The Dysfunctional U.S. Political System: We Didn’t Get Here Overnight

Posted on by

By:

The Editors

As the American people stand before the precipice of disaster on a scale they cannot imagine, a minority of elected officials in Congress are bending the Nation’s legislative will toward special financial interests with no regard for the public interest and future generations. One party, the Republican Party, has become totally debauched, decadent, and beholden to a tiny wealthy elite and white supremacists.  The other party, the Democratic Party, has within its ranks a few so-called “moderates” who are catering to the financiers and believers in the myth that the U.S. – the wealthiest Nation on the planet and in the history of humankind – cannot afford to care for its poorest citizens on a scale befitting an enlightened, advanced, society.

The “Blue Dog Democrats” blocking President Biden’s attempt to pass a budget designed to ameliorate economic injustice and forestall an environmental apocalypse are anything but moderate.  They are in fact reactionaries who refuse – along with the Republicans – to recognize this country’s racist past and are failing to support programs for rectifying four centuries of brutality perpetrated on African Americans.

Furthermore, Senators Manchin and Sinema and Blue Dogs in the House such as Abigail Spanberger and Kathleen Rice are looking away from the increasing discrimination and investor exploitation of programs for the less abled (elderly and physically less abled) in so-called nursing homes. They seem to be insensitive to the lack of access to health care for 30 million of their fellow citizens. They are turning a blind eye to the need for solar, wind, and other energy alternatives to fossil fuels before catastrophic failure of the environment makes the planet unlivable.  They appear to place interests of the greedy over the public interest.

We did not arrive at these crossroads of democracy versus autocracy, interest of the greedy few versus the public interests, and enlightenment versus dystopia overnight.  As distinguished Professor Max Skidmore writes in his post today, the Republican Party has been evolving toward its almost unbelievable state of debauchery for some time.  This is a chapter in a coming book, which will be one of many written by Professor Skidmore – a highly admired presidential historian.

The Democratic Party Blue Dogs now selling out their fellow Democrats are also the result of decades of political propaganda propelled into dominance by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.  The belief that privatizing publicly funded programs in the public interest would lead to a better society was foisted on the American people and reinforced by inordinate amounts of cash from financiers.  A propaganda machine was cranked up for the purpose of conditioning the public to believe that poor people – especially African American poor people – are untrustworthy and lazy.  We’ve been put upon by propagandistic institutions with unlimited money for convincing us that government is bad and corporations are good. 

If we fail to correct decades of misinformation and disinformation and what they have wrought, the Blue Dogs will be long-remembered – but not fondly.

The Relationship Between Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party: Less Sudden than it May Appear

Posted on by

By:

Max Skidmore

It may appear as if Trump, a demagogic and bombastic outsider and political newcomer, suddenly seized one of America’s two major political parties, shaped it according to his whims, then dominated it entirely. The reality, however, is less dramatic. The Republican Party for years had implicitly been seeking such a figure as Trump.

Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential candidacy led to one of the greatest defeats in American history. Nevertheless, his support for “extremism” (which, Goldwater said, was not a vice) led to an increasingly hard-right party. His campaign, and the highly public support it received from a former film actor, Ronald Reagan, laid the foundation for the corruption and deterioration that today is so obvious.

In 1968, only four years after the Republican disaster, the party’s candidate, Richard Nixon, won the presidency. That year also saw the openly racist campaign of Alabama governor George Wallace, who was running for president as a minor-party candidate. Wallace’s racist appeals, both overt and coded, were lessons for Republicans, and added considerably to their repertoire. Wallace, of course, was not and had never been a Republican, but his mainstreaming of open bigotry provided inspiration for Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” That Nixonian strategy, continuing as it did¾even intensifying¾with Reagan, successfully re-oriented the Republican Party away from its civil rights heritage and toward the prejudices of the racially segregated south. Decades later, Donald Trump (another actor, of sorts, from reality television) was merely the culmination of the increasing “southernization” of the Republican Party.

Although the party might have been expected to heal over time as its message and preferences came to be more inconsistent with the changing views of an increasingly educated America, it did not. Instead, its deterioration intensified, increasing until it created a vacuum within itself that only the least principled and most unrestrained power seeker could fill.

In stepped Donald J. Trump. Whatever it seemed, it was assuredly not Trump capturing and corrupting a party; rather, it was a shameful party offering itself without reservation to the shameless Trump. Ultimately the party’s outrageous choice led to an actual insurrection¾completely Trump instigated¾that attempted to overturn the election that overwhelmingly turned him out of office. The rest is history; it also was tragedy as Trump and the bulk of the Republican Party unhesitatingly overturned America’s great tradition of peaceful regime change that dated back more than two centuries to John Adams who relinquished the office to Thomas Jefferson, honoring the result of the 1800 election.

The Republican Party of the United States had emerged in 1854, during the furor over slavery. That furor had led to the effective dissolution of the short-lived Whig Party, and of assorted minor parties. The founding principle of the new party was opposition to the spread of human enslavement into the territories. With astonishing speed, the new party became one of the two major political parties in the United States, electing a president, Abraham Lincoln, only six years after its founding. From then on, the Republican and Democratic Parties were the bases of America’s two-party system. In the 1880s, the term “Grand Old Party,” or GOP, referencing the Republican Party, began to appear in print. It was another century before the term took on the irony it carries today.

The Democratic Party¾then, for a time, often called simply “The Democracy”¾pre-dated the Republican Party for two decades or so, and had become the other major party. It had emerged from the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Although ostensibly devoted to the interests of workers and recently-enfranchised groups, and although there certainly were anti-slavery Democrats, (and pro-slavery Whigs) the party as such was the party of slavery. To a large extent, it was committed to southern interests, and thus became almost a sectional party during the Civil War, only to expand across the country, still generally supportive of southern segregation, in the decades to follow.

The early Republicans tended to be devoted to human rights, as reflected in Lincoln’s statement that they favored both the man and the dollar, but for the man over the dollar in cases of conflict. It was no accident that the Republican Party, during the Civil War, adopted the first income tax in US history, nor that it favored widespread education, conservation, and popular land ownership (the latter, to be sure, to the detriment of Native populations). Quickly, however, the party also was to become aligned with financial interests, after which it came to reject Lincoln’s preference for human over property rights.

