSAB accounting principles and federal regulations).  Indeed, they are loaded with deceit, misinformation, and what is either profound ignorance or fraud.  And yet auditing at the state level appears to be practically nonexistent.

    There is no point in using nursing home cost reports for research except to raise issues of state incompetence, lack of oversight capacity, and corporate ability to game the system. The same can be said about the giant insurance corporations contracting with states as MCOs.  Indeed, Anthem’s highest MCO denial rate was 34%.  Molina, one of the largest providers had denial rates that ranged from 17% to 41%.  Aetna, Centene, and UnitedHealth denial rates were 5% to 29%, 3% to 23%,  and 7% to 27% respectively.

    The States with the highest rates of denial are Georgia (34%), Michigan (32%), California (29%), Mississippi (27%), New Jersey (27%), Virginia (26%), and Wisconsin (25%).  One can only imagine how difficult and frustrating it is for physicians and Medicaid patients in these states to obtain needed medical care.  None of these states used denial data for oversight.

There is Nothing Funny about Government Help:  We Need it Badly!

    My colleagues and I spend our working hours attempting to ferret out information from states regarding Medicaid outcomes data.  To quote Warren Buffet, “It’s like getting red meat out of a tiger cage.”  But we have been communicating with staff – including auditors – in the OIG’s office and will continue that communication.  Our mission is to fight the state/federal barriers to public information.

    The Medicaid program is nominally a $900 billion federal/state expenditure.  But with tax expenditures (i.e., tax subsidies) for corporations in the business, it is a much larger expenditure in federal and state budgets combined than that. Furthermore, nursing home corporations and the giant insurance corporations contracting as MCOs are extracting immense amount of tax dollars without a correlative investment in a loyal, career-oriented work force, and a medical services infrastructure that welcomes and benefits the people eligible to receive it. 

    Centene, UnitedHealth, and the other large providers are lavishing obscene compensation packages on executives and board members (CEOs are usually receiving about $20 to $24 million per year); they have billions of dollars sitting on their balance sheets, they are paying robust dividends to their shareholders (most of which are asset managers such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, handling pension, insurance, and sovereign wealth funds); and they have devoted billions to capturing government through lax lobbying and election financing.

    No matter how objective and scientific researchers like to be, this is all about politics.  It’s about what goes on inside the D.C. beltway and in state capitols.  Anyone who thinks they can be politically neutral, purely professional, and outside of politics is sadly mistaken.  Making CMS do its job is a political task and will take political organizing.  The same can be said about making state agencies do their job.  You cannot work within the system and change it that way. 

Does the Attack on Social Security by Conservatives Make Any Sense? Read What One of America’s Leading Experts on Social Security Has to Say.

Posted on by

By:

Max Skidmore

What About Social Security?

The Social Security Act became law in 1935 and created a system of “social insurance.” Workers pay into trust funds through deductions from wages, and employers match the workers’ contributions. Benefits are calculated on the thirty-five years of highest earnings. The maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security (FICA) tax for 2023 is $160,200. The system began to pay benefits in 1940.

Originally, the Act called only for retirement benefits, but through the years the system expanded to include payments to spouses, survivors, and the disabled. Thus, Social Security now provides life insurance, as well as retirement, and also protects against lost wages resulting from disability before one reaches retirement age.

Roughly a third of Social Security’s checks go to people younger than retirement age; that is, to survivors of deceased wage earners and to the disabled. The elderly are not the only ones who benefit from Social Security. Virtually the entire population does¾either through receipt of benefits, insurance coverage, or being freed from the necessity of caring for their elderly relatives.

Benefits are indexed to inflation, so that purchasing power remains constant through the years. Moreover, benefits continue through the lives of beneficiaries, however long they may live; one cannot outlive benefits.

As limited as the benefits are (and it would be an excellent idea and easily achievable to expand, not reduce, them), most retired Americans receive a substantial portion of their income from Social Security. For the average retiree, Social Security accounts for nearly a third of the total. More than a third of America’s retired elderly, in fact, count on Social Security for half or more of their total income. Substantial numbers of retired people have no income at all except for their Social Security. For millions of Americans, the benefits they receive from Social Security enable them to escape poverty and live in reasonable comfort.

