America's Core Values
Civics & Society
Patriotism & Resistance Journal
Wise Governance
God & Politics
Elections & Campaigns
On War and the Military
Foolish Theoretical Foreign Policy
Broadcast Betrayal
The Stampeders
On Economic Issues
Humor, Satire & Parody
The Ultimate Indictment of Christian Hypocrisy
Lietta Ruger: Crawford Tx, and Bring Them Home Now
Contact Arthur

On Economic Issues

Why Republicans Legislate

On Economics

Mary makes a well-written case for Single Payer health insurance at Pacific Views today.

"America's health care system is imploding. Despite the fact that America devotes more of its GDP to health care than any other developed country, the real outcome for a significant portion of our country is miserable. And despite all the initiatives that claimed to fix the problem, the problem is getting worse."

As someone who administers state Medicaid in Pacific County and who becomes aware of as many uninsured citizens in an hour as an enterprising researcher could find in a day, I consider the above seriously understated.


"Getting worse" actually means something far fouler smelling than what you see in Sicko.

Mary has more:

"Universal health care is particularly unsuited for a market-based approach because people are unable to do a lot of comparison shopping when they are sick and the overwhelming need for health care is when someone is sick, not when they are well."

A market-based approach in this country is the failed altruism of corporate capitalism which for decades has trumpeted the idea that the market could and WOULD take care of society's poor. That by definition is an impossibility given the formal constitutional definition for a "corporation."

That definition literally justifies - even encourages - a single-prioritized bottom-line profit-based approach to enterprises supposedly created to accomplish public good because individuals and small communities cannot create sufficient capital to accomplish it by themselves. It's an approach that has everything to do with some sort of corporate right (a la a human citizen/person's right) to the pursuit of happiness - precisely because corporate pursuit of happiness is pursuit of profit, not public good. It would be like giving a giant leech a constitutionally guaranteed right and protection to suck up the life blood of  every citizen and community.

... unless of course one "conservatively " defines "public good" as equal to what's good for business.

I'm against any kind of market-based approach to universal health care.

Our objective should not be that the highest priority is what's good for business in this regard. That's the attitude immediately and transparently  revealed  as harmful and inadequate when ideologically, an American president attempted to suspend minimum wage in the Katrina disaster area;

when he immediately asserted opportunity for profit before securing a disaster area;

- suggesting that the public good is best served if profits are prioritized first.

It borders on oxymoron to even suggest that government should be run as a business first and foremost. One primary reason is that profit unreasonably gets asserted as more important than the public good.

Bushco has amply demonstrated the failure of corporate capitalism to successfully care for its citizens or even to wage war (as if waging war were a constitutional obligation rather than national expediency) in the most economically wise and efficient manner. The Medicare D Supplement in reality is a massive act of corporate capitalist foolishness birthed by greed and lobby payments - not honest public discourse on the highest public good.

Speaking "capitalistically" and "market-basedly" we do not - when our house catches fire - call the fire department and make arrangements to pay a deductible before they will come. Our taxes have already paid for that.

... or if we hear an intruder in the house, we do not call the police and negotiate a deductible or co-pay term before they come out to keep us safe. Our taxes pay for that.

... Why the hell do we do that to ourselves regarding our most precious personal asset - health?

"Because taxes could go up," defenders of the market-based capitalist religion declare.  To which even non-MBA's like me who have spent hundreds of hours at the kitchen table working out budgets reply,

So it's all in the budget priorities. We must be spending too much somewhere else, eh? Like perhaps on a paranoid and insecure  but profit-driven wide-eyed defense and weapons industry?

The assumption is false and we are asleep. Market-based corporatists want us to stay that way.

It is all about bull shit ...the selling of bull shit ... the buying of bull shit ... the lying about bull shit ... and the harming of an entire society by overdosing on bull shit.

When a wild-eyed elderly woman comes into my office saying she's heard terrible horror stories about socialized medicine in Canada I'm ready to throw up or throw my hands in the air.

Think about it. 

 Great Britain apparently (at least per Sicko) launched their version of socialized medicine right after WW II when they were not far removed from financial insolvency. They ain't even come close to scrapping it.

Why not?