Although the Republican Party developed an energetic progressive movement in the early 20th century, it could not maintain its progressive orientation. The 1920s saw the party become identified almost completely as the party of business, and the wealthy. When the Democratic New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt absorbed progressive elements in the 1930s and on the whole adopted progressive programs, Republicans tended to become even more devoted to what Americans call “conservative” policies: exaggerated patriotism and nationalism, isolationism, limited government, favor toward business, extreme protection of property, hostility toward programs crafted to benefit the people or anything they could describe as “socialism,” minimal economic regulation, and minimal taxation of wealth (this American version related only tangentially, if at all, to classic European “conservatism”). At the same time, Republicans became authoritarian: favorable toward the regulation of social conduct, despite their adoption of individualist, libertarian, rhetoric. The “individualism” that came to characterize Republicans, tended to be limited to economic matters; the freedom to accumulate wealth, and to use it with little or no restriction.

Following World War II, when Democratic President Harry Truman advocated fair housing, de-segregated the military by executive order, and proposed a national health service Republicans became more oriented toward policies of the south. This was the height of irony, in view of the anti-slavery commitment that had motivated the party’s founding. The two parties then shifted orientations fully after Lyndon Johnson worked for, and signed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Outraged by attacks on their “way of life,” southerners, as LBJ had predicted, shifted their politics. The “Solid South” no longer was solidly (or at all) Democratic. Bigoted southern Democrats en masse became bigoted southern Republicans. The Democrats had become the party of civil rights and human rights¾insofar as one existed in American politics¾and the Republicans had become ideological “conservatives.” As they did so, they came more and more to operate on a cult of personality that motivated so many autocracies in the world, summed up by Hitler’s Nazis as the Führerprinzip. Over and over, after Reagan’s presidency, Republicans who sought their party’s presidential nomination, claimed to be “more like Ronald Reagan,” than their opponents. Reagan worship continued undiluted until the advent of Trump as a Republican absorbed all the oxygen from the Republican room, so to speak, and superseded¾and far surpassed¾Reagan as the cult figure to dominate all things Republican.

By the 1960s, the Democratic Party had come to reject the explicit racism and the policies of white nationalism that until the early 20th century had been at its core.  The party then accepted the civil rights movement that sought to end racial discrimination and segregation. This caused the Republican Party to embrace the least humane principles of American politics, those that dominated the south, and most often (especially until after the Wilson administration, 1913-1921) had been associated with the Democratic Party.

Both parties, nevertheless¾after the Democrats’ defeat in the 1860s when they pursued the policies of secession and treason that brought about the Civil War¾were parties devoted to the “rules of the game,” and both generally supported the idea of self-government based on generally understood principles of democracy. They worked to ensure the most effective functioning of the legal system that the Constitution demanded, and that the political system enacted; even if a party had opposed a given law, its members generally cooperated with the other to make it work for the good of the whole.

As the latter part of the 20th century dawned and Republicans began to take away from the Democrats their most unsavory motivations, though, they also began to become less committed to democratic norms and to the “good of the whole;” even less committed to any political party’s most vital function: the very act of governing; this should have been expected.

 Republicans recognized that they were in trouble because of their devotion to the wealthy, to property as opposed to human rights, and because of their harsh disregard for the country, for democracy, and for the bulk of its people. Their orientation had progressively less appeal to those people. Nevertheless, they stood firm in their rejection of what at one time they had professed to accept as democratic values.

Instead of modifying their goals to make them more appealing to the people, they became more strident and more open in their “conservative” policies.  Following the example set by their post-Reconstruction ancestors, the architects of Jim Crow, they set about crafting ways to prevent majority interests from taking control. Ultimately, they discarded any guiding principle other than pursuit of power. This led them away from their previous professions of patriotism, and toward violence, dictatorial rule, and even subservience to foreign meddling if they saw it as aiding their cause. For elaboration, and documentation, see my Common Sense Manifesto.[1] Descriptions of a few of the outrageous Republican actions follow.

An initial break with standards of acceptable conduct came with the Nixon administration. Although this appears to have been largely forgotten, President Nixon, primarily through his henchman, Vice President Agnew, launched a campaign against the press. Nixon had long been known for his attacks on reporting that failed to support his actions, but his attacks became more strident, and more telling, when he weaponized his vice president.  Effectively blunting accurate reporting, Republicans began a mantra of “the liberal media.” So successful was this theme, that ever since, the term “liberal media” in public discourse¾untrue though it was¾became commonplace; much like “damnyankee” once was in the south. The culmination of decades of repetition was the even more powerful attack on accurate reporting by Trump, who popularized the term “fake news” to describe any coverage that failed to praise him adequately. Trump regularly blasted the news media as¾note the rhetoric borrowed from totalitarian tyrants¾“enemies of the people.” Both Nixon and Trump, one should remember, were haters, and both maintained “enemies lists.” Only the more simple-minded Trump, though, appeared to be in awe of totalitarians, and of totalitarianism itself. Nixon was too intelligent, and—although this is not a word that springs to mind when thinking of “Tricky Dick”—had too much decency compared to Trump, to be similarly taken in by foreign dictators.

The first known political maneuver in modern American politics suggesting that even overt treason might not be a deterrent foreshadowed ominously the direction the Republican Party might take in years to come. Candidate Nixon’s henchmen at his direction sabotaged the 1968 Paris peace talks in a deliberate effort to prolong the war in Vietnam. The purpose was to avoid an “October surprise” of peace that might swing voter support to Democrats, and their candidate, the sitting vice president, Hubert Humphrey. This was known earlier, but not finally verified, until 2016,[2] and was a clear indication that at least some powerful Republicans were willing to continue bloodshed and death in order to advance their own political fortunes.

There is considerable evidence that the Reagan campaign did something similar during the 1980 race for the presidency, when his henchmen dealt with Iranian officials, promising them arms and the like, if they would not release the American hostages during the campaign. Reagan and his campaign feared release would boost President Carter’s chances of being re-elected. The hostages were indeed held longer, and were not freed until the very instant of Reagan’s inauguration. The “Iran-Contra Scandal” included this, as well as other actions that also were virtually treasonous. To be sure, the deal to delay the hostage release has not been completely verified. Republicans saw to that by blocking funding for the investigation. There is full verification, though, that the Reagan administration did supply arms to Iranian terrorists who then did turn those arms against Americans. Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush (who had been Reagan’s vice president), subsequently pardoned Iran-Contra figures, making it impossible ever to secure their testimony.

During the administration of the younger Bush, the office of Vice President Cheney, leaked the name of Valerie Plame Wilson, an undercover CIA agent working in the Middle East, to conservative columnist, Robert Novak. This put her at risk, although she made it home safely. Her vital work on nuclear proliferation, however, was destroyed, her contacts disappeared (almost assuredly, executed), and her career was ended. This destruction of American interests, and its overt betrayal of America’s friends, took place because of outrage at her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had demonstrated that Saddam Hussein had not secured nuclear materials from Africa, as the Bush administration had charged. It now has been verified that the G.W. Bush administration, and that of the Bush ally, British prime minister Tony Blair, presented false information to justify the Iraq War. Even worse, both administrations knew that they were committing their countries to war based on lies.[3] The resulting legacy has been tragic.