Despite scare propaganda from groups who would profit from privatization, the system’s finances are sound. The highly publicized times for depletion of the trust funds vary from year to year, and are always based on “intermediate projections” from the annual reports from the system’s Board of Trustees. The trustees, themselves, caution in their reports that depletion years are to be considered only as estimates based on a huge number of assumptions. They are not to be taken literally.

Nevertheless, commentators  generally treat them as firm and unquestionable, and mistakenly refer to the trust funds’ impending “bankruptcy.”  This is nonsense. The projections are extremely cautious, and likely are quite pessimistic. “Bankruptcy” is not an appropriate term for a federal, tax-funded, program. FICA taxes in would continue to come in, regardless of trust fund balances. Moreover, the trustees always publish a “low-cost,” more optimistic, projection that tends to present the future of the trust funds as secure in the long run. The conditions that the low-cost options project are just as likely as the Intermediate projections to materialize. If conditions were to become less favorable to Social Security, however, it would be a simple matter to adjust tax rates, lift or remove the cap, etc. Dire warnings about “unsustainability,” are scare propaganda designed to frighten the public in hopes that they will accept unwarranted modifications to the system based on conservative ideology, not finances.

Social Security is remarkable, it keeps millions from poverty, provides them with independence, and all the while it operates at far lower expense (less than 1% for administration) than any other income-transfer system. Also, it is off budget. Lowering benefits would not affect the deficit or the national debt; it would merely build up bigger trust funds, while continuing to tax workers, but providing them with nothing for their taxes. It would not provide balance to the budget.

Why, then, is there any opposition to such an efficient and worthwhile system? Why are Republicans such as Senator Ron Johnson urging that the system should require re-authorization every year, or else vanish?

Johnson, of course, will never be considered as among the more able or thoughtful senators. Senator Rick Scott, though, until this November, was chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, an official Republican organization. He proposed that Social Security and Medicare be authorized only for five-year periods, ceasing to exist if Republicans gain control and fail to re-authorize them.

Most egregious of all, and openly revealing the obvious betrayal by Republicans of the decades-long consensus regarding the value of Social Security, are the bullying threats from Senator John Thune. Thune currently is number two among the hierarchy of Senate Republicans. It has just been announced that he intends to hold the debt ceiling hostage. That is, he intends to block any elevation of the debt ceiling unless there are cuts to Social Security. This reveals the reckless cruelty of current Republicans. Incidentally, it also reveals that the dangers of the “debt ceiling” that performs no useful function; it saves not one dollar, and creates opportunities to cause chaos. It only permits irresponsible politicians, such as Thune, to create mischief.

Some of the opposition arises from investment bankers and other wealthy groups who might benefit from privatization. Most, however, comes from extreme conservatives who simply do not like government programs, regardless of their many vital functions. Do they not recognize how cruel it would be to slash the incomes of those who count on it, including those of very limited income?

The cruelty is the point. Many conservatives do not ignore the cruelty that they would cause; rather, they welcome it. Ronald Reagan began to redistribute income upward, and his party has since continued to do so with a vengeance. Until recently, they generally kept their intentions hidden. Now, though, they are openly expressing their hostility to the less fortunate of their constituents. Republicans no longer find their motto embarrassing, no longer do they find it necessary to disguise it. It is, “Soak the poor, and reward the rich,” and clearly and overtly is a common theme of their proposals. They recognize few, if any, “deserving poor.” To be poor is to be fair game. Anyone who wants to avoid institutionalized cruelty should just go out and get rich.

As the Herblock cartoon in 1964  put it (portraying the message from Republican presidential candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater), the poor should simply go out and inherit department stores.

MEDICAID IS POOR PEOPLES’ MEDICINE & POOR PEOPLES’ MEDICINE IS POOR MEDICINE.