Well hell, because maybe what they've got - what Canada and France have - works fine enough that their national public good and well-being far outweighs whatever problems come up. Regardless of American corporate lies, those problems certainly are not the nightmares our  lobbied-and-prompted politicians, insurers and care providers constantly try to scare us with.

How DO they pay for it? With taxes of course.

Why COULDN'T we pay for it with taxes?  We could, of course.

We might have to give up or cut back to reasonable levels some other kind of spending - like defense.

Of course we could and of course we should.

Those opposed to cutting back military spending are not driven by fear of a massively global military monolith with resources approaching a trillion dollars and planning an all-out attack and invasion of our homeland.  They are driven by a fear of loss of profits.

Get the terrorists yes ... but with honest police work and funded actions appropriate to legitimate need as a wise economic response.

But do we really need full-monte massive military assaults with nukes, 37 divisions plus the 4th, 5th , 6th, 7th, and 8th Fleets and the 98th, 99th and 100th Bomber Wings ... hell no!!

But of course that's another story to debate elsewhere whenever we get serious about sourcing and budgeting much more important issues, like being 37th in global health effectiveness.

Besides, that attack and invasion has already occurred.

It began years ago when we naively swallowed corporate bait-and-switch philosophy - without any critical thinking or understanding that lobbyists were serious (they always MEANT business) - hook, line and sinker.

We were attacked and invaded by corporate sharks who only got more openly savage about it after 2000 when Dirty Dingus McBush open the trapdoors and helped the corporate Trojan Horse drop a massive pile of stinking biscuits smack dab in every living room and homeless shelter in America.

So in terms of market-based medicine for America, our medicine-based marketing sharks would be the ones in ICU if we ever woke up,

if we ever narrowed our wide-eyed naïveté

and went shopping for a better system.   

[Discussion followed]

Your comment is better than my artticle.

I don't know why you didn't post it as an article.

The more we talk about this sort of stuff at Washblog, the more competition we give to repetitive rumbles about party politics, candidates and legislative districts - which at Washblog read much like the writing fantasy sports bloggers share with each other on Yahoo Sports, SI or the Sporting News, etc..

So I'll peel off my garden hat and try to write a Triple A response to your major league thoughts.

First, our discussions here - as do most discussions - originate more or less out of intellectual environs and not tavern talk, church talk or shopping talk where more opinions by far get shared.

But that's the nature of discussions that might result in movement in the direction of change. Works best when spontaneous thinkers and opinionaters start talking about it.

Open Markets

The rules to play by are hidden in one corner under a bag of sh*t - precisely where the corporate capitalists and their lip service want them. That corner is the one least likely visited by anyone with a fuse short enough to be lit by awareness of snake oil marketing and market manipulation.

I see the most rapid solution as that of moving the discussion out of the realm of governmental political discourse and into the realm of word-of-mouth indignation at specific corporate practices or specific corporate entities themselves.

Scale and size are more important in generating publicity and ill will toward a corporate entity or practice rather than a hope for some direct legal action against a specific illegal, unethical or self-serving corporate behavior.

As a union member, I stopped shopping at Walmart a few years ago. In fact my cheap computer here is the last thing I've ever purchased at Walmart.

Walmart's treatment, manipulation and abuse of it's employees is now sufficiently imbeded in public awareness that there has been an impact.

I'm not satisfied with the size of that impact and wish that the corporate reputation were more sufficiently sullied as to facilitate some dictation to Walmart by a coaliton of labor and consumers. But for now it will do.

Gathering, rallying and organizing potential boycotters - or the threat or imminence OF a specific boycott - are things I see as having the potential of waving a club at market abusers.

But none of what I write can I suggest as viable solutions because of the simple fact that we as market participants, as corporate marks, as rubes, consuming gullibles and manipulatees are left to our own devices to get the shell gamers to play more fairly.

This because economic think tanks are not trustworthy. Their funding sources and all that.

Back to Open Markets. I personally do not see the open market as even a legitimate source of delivery of health services and health care. In having already put our communal health condition at the mercy of an open market, we seem to have made of health and well being a commodity - the ownership and distribution of which can be obtained, monopolized and ... to quote your word ... rationed.

Our health, our health care and especially that heroic life-saving aspect of health care where our collective skills are superlative (as opposed to preventative health care where our collective skills are inadequate) are something of which we need new dialogue ...