Uniquely among American presidents, Donald Trump always had refused to commit himself to abiding by election results. Even in the 2016 election, he said clearly that he would accept the results¾if he were to win. Even winning, he openly resented the greater number of popular votes that went to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He considered an election to be fair and valid only if he won, but even that was not sufficient; he judged an election to be valid not merely if he won, but only if he were to have won by a huge majority.

There were legitimate concerns in 2020, that Trump would refuse to accept any other result. Of course, a losing candidate is not required to concede a loss, and the winning candidate wins, despite what the losing candidate says, or does. Trump, though, set about attempting to undermine public confidence in elections, which meant confidence in the entire process of political selection. That was profoundly undemocratic, profoundly subversive, and profoundly threatening to the continued existence of the United States as a democratic republic.

While still holding office, the “lame duck” president (one whose term had not yet ended, despite having lost in his efforts to achieve re-election), frantically sought to reverse the results of clear and fair elections. Trump and his henchmen brought numerous lawsuits attempting to use the legal system to achieve what he failed to do electorally: win the election. Time and again, these baseless lawsuits failed. Trump called repeatedly for violence, alleging that real Americans needed to “stop the steal.” Finally, Twitter and other social media banned him because of his flagrant lies, thus effectively shutting off the only way he knew how to communicate widely. Nor did he cease when he left office. As of late September, 2021, when this was being written, he still, nearly a year after the election was settled, continued to pressure some state election officials to reverse their certification of his loss. He seemed to harbor the deluded notion that he still might somehow be reinstated; an impossibility under the Constitution.

Ultimately, while he still had his platform, Trump urged his supporters¾fanatically committed, yet decidedly in the minority¾to march on the Capitol in Washington and “fight like hell,” to intimidate members of Congress and prevent them from counting the electoral votes, a process that had been set for January 6th. Thousands did so. They stormed the Capitol, threatening members, fighting with Capitol Police, and retreating only when the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police joined the battle with the threat of troops from National Guard Units. For the first time since the Civil War, America witnessed a violent insurrection, explicitly designed to reject the votes of the majority¾and even the electoral college¾and install the loser. That the coup failed does not minimize its threat to the country’s foundations. No democratic republic can survive as such if enough of its people seek to undermine it, and Trump did everything possible to undermine the very system that had installed him, a system that even ignored the majority’s vote, and installed him as a minority-vote president.

Right-wing extremists attempted another potentially violent demonstration on 18 September in Washington, D.C., but the effort failed, and was even anti-climactic; so few came that they were outnumbered by law enforcement officials.  The purpose of the demonstration was ostensibly to demonstrate support for the “patriots” who had been indicted for participating in the coup attempt in January. Trump, of course, expressed his support for the “political prisoners”—demonstrating how little he cares for the foundations of the United States as a democratic republic.

This was another in a long succession of Republican failures. It would seem as though Republicans might have to expect failure has a matter of course. Consider that Trump lost his re-election bid, and that the popular vote against him was enormous. Democrats retained control of the House, and gained control of the Senate. Consider also, the tragic record of Covid deaths when Trump was in office and his disclaimer of any responsibility for national health policy. At the state level, the same dynamics play out causing the huge death tolls in Florida, Texas, and other states where there are Republican governors and legislatures.  As a rule, there will be stubborn, ignorant, and vicious refusals to mandate protections against viral spread.

In 2021 alone, not only did the January insurrection and its September sequel fail, but so did the Republican effort to recall California’s governor, Gavin Newsom. There was a massive vote in the election on September 14 to retain Newsom as governor. In Arizona, there was a group of Republican state senators that forced a new “audit” of the 2020 vote in the state’s large Maricopa County. The effort was a fiasco, leading one of the Republican senators who had supported it to express his regrets, saying it made them look like idiots. Indeed.

Nevertheless, Republicans around the country thought the Arizonans had a good idea. In several other states, they announced plans to conducts their own “audits” of their states’ votes in 2020. In Pennsylvania, Republican state senators demanded complete information of all voters, including partial Social Security numbers. The state’s attorney general said “no.” In Texas, hours after Trump sent a letter to Governor Abbott demanding that Texas conduct its own audit of Democratic counties, the governor, of course, meekly ordered such “audits.” This, even though Trump had carried Texas, and could have gained absolutely nothing from such an effort.

The Arizona “auditors” had taken seriously the preposterous suspicion that Arizona ballots had been routed to, or corrupted by ballots from—of all places—China. Betraying their racism, they examined the ballots for “bamboo fibers,” assuming that anything from China had to contain bamboo, and apparently assuming that bamboo existed only in China. They found none.

They did, however, for some strange reason, take ballots out of the state, reportedly hiding them in an isolated location, hundreds of miles distant, in Montana. Regardless, after months of delay, on the 24th of September, they issued their final report.

Contrary to Republican beliefs, the voting machines had performed as intended. Moreover, their own report indicated that Trump did, indeed, lose legitimately. It said even that Trump’s loss, in fact, was somewhat greater than the official count had shown.

In the serious insurrection attempt on the 6th of January, not only had the Trump-inspired seditionists sought Democratic Speaker Pelosi to assassinate, but they had set up a gallows on the Capitol lawn, and chanted their desire to find and hang even Republican Vice President Pence. His offense was that he had not followed Trump’s demand to steal electoral votes and thus overturn the recent election. Happily, their thirst for vengeance remained unslaked.

Immediately after the riot, even Republicans, still frightened and in shock, condemned the insurrection. A number even blamed Trump, himself, for his obvious instigating role¾remember his shouted urging of the mob to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Within a few days, though, most Republicans denied that they had ever been in danger, that anyone else had, and that there had even been an insurrection. This after the entire world had seen the violent assault on the Capitol and its police guard. Rather, there had been merely a “peaceful tourist” assembly in the (vandalized) Capitol building, some said absurdly.

These acts of malfeasance and many other Republican actions of the last few decades, would have been sufficient throughout American history to bring down administrations, and to destroy political careers. So degraded has the party become, however, and so outrageous were Trump’s actions, that no revelation, and no verification, seems sufficient any longer to shame Republicans. They readily deny painfully obvious facts, or even to recognize them, but to say, “so what”?