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

The Southern Segregations’ Plan to Institutionalize Racism and Inequality

In a conversation with Lyndon Johnson prior to passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the late segregationist Congressman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas told President Johnson that across town from his mother in Arkansas, “…a Negro woman has a baby every year. He went on to explain that every time he went home, his mother complained that the “Negro woman now got eleven children.  He proposed that welfare should be designed to let “the states pay for more than a small number of children if they want to.”

Joseph Califano, Jr., President Johnson’s Secretary of Health Education & Welfare (HEW) in the room at the time noted that Johnson turned to him after Mills left and said,

 “You hear that good, now.  That’s the way most members feel. They’re just not willing to say it publicly unless they come from redneck districts.”

Most member of congress aside, Mills was not your run of the mill congressman.  He was the influential Chairman of the exceedingly powerful and critical House Ways and Means Committee.  He was a product of Southern one-party politics run by the all-powerful Southern planter class.  Mills and his Southern brethren in the Senate and House had in 1957 signed and issued the “Southern Manifesto” – a protest against Brown v. Board of Education and the civil/human rights enveloped within the Supreme Court decision. 

As I will explain, these segregationists had designed and legislated a precursor to Medicaid into existence. The passage of the Mills-Kerr program in 1960 included the framework of Title 19 of the Social Security Act in 1965 (Medicaid).  Medicaid became Kerr-Mills 2.0.  Designed into Kerr-Mills was devolution of power over federal welfare to states, which would allow them to arbitrarily place onerous administrative burdens on qualified applicants and maintain a lower status for African Americans.  They were successful in keeping Hill-Burton funded hospitals segregated for ten years after Brown v. Board of Education had declared that “separate is not equal.”

The Concepts of Kerr-Mills – Especially the Power of States Over Welfare – Are Barriers to Transforming an Embarrassingly Bad U.S. Medical System

Like the Hill-Burton Act of 1945, which initiated a massive hospital building program across the U.S., Medicaid is funded by the states with federal matching funds.  Administration and regulation of Medicaid funded nursing homes have been left to the states.  Long-term care and skilled nursing operators have benefited from lax oversight and political power in state houses.  As should have been expected, legislatures and agencies have been captured by deep pocketed industrialists and are therefore likely to serve the interests of operators at the expense of ethical and humane medical care.

States and powerful interests have devised ways to siphon off Medicaid funds for the benefit of corporations and special interests.  Consequently, poverty medicine is enriching corporations and wealthy individuals (see previous posts on this blog re: The Ensign Group & Centene Corporation) while the medical care and health of poor Americans have been deteriorating.  For instance, the state of Indiana discovered a loophole in federal law that allowed the state to buy nursing home licenses from for-profit corporations and skim a considerable amount of nursing home funding off for other purposes.  The nursing homes continued to run the facilities and extract their usual cash flow as before.

Having studied cost reports submitted by thousands of nursing home facilities, I can safely conclude that the states shield the industry from exposing cash flow into and out of the system.  If you can complete daunting tasks of gaining access to legally required and public cost reports (or pay a considerable sum for them) you will discover that you are dealing with closely held corporations that are not required to make their financial statements public. Therefore, you can follow the money to a point.  But the pools of payments to their parent corporations’ shell companies are kept secret.  The public cannot see consolidated balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements of parent corporations and holding companies.

Without clear and honest financial information, no amount of reform of what most everyone agrees is a bad system is possible.  The industry can and does engage in misinformation and falsehoods to maintain myths that the biggest problem in long-term and skilled nursing care is skimpy government funding.

The “medical industrial complex” is not capitalism, so let’s change the narrative.

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Genuine Capitalist Enterprises are Not Operating in Anti-Competitive, Government Rigged, Systems.

As a proponent of capitalism, I resent the U.S. privatized, government-funded, health care system and the implication that it is a suitable representative of a capitalist system.  It is not.  The system of nursing homes, hospitals, and clinics through which patients pass for care is a financialized[1], corrupt, rigged, system.  Furthermore, some services important to society should not be industrialized under the farcical notion that return on capital will drive quality care.

