Redefining Insurance Fraud: On Managed Care

Written by Robert Levin

Continued from page 1

Indeed, even most ofrepparttar 45 million Americans who go without insurance because they can't affordrepparttar 126015 premiums opposerepparttar 126016 alternative of not-for-profit system. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that there'd be no significant risk to capitalism in this solution. We've already got "socialized" institutions in this country—police and fire departments, for example—that hardly infringe on our freedom to take advantage of one another. A few more would still leave us with plenty of opportunities to ripoff our fellow man.

(And speaking of a not-for-profit health care system, does anyone seriously think that dealing with a government bureaucracy would somehow be more brutal than dealing with Aetna, Prudential or Oxford?)

So what’s left to do when revolt is no more inrepparttar 126017 offing than government intervention is?

Unfortunately, beyond fantasizing that our growing population of serial killers (folks who’ve made it clear that accumulating money isn’t their first priority) will develop a sense of civic responsibility to go with their skills and proclivity, I haven’t come up with much. Certainly nothing that would yield more thanrepparttar 126018 smallest of rewards atrepparttar 126019 price of considerable personal sacrifice.

I’m speaking of getting sick a lot; using, you know,repparttar 126020 hell out of my policy. By constantly contracting illnesses that require frequent doctor visits, extended hospitalization and enormous quantities of pharmaceuticals, I’d haverepparttar 126021 satisfaction of at least putting a dent in an HMO's profits.

Yeah, I know, but I likerepparttar 126022 pharmaceuticals part and it WOULD be a step up from omitting zip codes.

Former contributor to The Village Voice and Rolling Stone. Coauthor and coeditor, respectively, of two collections of essays about rock and jazz in the '60s: "Music & Politics" and "Giants of Black Music."

M.A.D. About Nukes

Written by Ed Howes

Continued from page 1

I knowrepparttar typical objection to allowing just anybody to have weapons of mass destruction, but what can we do when it cannot be prevented? Certainly we will haverepparttar 126014 equivalent of a global wild west, when many adults were armed twenty four hours per day andrepparttar 126015 lawless killed one another, as best they could. That doesn't happen so much as it once did, butrepparttar 126016 lawless folks of those days had very short careers. Now they find a way to become heads of states for 30 and 40 years, in some cases. This is because no one with superior force objects to their rule in any meaningful way, until very recently.

If South Africa gave up its nuclear development program, it was not just to appeaserepparttar 126017 non proliferation dreamers. It was to save money inrepparttar 126018 absence of a strong external threat. Other would-be nuclear powers are not that fortunate. They have or imagine serious threats to sovereignty and rightfully so in either case. Why don't we make friends of Iran and North Korea, before they get their nukes? Letrepparttar 126019 U.S. send a new message. America will treat you right, even if you have no nukes and you are decidedly more evil than we are. But then, we hate those more evil than us, unless they have nukes already. It is our duty to punish those we can get away with punishing. Askrepparttar 126020 U.S. President.

It is mostly those who pose no threat to others that remain un-threatened by others. The United States poses a threat torepparttar 126021 entire world andrepparttar 126022 entire world has become a threat torepparttar 126023 United States. “Allrepparttar 126024 king's horses and allrepparttar 126025 king's men” cannot prevent future attacks, no matter how much credit they spend. Only whenrepparttar 126026 people ofrepparttar 126027 world are armed withrepparttar 126028 weapons of mass destruction that could be readily used against them, will there be any serious discussion of disarmament on a global scale. Until then, every have-not has a duty to become a have, in order to endrepparttar 126029 dominance and submission gamesrepparttar 126030 dominants so love to play. Long live Mutually Assured Destruction! All for nukes and nukes for all! At least until love becomes globally preferred to fear as a means of social control.

Freelance writer published on many websites and in newspapers.

    <Back to Page 1 © 2005
Terms of Use