The Trumpist Republican Party now has thrown all pretense of “conservatism” aside, along with any attempt to be consistent. Actions a Democrat does, however benign, they will condemn; the same action, or even a violent and treasonous one, by a Republican¾especially Trump¾they will applaud. The frenzied, out of control, insurrection had put all members of Congress in danger, even Republicans. Still, though, they closed their eyes (and minds) to reality.

The Party, as indicated, no longer even pretends to devote itself to conservatism. An examination of Republican policies demonstrates that the party now operates in pursuit of a few basic principles, most of which simply are cynical efforts to please their “base;” some examples are:

The GOP opposes all measures to regulate or reduce the proliferation of firearms. When a mass murder takes place, as one does frequently, they are likely to say, “now is not the time to politicize the issue.” Instead of policy, they rely on “thoughts and prayers” for the victims. They were never content to rely on “thoughts and prayers” to keep out of the country those they opposed; rather they sought a huge, expensive, and futile wall.

The party seeks to eliminate all abortion. Republicans often are equally hostile to contraception. Thus, despite professing to favor limited government, and “freedom,” they would empower government to take full control of all women, or girls of childbearing age. Ultimately, this presupposes required regular medical exams to ascertain whether or not they are pregnant. Republicans ignore the fact that a government has to be powerful to forbid abortion, and that a government sufficiently powerful to forbid abortion will also be powerful enough to require it, or if they so choose, to require pregnancies. The result of an effective prohibition of abortion is the enslavement of women, subjecting them to government dictates regarding their own bodies. Quite clearly, the motivating factor is misogyny. The Texas approach that other authoritarian states are admiring is to empower citizens to spy on one another, and to reward them if they follow the demands of the state. A police state is just around the corner, if the anti-abortion fundamentalists continue to have their way.

The party elevates a warped version of “religious freedom,” to overwhelm personal privacy. It seeks to ensure “religious freedom” for corporations to regulate the conduct of their employees. All this presupposes that the religion in question is one that possesses official approval. The party actually has two components: one that consists of Christian fundamental evangelicals, and the other that is relatively secular. The former openly seeks a theocracy that is rigidly authoritarian¾even totalitarian. The latter would be content with a secular dictatorship that maintains them in power, but it cooperates gleefully with the religious fanatics. The two groups use one another for the purpose of securing and maintaining power. The characteristics of the resulting government otherwise are of less concern to them.

Republicans seek to have a minimum of immigration, and no influx of refugees.

They favor opinion over fact, and deny the role of scientific findings in public policy, even in the face of mass death from a pandemic.

There is little indication that the party actually cares about the substance of these issues. Republican leaders seek solely to secure and maintain the support of their hard core voters. What gets serious and sincere Republican attention, is an effort to subvert majority will. Republicans generally recognize that their actual policies have no broad public appeal. Instead of pursuing support, however, they seek to diminish, or even to eliminate, votes that would turn them out of office. At the same time, they attempt to hide their real intentions. As they make it more and more difficult to vote, they lie in state after state that they are making it easier to vote, merely making it harder to commit fraud (which they know is virtually nonexistent in modern America).

Republicans go to extreme efforts to draw district boundaries so that they maintain power, regardless of their minority status. They also make voting as difficult as possible in areas in which they have less than majority support. These usually are districts with voters who reflect the interests of people of color. This has led to the greatest suppression of votes since post Reconstruction days when Jim Crow policies became solidified.

Worst of all, Republicans have succeeded in controlling governments in numerous states. There, they are adopting measures designed to empower them to overturn the results of elections when they dislike the outcomes. They are avidly developing mechanisms to permit them to disregard and overrule the will of the voters. At the same time, they charge “liberals” with being “elitists.” The clear Republican intent here is to make it impossible for them to lose elections, regardless of how large Democratic majorities may be. In other words, they are openly plotting to end even the possibility of rule by the people.

This, then, is the relationship between Trump and the Republican Party. The Party reflects his will, and supports his whims. Regardless, it is not the case that he corrupted the Party. Rather, the corruption was endemic, and of long duration; it prepared the party for one such as Trump. Sadly for the country, and the world, such a person was available, and eager to fill the pernicious role that the Republican Party had been crafting for him.

No one can say with certainty what ultimately will happen. One thing, though, is certain. Things as they currently exist cannot continue. No democratic republic based on a two-party system can long survive if one of its major parties refuses to honor and abide by accepted principles of restraint, popular government, and peaceful changes of political power. The current court system has been systematically corrupted by stolen seats, and decades of ideological appointments by right-wing Republicans. The Senate retains its archaic rules that permit the minority to thwart majority rule.

Thus, there are two major reforms needed urgently. The Senate must change its procedures, including elimination of the filibuster, which empowers and encourages a minority to thwart the will of the majority. Also, the Supreme Court must be expanded by four seats, to enable it to counteract rulings protecting the extreme right.

Examples of such rulings are those protecting virtually unlimited financing of politics by the wealthy; those that sacrifice public health and create physical dangers by giving preference to a narrow and extreme version of “religious liberty”; yet others that permit states virtually to outlaw abortion, thus reducing women to the status of slaves, in what would seem to be a clear violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.  Ultimately, the worst of the rulings suggests that the Court accepts Republican measures to make it impossible for them to lose elections, regardless of what the majority of the voting population desires.

Finally, if the Republican Party does not truly cast off its current extremism and accept restraints on its conduct, it must fade from importance¾even existence¾and be replaced by another party that will conduct itself within democratic norms. As things stand, unless it reforms itself dramatically, either the Republican Party will vanish, or the United States as a democratic republic will do so.

[1] The Common Sense Manifesto (With a Nod to Thomas Paine, Not Karl Marx), Washington: Westphalia Press, 2020.

[2] See John A. Farrell, Richard Nixon: The Life,New York: Doubleday, 2017, quoted in Skidmore, Common Sense Manifesto, pp. 4-7.

[3] See Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War, Sausalito, CA: PoliPoint Press, 2008; see also Skidmore, Common Sense Manifesto, p.25.

“Means testing” Is Originally a Racist Idea: Senators Manchin & Sinema May Not Know That

Posted on by

By

Dave Kingsley

“Means Testing” is a unique U.S. Idea

Like the uniquely barbaric U.S. slavery system and its Jim Crow aftermath, means tested medical care is a unique and racist idea designed to keep African Americans from accessing government funded medical care. President Johnson could not move Medicare through congress without support of segregationist Southern Democrats in the Senate and House. Their concern was that Medicare alone would be expanded to cover younger ages over time and transformed into a universal, single payer.