Reformers have failed to create a narrative to defeat the financiers’ mantra that privatizing appropriate government services will increase quality and productivity.  History has taught us a very clear lesson:  industrialization and privatization of medical care and a host of other government services are unproductive and lead to excess extraction of capital, lower productivity, and reduction of innovation and reinvestment.

You Can’t Shame the Shameless

There is an unfounded belief that exposing bad operators in sensational mainstream media articles will force a change for the better in nursing homes and hospitals.  The misguided view that the medical-industrial complex will be moved by horror stories reminds me of an old T-Shirt in my closet with the following silkscreened on it: “We Don’t Care, We Don’t Have to Care, We’re EXXON.”  You could substitute the words medical-industrial complex, The American Health Care Association (AHCA), Ensign Group,” Welltower Corporation, Centene, United Health, and thousands of other corporate associations and entities for EXXON on such a T-Shirt.

Nursing home and hospital corporations don’t care about the shaming they deserve because politicians in federal and state legislatures have their backs.  Furthermore, they have captured the agencies charged with regulating them.  The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and 50 state agencies are dominated by the industry and their well-financed lobbying organizations (not to mention the FDA, the FTC, the CFTC, etc.).  You can shame private equity as a business model, scurrilous operators, low wages/salaries, understaffing, and other outrageous practices, but financiers in the healthcare business are, for the most part, shameless. 

For at least a decade, I have been urging advocates to form a narrative and political strategy.  Playing rope, a dope with an industry that has a very well devised, effective, and well-funded narrative will change nothing.  The nursing home industry has a narrative based on falsehoods, which are comprised of frames related to the hardships endured by noble businessmen and investors.  Frames in which the industry purports to be suffering from low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement, and low net income (profits) are blatantly false and misleading.  Regardless of how unbelievable the frames comprising industry propaganda, they are never seriously challenged by the constellation of nonprofit and government entities representing the elderly.  Furthermore, do-gooder commissions charged with studies of nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care subsystems generally whitewash and paper over the unethical, inhumane, and anti-democratic nature of the entire medical-industrial complex.[2]

Let’s Get Technical

I propose that advocates create frames that can be integrated into and support this narrative: “The privatized U.S. healthcare system is not fair, capitalistic, or ethical.”  Frames accusing industrialists of manipulation of markets, financial machinations, pay offs/bribes to legislators, and covering up corruption through well-funded lobbying entities such as the AHCA (nursing home lobby) are necessary but risky for professionals who want to go along to get along.

Industry moguls and their minions in government know from 70 years of history that their propagandistic efforts work well. They have been able to convince the public that privatized, for profit, services are better than non-profit and government services.  This mantra has gained traction and is embedded deeply in the American zeitgeist.  It will take a concerted effort across a broad array of nonprofit advocacy organizations to destroy a narrative based on industry lies and complex financial maneuvers.

However, before advocates can suitably frame messages for the media and legislators, a considerable amount of research, data collection, and analysis must be undertaken.  Data and evidence related to “rent seeking,”[3] “net operating income,” and “cash flow,” is necessary for debunking the “low net,” “thin margins,” and other hardship frames of the industry.  The nursing home system must be unraveled and explained as a network of capital flows from taxpayers and other sources through Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), private equity firms, LLCs/LLPs, and C-Corporations.

It is necessary to show how excessive capital flows through nursing homes and hospitals to investors and executives.  REITs have been existing under the radar and never discussed at legislative hearings (See my blog post: “Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are Big Players in the Nursing Home Industry:  That Should Concern All of Us” February 13, 2021).  We must recognize how the entry of private equity and REITs around 2000 literally transformed the industry.

Advocacy research must include data from cost reports submitted by facilities to CMS and state agencies.  Falsehoods in these reports are pervasive.  Nevertheless, it is important to organize the data to make a case and support our frames pertaining to corruption and excessive extraction of capital at the expense of care.

We Are on It!

A team of people across the U.S. have come together to initiate solid, evidence-based, research.  With some help from the LTCCC and a lot of volunteer work, a group of us have been organizing data from cost reports and digging into financial machinations, ownership, and the flow of capital from various sources (including taxpayers) to investors, executives, and family wealth. 