... to discuss whether it belongs in the open marketplace at all ...

or not ....

I think not.

Free Choice

I agree that the free-market preaches, especially those who get their talking points from fellow tavern-talkers don't have enough common sense to perceive, let alone acknowledge the existing of constrained choices.

The constraints go way beyond getting locked in to a job or career because of the economy offered by covered health care expenses. Again, we're the folks who let the suits expropriate public health and turn it into a replicate of big oil or big tobacco.

Free choice limited by official or unofficial associations of tag-teaming vendors all interested in price control at the highest level and then claiming that it's what the market will bear is not free choice.

Free market implies that you and I can enter it without the permission of the big guys at the far end where the cash registers and price tag makers are stored.

Medicare D will also demonstrate this as all those health care providers and insurers will competitively cull themselves down and/or work survival mergers until there's a core of ten outfits pocketing automatically-garnished-monthly-payments from your and my government retirement savings funds. This obscenity never had anything to do with a free or open market and it's benefits in reality do not exist at all when you compare them with the other possibilities for reducing medicine costs ... possibilities that never had to be included as part and parcel of the open market.

What's bad for the economy is the deterioration of the consuming class because of poor health. Our best and brightest do not belong behind marketing desks but behind genuine public policy and the highest common good desks.



Having read up on environmentalism/ecology, economics, and environmental economics, I, like most "greens" that I know, regard stuff like pollution as an accounting problem. If the costs aren't on the balance sheet, they're not factored into the decision making process.

When someone pollutes, or spoils a commons, or over exploits a resource, that's simply a form of theft. Some favored party/person is profiting at everyone else's expense.

So it is with health care.


Point well made.

But from my perspective it's only valid if we agree that health care is a commodity that can be owned and rivaled over in an open market with free choices and subject to the temptation of every lie ever told as advertisment - as if getting you to by were more important that getting you to behave responsibly.

And I think we could do with more judgemental sentimentality in our appreciation of open market free choices which include the impact of wounding or wounded environment.

We could do with a lot more blowback against any business entity that openly harms the environment in undeniable ways but hides profit or business survival motives behind a facade of wise or accepted business practice which of course includes lengthy review and assessment of environmental issues while the abuse goes on.

That's where we need to get sentimental ... no, downright bitchy about ... the sort of indignation that pushes back first, then asks why and perhaps then calms down.

On the public good

The Public Good


Citizens invest in fire stations to protect the public good. The preventative costs are minimal compared to the costs of disaster.

It's a public health and safety issue. When we all do better, we all do better.

Health care is also a public health and safety issue. Enlightened societies invest in health care to protect society's investment.

My take on the Public Good is that there are certain aspects of the public good that have an automatic stance to them - a pre-programmed or mutually agreed-upon knee-jerk reaction that gets inititated on demand when circumstances require.

That's what fire and police stations do.

That's what hospitals and ambulatory services do.

That's how we ought to define public good and why we should pre-program ourselves to exclude health care from any public investment economic strategy that includes inviting one half of the open market .

Public good in terms of health, shelter and defense do not by default get offered to merchants who will unavoidably gravitate toward monopoly, self-preservation and that irresponsible expansion that ultimately demands constant expansion as a survival consequence.

The public good does not include elevating or creating greater opportunities for market participation to corporate merchants at the expense of little merchants and the entire base of the market, all the individual consumers.

And as long as the public good is up for discussion, none of our conversations about the economy as a society will be valid until we examine our public spending priorities.

We seriously need to question our spending on military offense and defense that is so far out of proportion to actual need that the rest of our economy is only pretend.

Business Climate and Cultural Maturity

Business Climate

Just like with fire stations, public schools, and pollution, we're now sophisticated enough to determine how health insurance policies impact our economy.

Companies like Toyota have located new facilities in Canada. Because the local workers are better educated and more healthy. So productivity is higher. And Toyota direct investment in each employee is lower.

Domestic companies, who previously opposed universal healthcare, are now totally on board. The reason is competitiveness. The foreign competitors, based in countries with universal healthcare, have less overhead and are therefore more competitive.

It's pretty straightforward. If society chooses to save money by switching to universal healthcare, it'll grow the economy.