By forcing Johnson to add means tested, poor peoples medicine, administered by states, former slave states with a residual planter economy and subhuman wages for black workers, could make qualification for eligibility so onerous that African Americans could be kept in subhuman conditions without medical care. State control and the right to opt into the program allowed for arbitrary, racist, administration of the program. Bureaucrats could put obstacles in the path of applicants who would be required to prove they were poor enough and of high enough character to qualify for medical care.

That is the way it works to this very day – especially in states with large African American populations. To qualify for Medicaid in many states, poor people are required to prove they are so poor that even most low wage workers cannot qualify. Due to a glitch in Obamacare (actually due to a Supreme Court decision), people not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid are often too poor to qualify for Obamacare.

As opposed to our enlightened peer countries with advanced economic systems, medical care is not a right in the U.S. Given the horrific medical ethics that implies, one would think that the medical profession would be up in arms and fighting with vigor and intensity to move the U.S. medical system into the 21st Century. But it was the medical profession that originally teamed up with Southern Democrats to kill Harry Truman’s universal, single payer health care system. Overall, the professional medical system hasn’t changed much in that regard.

Conservatives – both Republican and Democrat conservatives – insist on making people prove they are too poor to buy medical care. Rather than provide medical care to people for no other reason than they need medical care, sick people or people who fear that they will not have care if they are sick are put through humiliating rituals and are constantly under threat of being kicked off the program. The subtext of the conservative narrative in that regard is that ordinary, wage earning, taxpaying citizens can’t be trusted – that they want something for nothing from the government or that they are lazy cheats. This stigmatization of poor people for medical purposes doesn’t apply to wealthy executives and investors who really are ripping off the system (see my last post).

I wish media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN would quit referring to Democrats insisting on means testing as “moderates.” The indignities of poor peoples medicine as a special category of care is an extremely conservative, backward, idea that has the foul odor of history.

Liberals & Democrats Need to Change the Conversation: Too Much of Our Federal Medical Care Funding is Flowing to the Wealthy

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Rogue Corporations Scamming the System

You may have never heard of Centene Corporation. But we need to talk about this company which derives most of its revenue from Medicaid – medical care for the poor. With revenue of $111 billion in 2020, it is 24th on the Fortune 500 ranking of corporations (by size of revenues). CEO Michael Neidorff earned $25 million last year – among the five or six highest paid executives in corporate America. Not bad for “welfare medicine.”

Compensation for the top four Centene executives and the board of directors totaled $64 million in 2020. The board includes former congressmen Tommy Thompson (also former head of HHS) and Richard Gephardt. Two very powerful former members of congress.

So, what exactly does this company do for Medicaid? It is known as a “managed care organization” or MCO. The idea underlying the MCO concept is that private, for-profit corporations can do a better and more economical job of managing government funded medical care than government employees. Evidence overwhelmingly points in the other direction but the myth nevertheless persists.

Humana, Cigna, and other corporations have jumped into the MCO business. Let’s face it, the $600 billion+ Medicaid budget has opened opportunities for corporations to rake off untold billions for wealthy investors, executives, and board members, while poor people in states that have expanded Medicaid are humiliated through character tests such as proof they aren’t taking drugs, or too lazy to look for a job. Poor people in Arkansas for instance are facing administrative road blocks and state bureaucracies that see their role as keeping people from receiving benefits.

I’m certain that wealthy executives and investors are enjoying their concierge medicine while poor people can’t get treatment for an abscessed tooth, screening for cancer, diabetes, or medical care that most of us take for granted. This is what the Democrats and liberals need to be screaming about – not means testing and making people prove they are worthy of medicine taken for granted by every citizen in most affluent countries. No doubt, progressives in the U.S. House of Representatives are doing just that. However, silence on this issue from most senators and congresspersons on the Democratic side of aisle is deafening. Forget the now cruel Republican Party. There is no hope there.

This is Not the Democratic Party’s Finest Hour

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Democrats Have Both House of Congress & A President’s Proposed Budget We Badly Need: And They Are Blowing It!

Last night I heard an interview with Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar – a Democrat – in which he said that he’s insisting on “means testing” for eligibility in President Biden’s proposed medical care and other programs benefitting ordinary Americans. I’ve heard Senators Manchin and Sinema say the same thing. In other words, people needing child care, medical care, and home based care must prove they are worthy of receiving government assistance to see a doctor, have a place for their child while they work, or need assistance to stay in their home and out of a nursing home.

If past is prologue, this means that American citizens in many states badly needing these humane programs must suffer the humiliation of proving that they are not taking drugs, looking for work if they are unemployed, and too poor to buy these services on their own. This is an anti-worker, anti-people attitude that Democrats need to lose.

As someone who spends a lot of my waking hours researching finances of corporations benefitting from privatized, taxpayer funded, medical programs, I can say with certainty that corporate executives and investors are becoming fabulously wealthy by diverting an excessive amount of Medicare and Medicaid revenue into family and individual trusts for the purpose of avoiding taxes. They undergo no universal character test and yet fraud committed by low and middle income people pales in comparison to what clever CPAs are able scam out of the system on behalf of their high net worth clients.

It is interesting that so many Democrats think that spending a piddly few trillion on its non-rich citizens is excessive in a nation with a $25 trillion economy and a federal budget providing trillions in tax benefits to its wealthiest citizens. In a government funded, privatized health care system, corporations and wealthy investors and their families are able to capture trillions they don’t deserve through dark money and an ability to fund political campaigns.

If conservative Democrats think that catering to the wealthy and demeaning the wage/salary workers of this country is a formula for success, they are delusional. Furthermore, they are weakening a president with a program crucial for staving off crises the likes of which we can’t imagine. This country, this economy, this planet cannot sustain the perverse, toxic, corrupt form of economics and politics exhibited by medical care, agriculture, finance, real estate, energy, and other industrial sectors – it is not capitalism, rather it is a corrupt, debauched economic system in which government and businesses collude at the expense of the public.

A “Nursing Home” License is a Valuable Asset: States Are Failing to Leverage Licenses in Securing Reputable Providers & High-Quality Care

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

What’s A Nursing Home License Worth?

    What is a nursing home license worth to a corporation or group of investors pooling their money to buy facilities?  It’s of enormous value. Without a license granted by a state, nursing home real estate – the primary purpose of an investment in the business – is worthless.  The value of these intangible assets are noted on nursing home corporation balance sheets as “Right-of-Use-Assets.”  For instance, Brookdale Senior Living noted $788 million of “Operating lease right-of-use assets” in 2020 and $1.2 billion in 2019.  The Ensign Group noted $1.0 billion in both 2020 and 2019 on its balance sheet as “Right-of-Use Assets.”