We want to direct attention to more than horrendous examples of nursing home abuse and neglect.  The industry justifies poor care with a well-honed, richly funded, propaganda campaign. We should not respond to their “woe is me pleas for increased funding.”  Rather we should follow the money and make the trail available to legislators and journalists that we know will utilize it (think Senator Elizabeth Warren).  I don’t want to engage them in their claim that investors in the nursing home industry are suffering.  My only response to that is investors are not stupid.  If returns were no good in public-funded, skilled nursing care, investors would be investing somewhere else. 

[1] By labeling the system “financialized,” I mean that financial maneuvering for extracting cash takes precedence over increased productivity and quality of services.  Shareholder value is the primary mission of most healthcare private corporations.  Stakeholders are of secondary importance.  Often stakeholders suffer for the sake of enhancing and protecting shareholders’ interests.

[2] While COVID was surging in the Spring of 2020, CMS convened an “independent” commission the management of which was outsourced to the Mitre Corporation.  The report of this commission was a whitewash and papered over general neglect by the nursing home industry which resulted in 200,000 patient and employee deaths.  Contrary to suggesting accountability for lack of infection control and no preparation for a pandemic that scientists had been warning about for decades, the final report recommended more financial assistance for the industry.  Recently, a commission under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in operation for a number of years entitled “National Imperative to Improve Nursing Home Quality” issued a report of their work. This commission tiptoed around the corruption, deceit, and excessive extraction of capital at the expense of quality care.

[3] “Rent seeking” has evolved in the field of economics to describe corporate efforts to extract wealth without a correlative increase in the production of goods and services.  The nursing home, finance, real estate, lobby is constantly hectoring legislators for an increase in reimbursement without any real, scientific, evidence that the cash flow and return on their investment is inadequate.

What Has Reaganomics Wrought?

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

“In the Age of Show Business, Public Discourse Has Become Dangerous Nonsense” Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death

Shareholder Value is the Only Value:  Even the Taxpayer Funded
Life & Death Care in the Healthcare System Has been Reduced to a Matter of
Return on Investment

Welltower, Inc. – one of the major players in the senior living industry – states in its annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company’s primary goal is to “protect and enhance shareholder value.”  Although Welltower is a dominant force in the taxpayer funded, skilled nursing and long-term care system, nothing is mentioned in company financial reports about a duty to provide ethical medical care to patients.

I consider these nursing home corporations to be no less evil than corporations in the fossil fuel industry, tobacco industry, and the assault weapons industry.  Like big oil, big tobacco, and big firearms, they value people only as consumers with little to no human worth other than parting with their money for the benefit of investors.

Unlike the tobacco, fossil fuel, and gun industries, nursing home corporations earning extraordinary returns from taxpayer funded medical care are excused for their pervasive patient neglect and abuse by carefully selected members – often naïve academics or industry shills – of various commissions (e.g., the recent National Academy of Sciences and the COVID-related Mitre Corporation Commissions).  Without any empirical, scientific, justification, the industry’s propagandistic claims about skimpy Medicaid reimbursement are taken at face value in the media and generally by the public.  The industry has a richly funded a very effective PR machine.

Unquestioned misinformation – whether intentional or unintentional – is creating a crisis in American governance and the well-being of residents.  The anti-vax, anti-science, assault on the public health system during this era of COVID has long been in the making.  What has become known as proofiness (or truthiness) has polluted public discourse.  I have spent untold hours collecting, organizing and analyzing corporate financial reports submitted by nursing home corporations to state and federal agencies.  Much of it is fraudulent, much of it is financial machination, and much of it is laughably ridiculous, but hardly any of it is seriously questioned. So, deadly conditions in nursing homes continue unabated.

“Nihilism, the devaluation of the highest values of Western culture.”  Ashley Woodward in Understanding Nietzscheanism. 