Cultural Maturity

Our current laissez faire (free market) system is feudalism. Very old school. Pretty easy to understand. The profiteers love the system. Everyone else can eat cake.

Universal healthcare, single payer, and the variants are all products of a socialist worldview. In the same way that fire stations, public schools, and clean water are socialist. Don't be too shocked, the USA has had socialism lite in various forms since WWII. Social security, collective bargaining, trust busters, electrifying the country, etc. For the most part, these programs have worked out great.

Above, Arthur says he's against any market-based solution. I'm not so sure.

Currently, unbridled corporations profit from disease, ill-health, and NOT providing health care. That's clearly against society's self-interest.

Markets are based on incentives and rewards. If we want to encourage innovation and increase productivity, many would argue that you need to right incentives.

I'm not original in suggesting that we should find some way to reward keeping people, society as a whole, healthy.


When first discharged from the military in 1975, I took my family to Houston because in Omaha the best job offer was $600 a month as a manager trainee in a Grand Central store. 9Would have been the equivalent of taking myself into mgt training at Walmart today.)

But in Houston I found a subsidy of $1000 a month as an insurance agent for Lincoln National. That training offered me all these new and wonderful insights into the conceptual origins of insurance and community assumption of risk. Also taught me about cultural maturity and how easier it is to sell insurance if you can summon the vision of a hearse backing up to your prospect's door.

Property and Casualty insurance based on those conceptual origins makes sense.

Even using community-shared risk assumption with insurance to address the need provide for one's self and family after a physical catastrophe (what we now call disability insurance) makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that evolution of health insurance that lead to the community-shared risk becoming a corporate community concept in which citizens naively but willingly give up too much control over their combined ability to dictate just how the community will take care of its own.

The blind assumption that free and open market capitalism is the basis of America's economic well-being from get-go has now come back to bite us on the butt.

Whatever free and open markets really are and whether or not they include choice, we have passively and apathetically let the hired help organize into corporations and take over the family business, the family farm, the family home and the community's well being.

Your ultimate sentence is of course my sentence too:

... we should find some way to reward keeping people, society as a whole, healthy.

And we are under no obligation as a mature society - the grownups, if you will, who underwrite the well being of the nation - to assume that the current corporate capitalist version of a market economy is best for everyone. We absolutely must insist on refuting that lie.

If we don't, the debate gets lowered to the level of whether or not you need two bathtubs on a cliff and a bottle of pills to get a 36-hour erection.

I find almost all of the advertising - political and consumer - to be highly offensive and insulting. But then I suspect that when it comes to the highest good of all concerned we are not a society of cultural maturity.

Economic Issues Archives

Why I'm Against Market-Based Health Coverage (08/11/07)

Or like those dreams we've all had of suddenly finding ourselves naked in a public place. (04/16/2006)

Latino families community model: Working or looking for work ALL THE TIME: even at minimum wage (04/05/2006)

Republican Logic Makes Sense for America? (01/27/06)

On a National Economy

Our Economy and the War on Terror <09/2004)


Picked up the mail yesterday which included a letter from my local agent who writes my auto and homeowners insurance.

Although it is on a letter bearing his personal agency letterhead, he didn't write the letter and he didn't sign it. His insurance company wrote it and no doubt told him what to say and how to say it. Among other things it says,

"Washington's trial lawyers sponsored a self-serving bill in the state Legislature this year that will significantly increase frivolous lawsuits ..."

According to,
frivolous lawsuits would be
"characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: as in frivolous conduct."

They would be lawsuits that are
"self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose."

These would be lawsuits filed by self-serving trial lawyers on behalf of persons
"given to trifling or undue levity: as in a frivolous, empty-headed person."

Oh! And these would be lawsuits
"of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: as in a frivolous suggestion."

Now given the seriousness of the situation (I assume it to be serious enough that the State Legislature might have been on to somebody) do we not need to learn more about these notorious and rampant frivolous lawsuits?

Or are we to believe that the wise folks behind "Reject 67" consider themselves absolutely smarter than 60% of the State Legislature as well as 100% of those of us who voted them into office?