    A limited number of licenses are available, which enhances their value.  We can expect a modest decrease in the number of long-term care facilities and number of beds across the United States.  More emphasis on keeping individuals at home and out of institutions has gained some traction.  Any downward trend in institutionalization of patients on a long-term basis will increase the value of licenses merely because of supply and demand.

State Agencies Responsible for Licensing Are Handing Out Valuable State Assets Without Adequate Expectations of Transparency, Responsibility, & Quality of Services from Recipients

    Although industry lobbyists constantly and consistently claim that providers are struggling financially due to inadequate Medicaid reimbursement, they have never presented objective (audited) financial data to support their hardship pleas.  Conversely, an abundance of evidence is available from required Security & Exchange Commission reports that executives, board members, and major shareholders are being abundantly rewarded.

    It is time for the public to insist that high paid industry lobbyists such as former Governor Mark Parkinson of Kansas either cease their incessant misinformation about the financial hardship of providers or provide audited financial data that contradicts publicly available financial information.  Contrary to the effective, well-funded, industry narrative and political strategy, overwhelming evidence suggests that investors are becoming fabulously rich from land and buildings, the value of which is based mostly on taxpayer funded “poor people’s medicine,” i.e., Medicaid.  A variety of complicated sections of the U.S. tax codes further add to cash flow from government funds into the pockets of investors. Not the least of these tax advantages is depreciation appearing on corporate financial statements (there are many others, but that’s a subject for a future blog post).

    It is my contention that states are not leveraging the value of their licenses on behalf of federal and state taxpayers.  Indeed, over the past few decades, major industries such as real estate, finance, insurance, skilled nursing/long-term care have captured legislatures at the federal and state level through generous political contributions and an army of lobbyists. Therefore, state regulators tend to take a very laisse faire approach to oversight. Due diligence in the issuance of licenses is lax and revocation of licenses for negligent care is rare.

Will Long-term Care Investor Ephram Lahasky Be Granted Licenses to Operate Diversicare Facilities in Kansas? It Is Time for Advocates to Put Legislators, the Governor, and State Agencies on Notice:  We are Watching!

    Diversicare Inc. is one of the rather small number of publicly listed nursing home chains.  For the most part, it is a “failed company” due to poor management.  This corporation was on the brink of bankruptcy until generous federal and state COVID subsidies breathed new life into it.  Entering the COVID pandemic in 2020, the company’s stock was trading at about $1.60.  By Spring of 2021, the stock was trading around $3.50 per share.  A couple of weeks ago, I noticed that Diversicare shares had shot up about 250% in one day.

    An investor by the name of Ephram Lahasky had offered to buy the company for $10.00 per share.  According to media reports, Lahasky has a record of running substandard nursing homes. He is not welcome to buy long-term care facilities in states where his past surfaces.  A Lexis/Nexis search uncovered a host of suspect activities and federal investigations pertaining to Lahasky owned facilities (see for instance, Sean D. Hamill, “Lawsuit: Nursing Home Reported False Data: Owners Also Own Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center In Beaver County,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 27, 2020 Thursday).

     We must insure that Lahasky is thoroughly vetted by the Kansas Department of Aging & Disability Services before licenses are granted to him for the six Diversicare facilities now licensed to operate in Kansas.  According to the following section of Kansas statutes, it would be illegal for the current licenses to be merely transferred to a new owner of the property:

39-928. Issuance of license, when; inspections and investigations; reports; time license effective; nontransferable; display; contents of license.

Each license shall be issued only for the premises and persons named in the application and shall not be transferable or assignable. It shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the adult care home. If the annual report is not so filed and annual fee is not paid, such license is automatically canceled. Any license granted under the provisions of this act shall state the type of facility for which license is granted, number of residents for which granted, the person or persons to whom granted, the date and such additional information and special limitations as are deemed advisable by the licensing agency.

History: L. 1961, ch. 231, § 6; L. 1972, ch. 171, § 5; L. 1980, ch. 182, § 11; L. 1989, ch. 126, § 1;

Public officials have a fiduciary responsibility to citizens when they award rights to their states’ valuable resources.  A license to operate a long-term care facility infuses more value into real estate than taxpayers realize. Investors benefitting from a state-granted license owe taxpayers quality services equal to the financial rewards they will reap.

What are the Causes of Outrageously Expensive U.S. Medical Care? Institutional Racism, Propaganda, & Privatization are Some Primary Causes.

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Why Do Americans Put Up With Their Inferior, Costly, Medical Care System?

My colleague Kent Comfort’s post today is a story to which most Americans can relate – astounding and inexplicable charges for an emergency room visit or a seemingly simple procedure in a hospital or clinic.  Why do the American people put up with the most costly, inefficient, and corrupt medical system among countries with developed economies?

The simple answer is that we have been indoctrinated to believe that we have the best medical care system possible in the best of all possible worlds.  We are even told that we have the best medical care in the world.  The alternative, according to propagandists, is the dreaded socialism – never mind that the British National Health Service is government owned and operated, exceedingly fair to the population, and costs much less than U.S. medical care. Also, over the past few decades, London and the British Iles in general have become engines of global finance and capitalism.  While Margaret Thatcher was on her privatization tear, she made it very clear that she would not touch the NHS.

Propaganda and conditioning of people in nation states are ordinary across the globe.  Governments in advanced industrial nations are sophisticated and effective in selling policies and programs that are not in the public’s best interests. Although the British National Health Service is among the best in the world at a cost of $4,653 per capita compared to the U.S., paying $11,072 and struggling with a wasteful system failing a large part of the population, the ole “socialism is bad” propaganda rears its ugly head at the mention of a national, single payer system. What we are told (and far too many people believe) is that we can’t afford to do better. Apparently, we can only afford to pay more to do worse.

The real historical circumstances leading to the embarrassingly bad U.S. medical care system have nothing to do with “socialism.”

I will make the case that the current industrial medical system in the United States has its roots and initial conditions in Jim Crow, Southern Democrat opposition to health care equality for African Americans that would most certainly occur in a federally administered, single-payer, universal medical care system.  Furthermore, the American Medical Association, Northern Republicans, and Southern Democrats waged a rabid and successful war against President Truman’s single payer plan through a well-financed propaganda campaign.

The AMA would not even recognize the right of African American physicians to practice medicine and excluded them from its all-white, politically reactionary organization.  Furthermore, the AMA was a powerful force in state politics and could exercise considerable control over education and licensure, which are determinate of physician income.  Hence, a white supremacist and powerful group of physicians joined forces with other racist and reactionary forces to stymie Harry Truman’s national health care plan.