Ronald Reagan Propelled a Destructive Economic & Social Philosophy Forward Through Government Policy:  Trumpism is the Apotheosis of Reaganomics

The previous post by Kent Comfort chronicles the economic revolution that commenced with the Reagan Administration. This post addresses the values wrought by the economic superstructure described by Kent.  A deep dive into philosophical movements that seeped into the American zeitgeist along with Friedman/University of Chicago radical free market nonsense is beyond the purview of this post.  Suffice it to say that Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness, dog-eat-dog capitalism, and Nietzschean ubermensch (John Gault) seeped far deeper into the American zeitgeist than is readily apparent to most observers.  Along with the Randian virtue of selfishness, the nihilism and rejection of Enlightenment values of the postmodernist philosophical movement became de rigueur among intelligentsia – eventually on the right of American politics.

The changes we’ve seen entrenched in U.S. culture over the past 40 or more years can be characterized as the triumph of self-interest over public interest and community, the prevalence of wealth and power over equality, and the weakening of science engendered by disregard of and disrespect for reason and objectivity.  We are in a post-truth age characterized by deceit, manipulation, and cheating without accountability.  Any claim based on pseudoscience is deemed legitimate – especially if it is legitimated by journalists, politicians, and influential voices in academia.

In the winner take all, survival of the fittest, milieu, it is OK to spout falsehoods and engage in practices that would have been otherwise unethical and unacceptable in the pre-Reaganomics era.  Lying, cheating, stealing, and preying on the vulnerable and weak can be justified by absolutist beliefs in abstract principles.  In its most extreme form, Reaganomics is conflated with Christian fanaticism and right-wing, proto-fascist political movements.  Furthermore, extreme principles of the movement include total deregulation and dismantlement of the administrative state except insofar as it can further a free-wheeling corporate state.

In post-truth America, shareholder value as the highest value of business enterprise, doesn’t need to be justified scientifically as beneficial to the American people in general.  Universal human rights of equality and fairness handed down to us from the Enlightenment have been devalued while the powerful and wealthy leverage their power to degrade democratic processes and direct more and more economic resources from the middle- and low-income classes to themselves.  In the long run, we will see an increasing amount of tragedy and farce detrimental to the future of the planet and all living things.

Thank You For Your Service! Now Go Rot In A Veteran’s Nursing Home!

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

As a veteran myself, I find the maudlin, mawkish, displays of affection for military personnel hypocritical and disgusting. Flyovers at football games, the shallow emotional “thank you for your service” cliché, and phony, baloney outpourings of appreciation through little privileges (first in line to get on an airplane) are no-sacrifice forms of super-patriotism that keep the real sacrifice of our troops out of sight and out of mind.

Elderly and disabled veterans in state run nursing homes are certainly out of sight and out of mind these days. We don’t know how many of these places are deplorable and full of neglect and abuse. However, I was initially alerted by family members about conditions in a very large state run veterans’ facility in New York. It appears that that their loved ones are not well treated, nor are they as family members. We are looking at COVID data in that facility and what we are finding is alarming. However, given the resistance of any state to come clean with the information advocates and family members need, we will need to keep fighting this out so that we can find out what really happened.

I’ve been reading the inspection reports for the Kansas Soldiers’ Home in Fort Dodge, Kansas. The staffing levels, condition of the facility, and treatment of patients are shocking. In the state of Missouri, we can’t see the inspection reports online. Missouri veterans’ facilities aren’t on Nursing Home Compare. We are told that we have to go into the facility and ask to see reports for those facilities.

We will stay on this issue. This is just the beginning of our investigation into what is happening to veterans in America’s nursing homes. Let’s not overlook the $788 billion defense budget that sailed through the Senate this week, which doesn’t even include the VA and military retirement benefits. Nor does it include the nuke stuff in the Department of Energy. Can’t we spend an adequate amount on veterans’ in nursing homes in a $trillion military budget?

Watch this blog. We will keep investigating and writing about how our veterans are treated.

This Country Simply Does Not Care About Old And Disabled People: We Are Expendable for the Sake of Profit

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

At Least 150,000 COVID Deaths in Nursing Homes & The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis Doesn’t Even Bother to Mention It.

On any given day in the United States, approximately 1.5 million Americans will be patients in nursing homes. Throughout the year, 3 million people will either be permanent (long-term) or short-term rehabilitation patients in government-funded, long-term care/skilled nursing facilities. During the past two years, these institutionalized individuals have accounted for at least 150,000 of the 800,000 U.S. COVID deaths. Hence, nearly 20% of COVID fatalities occurred in one institutionalized group comprising less than 1% of the U.S. population.

Yesterday the House Select Select Subcommittee on The Coronavirus Crisis under the leadership of Chairman James Clyburn released a report of the committee’s oversight hearings regarding the COVID pandemic. The report entitled “More Effective More Efficient More Equitable: Overseeing an (sic) Improving and Ongoing Pandemic Response” (https://coronavirus.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-subcommittee-s-year-end-staff-report-highlights-oversight-work-releases) makes no mention that I can find of the largest mass fatality occurring in any institutionalized population in U.S. history. Not even the troops during WWI suffered as large a fatality rate from the flu pandemic as have elderly and disabled patients in U.S. nursing homes during the COVID pandemic.

Lack of the public’s interest in accountability for 150,000+ preventable deaths is a signal to the elderly and disabled that we are not valued as human beings. Politicians are acting like “nothing to see there.” The press, the public, and politicians, are ready to move on like “that didn’t really happen.” “Did it?” The nursing home system is sickening and disgusting as it is. But for a society to seemingly not care much about the failure of a very profitable, taxpayer funded industry to properly care for patients in their charge and agencies like CMS failing to make them care amounts to euthanasia by neglect.

I’m outraged that “aging enterprises” aren’t raising bloody hell about the disaster brought on vulnerable, unprotected, aging and physically challenged people. These organizations claim they represent the elderly, but their silence is deafening:

  • American Geriatrics Society (AGS)
  • American Society on Aging.
  • Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO)
  • National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A)
  • National Council on Aging.
  • Justice in Aging.
  • Alzheimer’s Association.
  • Senior Medicare Patrol.
  • Administration on Aging.
  • National Center on Elder Abuse.
  • AARP
  • Kansas Advocates for Better Care
  • And Many Others

That the boards of these groups and their paid professional staffs haven’t come together in a coordinated effort to hold accountable a very profitable well-rewarded, industry and the agencies of government they have captured (e.g. CMS, KDADs, etc., etc., etc. …… .) is shameful. Congressman Clyburn and other politicians need to hear from organizations purporting to advocate for the elderly and disabled.

Congresspersons and Senators have certainly heard from the nursing home industry. Congressman Clyburn and Speaker Nancy Pelosi both received $10,000 from the AHCA PAC. Indeed, Democrats are beneficiaries of two-thirds of AHCA PAC money. They don’t need to buy the Republicans – they are on board with whatever corporations want. Any hearing, any report, any statement, from a politician regarding the elderly are of dubious value when the politicians involved are taking money from the industry.

I’m afraid that aging enterprises and paid professionals have fallen comfortably into the good ole boy and girl networks operating inside the Washington, D.C. beltway and all of the state capitols. Speaking truth to power is a risk that might get them marginalized and ousted from the group.

Capitalism Can Only Thrive in a Robust Democracy. As Democracy Weakens, Capitalism Rots

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Democracy is becoming weaker in the United States and the economic system is becoming increasingly corrupt and inefficient. 

    The primary hallmarks of a well-functioning capitalistic system are competitive free-markets, disruption of stagnant companies and industries by innovative startup companies, widespread opportunities for entrepreneurship, and a government with the political will to regulate the economy and business on behalf of the people and the general welfare.  These characteristics have been alternatively strengthened and weakened in the United States over the past 200+ years.

    Currently, the super-rich, and major corporations representing a burgeoning oligarchy have plied their increasing share of the wealth to government capture. Consequently, the U.S. government and a large proportion of the corporate world have settled into a destructive, money-driven, relationship.  Over the past few decades, the amount government largess channeled into corporations, their shareholders, and executives has accelerated. It is important to recognize this as one major underlying cause of what may be the twilight of American democracy and a free enterprise system.