Had the Southern Democrats supported President Truman in his quest for a single-payer, universal health care system, it would have made it through congress and be as much a part of the U.S. government and economy as the National Health Service is an integral part of British society.  The Senators and Congressmen from the South were white populists and supportive of New Deal programs for whites such as Social Security (agricultural & domestic workers were excluded), the Hill Burton hospital construction program (hospitals funded under Hill-Burton were allowed to remain segregated well into the 1960s), and other programs that benefitted whites.

Poverty medicine, Medicaid, Exclusion, and Lower Tier Care

Under the leadership of Arkansas Congressman Wilbur Mills, one of the most powerful congressmen in U.S. history, the single payer Medicare system for the elderly was accompanied into law by the means-tested, poverty Medicaid system.  Mills was a bigot and signatory to the Southern Manifesto (signed by all Southern Democrats in congress), which was a protest against Brown v. Board of Education.

As Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, Mills maneuvered Medicaid into existence to prevent expansion of Medicare to younger age groups.  Furthermore, the states’ role in Medicaid would allow for harassment, stigmatization, and lower tier medicine, all of which would help keep African Americans in an inferior status in Southern states.

Privatization and the Monetization of Poverty

Poverty is paying off for some of the largest corporations in the United States. Medicaid is a cash cow for providers running for profit hospitals, nursing homes, and medical supply companies.  For instance, the Centene Corporation is in the business of managing Medicaid programs for states.  Centene executives were paid a combined $64 million in 2020.  The company’s CEO was one of the highest paid executives among the Fortune 500 executives.

In the weeks ahead, we will be further making the case that Americans have been conditioned to believe that the health care system they have is the best they can afford and deserve.  That’s false.  We will expose the corporations making excess earnings, paying high dividends, and providing poor care.

Medical Care Rip Offs in the U.S. Medical Care System

Posted on by

By:

Kent Comfort

This is a true account of an actual incident. The names have been changed because the reader has no reason to know who they actually are.

Paul and Rhonda Martin were involved in a bad auto accident several years ago that resulted in Rhonda being transported by ambulance to a regional hospital emergency room, followed by an overnight stay for “observation. Rhonda was quickly examined for any sign of injury that may need immediate attention or treatment. Nothing serious was determined.

Rhonda was released at noon the next day. Other than the muscle aches and pains that would be expected from such an incident, she had no new complaints and was very ready to be dismissed so she could return home.

Because this was an auto related incident, the medical coverage that was part of the auto insurance policy was the source of responsibility for all charges related to medical care. Paul and Rhonda had sufficiently high limits on their policy to easily cover all expenses. No out of pocket payment was required. That’s the end of this story, right? That would be wrong.

When the bills started coming in the mail, that Sunday afternoon outing ending in a vehicle crash generated nearly $40,000 in expenses and revenue for all parties involved with providing care to Rhonda. The hospital ER visit and overnight stay alone totaled just over $35,000. And there was no treatment or procedures performed, no medications prescribed, and only dinner and breakfast were provided in the hospital room. And Rhonda stated that they were not that delicious!

When Paul reviewed the hospital statement, he was alarmed at some of the items listed and their charges. One charge in particular stood out as a very likely error. It was over $11,000 for a neurologist. Rhonda was not examined by any neurologist. The closest they came to contact with medical personnel was a brief visit by an intern in training and a couple of nurses.

Paul called the hospital business office to clear up the mistake. The clerk initially agreed with Paul that the statement needed closer scrutiny and verification of charges. Paul received a call the next day, and here is what he was told.

“The $11,000 charge is correct. This is due to the fact that there was a neurologist on site, and if Rhonda had needed that level of care it was present. The charge is for the presence of this level of care if needed. And that is standard policy.” Hence, the hospital insisted that the charge was not a mistake at all!

Even though the Martins considered such a response to be alarming, and even unethical in their view, there was no financial impact on them because if it. Paul even called the auto insurance company and they brushed it off as inconsequential and assured Paul there was no reason to be concerned. They would pay the bill as presented and that would be the end of the story. But here again, that would also be wrong. Fortunately for both Paul and Rhonda, the injuries never amounted to anything more than a few aches and pains that were just a memory three weeks later.

A little over two years later, the Martins received a letter in the mail informing them that a class action lawsuit had been filed against the hospital for excessive and questionable charges to clients. They were invited to join the suit as plaintiffs by filling out an enclosed form and returning it by a stated deadline date. They were surprised by this turn of events, and promptly completed the form and mailed it back in the enclosed envelope. Approximately six months later, they received an unremarkable looking postcard that referenced the class action status and required a signature and return. It was so innocuous in appearance that it would have been very easy to overlook and toss in the trash.

The next communication regarding the lawsuit was a letter announcing that the case was successfully completed, and a substantial judgement had been won on behalf of the plaintiff group. After all matters were settled, payments would be disbursed to all plaintiff clients in the near future. No dollar amounts were disclosed in the letter.

Enough time elapsed after that communication that the Martins almost forgot anything was still in process. And then nearly a year later, after they had just returned from a trip, they sifted through the pile of mail that had accumulated during their absence. There was, once again an innocuous looking envelope with no revealing identification visible. It was cleverly presented to look like typical junk mail containing advertisements. Paul and Rhonda have always been diligent about opening all their mail. And this time it really paid off. Enclosed was a check for their portion of the settlement, amounting to over $20,000! And that is almost the end of the story!

Many questions arise from the facts presented here. For example:

  • Why did the hospital think they could get by with assessing such outrageous charges for essentially no services of consequence provided?
  • Why do auto insurance companies accept these excessive charges without raising any questions on behalf of their clients?
  • Is it correct to assume that auto insurance rates are much higher than they should or to be because of their lack of prudence?
  • How many people who received an invitation to join the class action suit may have been inclined to just toss the letter?
  • Even more disturbing, how many people may have thought the envelope containing the check was junk mail and tossed it?
  • Has it become standard practice in the American medical industrial complex that a common solution for adjusting costs includes class action lawsuits?

This is a very brief list for what could easily become a very long list of questions about how broken the American medical service delivery process truly is. The final question might be is there anything that can be done about it in our present sociopolitical environment?

The Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex & the Maldistribution of Wealth in the United States

Posted on by

By:

Dave Kingsley

Introduction

In the previous post, my colleague Kent Comfort presented a case study pertaining to the disappearance of middle-class wealth into the Medical-Financial-Industrial complex black hole.  Even frugal, hardworking individuals who believe they have saved enough for retirement often find their assets depleted quickly due to high-cost, industrial medicine.  In this and future posts, we will be explaining how wealth is being maldistributed in the United States and how the government-funded industrial-medical system is helping to drive wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

The shift in wealth and the influence of U.S. medicine on the flow of assets from the lower socio-economic classes to the wealthiest class is a threat to the economic system and socio-cultural stability.  According to the PEW Research Foundation, “The wealth divide among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families is sharp and rising (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality).

Since the 2008 economic crash, most of the growth in U.S. family/individual net wealth has gone to the upper 5 percent.  The share of U.S. wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent of the population fell from 33 percent to 23 percent.  Wealth of the top 1% increased from 30 to 40 percent (https://equitablegrowth.org/the-distribution-of-wealth-in-the-united-states-and-implications-for-a-net-worth-tax/). This macroeconomic factor not only an economic injustice, it is a threat to the U.S. capitalistic system and democracy.

You pay taxes, premiums, and out of pocket expenses to fund large reimbursements to insurers, providers, and vendors, i.e., the insurance, hospital, medical device, pharmaceutical, nursing home, and other ancillary medical services industries. And yet, health care in the United States can bankrupt you.  Indeed, many people have been bankrupted through exorbitant hospital and nursing home costs. 

If the money you would like to leave to your heirs disappears in the U.S. industrial medical system, you would probably like to know where it goes.  It doesn’t go back to the Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and VA programs ostensibly paying for your treatment.  Those programs are replenished through federal and state taxes – with the heaviest burden falling on the middle and lower classes.

So where, other than treatment, does all that money you pay in taxes and spend out of pocket for health care go?  The simple answer is, it goes to shareholders in one form or other.  In the 1970s and 80s, the country decided that private enterprise, operating in a “free market,” would be the most efficient and effective medical care delivery system.  What we got was an inefficient, ineffective, corrupt, and far too expensive industrial medicine system that funnels your hard-earned assets into the pockets of high-net-worth individuals and ultra-rich individuals and families.

From Your Family to Their Family:  How Laws Have Been Engineered to Keep Upper Income Wealth Growing While Everyone Else’s Continues to Shrink

Wealthy individuals despise two things: taxes and inflation. In fact, Leona Helmsley was jailed for telling an ugly truth: “We don’t pay taxes, the little people pay taxes.”  By little people, she meant most of us who are not rich.  Hence, the wealthy purchase politicians that protect their wealth from inflation and taxes – “purchased politicians” include practically all elected legislators in both parties. 

Shareholders in the industrial medical system tend to be high-net-worth individuals ($30 million or more in assets) or ultra-rich families worth hundreds of millions and billions. Inordinately complex federal and state tax laws have complexified corporate and individual finances, which works to the advantage of owners and shareholders.  For instance, throughout the past few decades, the state of South Dakota has amended its trust laws and has become a haven for wealthy individuals and families seeking trust laws that protect their wealth from inheritance and other forms of taxation.

It future posts, we will be taking a deeper dive into how Medicaid and Medicare funds are fueling the flow of wealth up the SES ladder.  For instance, more of those funds are flowing into family trusts than people realize.  In fact, the amount of nursing home ownership by family trusts is extensive and unnoticed by the public.  We will expose which chains are funneling a considerable amount of revenue into family and individual trusts.

How The U.S. Medical System Transfers Working Class Wealth to the 1%: A Case Study

Posted on by

By:

Kent Comfort

Mary’s Story: This Could Be You!

Mary Beacher has just retired after four decades of working for a large regional printing company as a type setter. She went to work for this company two months after graduating from high school. It was the best employer in her town, and she counted her lucky stars that she was able to secure a job there. And she worked hard to be a dependable model employee.

When she first started working for the company, they had an employee pension plan that the company paid into on behalf of all workers. In the 1980s, that pension plan converted into a 401k account for each individual employee, with their pension accruals transferring over to this new financial instrument. Mary did not understand the nuances of this. She just trusted her employer to look out for her retirement nest egg when she would reach that time. Mary would receive a statement annually that showed the value of her personal retirement fund. And her excitement grew every year after about 30 years had passed, because the amount it had grown was very impressive to her.

When retirement day finally came, Mary learned she had just over $500,000 waiting for her to fund her way of life. She had always made a very modest salary, and she was not a financial expert in any way, so this seemed like more money than she could ever imagine she would need to support her modest lifestyle. She had no plans for moving away from the small community she had always lived in. Almost everyone that mattered to her lived there. Where would she go?

Three years into her new leisurely life, Mary had the misfortune of experiencing some serious health problems. Since she lived alone and her only daughter lived far away with her own family, Mary did not have any family close by to provide care and support, and she was not able to look after herself because of her ailment. Her doctor recommended she look into skilled nursing care at a local nursing home that was owned by a national chain. Her doctor’s reasoning was that since the facility was owned by a huge company, it must be safe. He had heard occasional complaints from families of residents, but nothing that alarmed him. As elderly folks are commonly inclined, she took her doctor’s advice and allowed herself to become a resident, hopefully for only a short while until her health improved and she could go back home.

Mary’s health did not improve. Some would say the primary reason for this was the environment she was in was depressing and she felt like no one was really watching out for her or cared about her. And sadly, she was more right than wrong about this feeling.

The biggest shock came when she learned that the monthly cost of her staying in this facility was over $10,000. She no longer had health insurance from her employer after she retired. She was enrolled with Medicare, but she was not eligible for coverage from that source because her case was not about rehabilitation. She was a skilled nursing client. She discovered she would have to foot the bill for her care on her own until all her funds were exhausted. Then she would qualify for Medicaid in her state because she could claim to be in a state of poverty at that point.

And that is the story about how the Mary Beachers all over America have their entire personal wealth extracted through health industry policies, all of which are legal. Mary’s personal wealth did not go into government accounts. It went into the accounts of the large, very wealthy corporations that own the senior care properties all over the country. And that money then flows to a very small number of wealthy families who own these corporations. Due to very favorable tax laws and policies, these families pay a lower percentage of taxes than Mary did when she was earning her salary at the printing company!

So, let’s recap Mary’s situation. Her hard-earned personal wealth, from four decades of being a trusted and loyal employee at a local printing plant, in a very short time period was transferred entirely to a wealthy family through the legal policies of the American health services system.

And this could happen to you as long as our policies and systems remain as they are today. But that is not the end of the story….

See: The Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex & the Maldistribution of Wealth in the United States by Dr. David Kingsley on this blog site.