We Cannot Overlook the Role of Religion in the Rise of Anti-Democratic Corruption

    I believe that a major cause of deteriorating democratic systems in this country is the money washing over elections and office holders. Our seriously corrupted political system is due in large part to dominance of the Supreme Court by a Christian-theistic-fascistic movement which has a propensity to throw its weight behind a strongman leader and a conservative, wealthy, white, elite.   For instance, Citizens United is merely a convoluted decision handed down for the purpose of legitimating the purchase of legislators by oligarchs and entire industries.

    Recent world history has taught us that major elements of modern Christianity are prone to collaboration with fascist autocrats.  Examples of Christian leadership’s deference to and support of strongmen abound.  The most recent example of course is the Christian white nationalist movement’s strong backing of the vile Donald J. Trump. The Catholic Church has a well-known history of providing comfort and aide to fascists throughout Latin America. 

    During the fascist-Nazi movement of the 1930s, the Catholic church was all too often willing to place its imprimatur on German, Italian, Spanish, (European) Nazism, and fascism.  Following the Holocaust, ratlines set up by Catholic priests helped shuttle war criminals such a Mengele and Eichmann to Latin America.

    Most Christians and Christian leaders in the United States are opposed to the vicious, vile politics of Donald Trump and today’s Republican Party.  Unfortunately, they are far too passive, unorganized, and quiet.  I say to them: “Please do not underestimate the organization, money, passion and commitment of the proto-fascist Christian white nationalists promoting Trump and Republican candidates.” 

    The Wasteful, Corrupt, U.S. Healthcare System is a Symptom of a Sick Political System

    There is a reason Americans pay two to three times per capita for healthcare than peer countries in the advanced, industrialized sphere of the global economy:  corruption.  How many ways can we document the claim that corruption is at the root of the wasteful, inefficient, U.S. healthcare system?  In so many ways that they are too numerous to mention in one blog post.  I will discuss some in this post and many more in future posts, but I first want to say as a capitalist that privatization and healthcare are not compatible.  Medical care cannot be reduced to an industrialized, free market model and at the same time optimize the health and wellbeing of the U.S. population.

    As dark money as well as money right out in the open began to flood into the political system, the American people were conditioned to believe that traditional government programs on behalf of the general welfare were necessarily wasteful and inefficient.  We were sold the myth that private enterprise is more competent than government bureaucracy.

    Actual practice – for instance in the case of the military, infrastructure, Social Security and Medicare – belie this deceit.  Nevertheless, practically every facet of the public domain supported by taxpayers has been handed over to private corporations.  That includes the publicly funded healthcare system.  The mind-boggling amount of capital that has flowed from the pockets of ordinary, non-wealthy, Americans into the holdings of the 1% is so excessive that it will be difficult for those hardworking, every day, Americans to grasp.

    Officially, healthcare accounts for $5 trillion or 20% of the U.S. economy.  I think it is more than that due to the generous tax reductions gifted to corporations, boards of directors and executives in the healthcare industry.  In my view, practically all revenue streaming into corporations providing medical services is coming from government sources – taxpayers – such as Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Obamacare.  At the same time, lobbying and campaign contributions keep costs spiraling up while care deteriorates and shareholders, boards, and executives pocket immense amounts of dividends, stock-growth, and compensation.

    The Finance-Insurance-Real Estate (FIRE) lobby, Big Pharma, device manufacturers, physician associations, the nursing home industry, and other powerful representatives of industries benefitting from corruption and excessive payouts can see the limitless government largesse available to them and have their representatives crawling all over our Nation’s capitol and the legislatures of the 50 states.  Legislators of both major political parties have become dependent on campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex.

    In future blog posts, we will be documenting the inordinate corruption overtaking the government funded U.S. healthcare system.  See the coming post regarding 1Health Healthcare and the Centene Corporation.  Two of a very large number of scandalous and yet typical cases of healthcare rip offs at the expense of “we the people.”