My auto/homeowner insurance agent has passed on to me a threat from his casualty company. And I quote,  

Passage of R-67 will increase insurance rates for every person and business that purchases insurance in Washington

Would I be remiss in not taking that as a threat from my insurance company? If R-67 passes, my rates will go up?

So I should vote against R-67 or else?

I also received a flyer from "Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates" telling me R-67 is bad for consumers. Among other things, the initiative would make it more difficult for insurance companies to do their preferred thing: focus on reasons for saying no by investigating and denying "suspicious" claims without risking a lawsuit.

The flyer declares further that insurance companies would have to spend more money fighting arguable claims thereby having to raise our rates.

"Arguable claims?"

Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates seem to be assuming that there is no such thing as an arguable claim; that ALL insurers have nothing but the highest good of the consumers in mind and would never deny a claim arbitrarily nor place their own self-interest above that of their customers.


Isn't this like saying insurance companies should not be accountable for their self-serving decisions; that if held accountable, they will raise their rates and ask consumers to pay for the consequences of greedy, self-serving and possibly frivolous decisions?

Isn't that economic extortion?

The current remedies now touted by the money opposing R-67 insist that we don't need the initiative because "Washington's consumer protection laws already are among the strongest in the nation."

These laws consist of the dissatisfied entering the world of the state bureaucracy to file complaints with the Insurance Commissioner as well as filing claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

No doubt the Anti's insist that the time to process such claims and complaints would be very short and not harm specific Washington citizens in urgent need.

At least that's the assurance Anti R-67ers want us to believe.

Well, if those processes and procedures are so dang effective, why are we even being asked to vote on a ballot initiative in the first place?

It seems that in this venue, SOMEBODY is being frivolous about the genuine concerns driving R-67.

I read my current Voter's Pamphlet this morning to see who is talking about frivolous lawsuits.

The Explanatory Statement doesn't mention frivolous lawsuits.

The Statement For Referendum Measure 67 doesn't mention frivolous lawsuits.

The Statement Against Referendum Measure 67 mentions frivolous lawsuits eight times, three in the first paragraph.

Shades of Mr. Luntz of "death tax" fame! Do we need to learn more about framing, catch phrases and seriously misstated talking points? Might there be a tomfoolery brainwashing attempt on out-of-touch old codgers who live on Willapa Bay?

So which team ya gonna yell for?

According to the Voters Pamphlet, the all-stars playing on the R-67'ers team include:

  • the Washington State legislature (who certain political and economic lobbyists consider to be the ultimate frivolists.)

  • Among the more frivolous characters on this legislature team are the Chairs of the House Financial Services Consumer Protection Committee and House Environmental Health Committee.

  • The President of SEIU 1199 (that's a Union whose primary goal is advocacy and protection of citizens, especially working class citizens). Now that's a frivolous pre-occupation eh?

  • The frivolous Government Relations Director of Northwest Paralyzed Veterans. Paralyzed Veterans? Well don't that beat all? Who would expect frivolity from paralyzed veterans? How COULD they be "given to trifling or undue levity: as in a frivolous, empty-headed person.?"

  • The President of the Washington State Council of Firefighters. Aw hell, everybody knows that firefighters don't do anything all day but be frivolous.

  • The Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. What a frivolous joke. Retired Americans are so loaded with cash, any attempt to cut their own medical costs is certainly frivolous .

And in the other corner ...

The all-stars for the "Reject 67'ers" include:

  • The President of the Washington State Medical Association whose website says that
    The WSMA is a private, non-profit membership organization for physicians. We are funded by physician membership dues, not by the state. The WSMA works on behalf of our members and their patients to provide educational seminars, physician advocacy efforts, lobbying and other services.
    Nothing frivolous about who they're worried about. Of course I have to admit that there's nothing frivolous at all in that paragraph about worrying about patients and patients' ability to pay.

  • The President of the Washington Association of Business whose website says that
    AWB speaks for Washington businesses
    With a diverse membership consisting of businesses large and small, urban and rural, and from all parts of the state, the Association of Washington Business lobbies in Olympia for public policy that encourages economic growth, boosts productivity and creates jobs.
    Nothing frivolous about who they're worried about. Of course, I have to admit, that there's nothing frivolous at all in that paragraph about worrying about workers' ability to pay for insurance.

  • The President of the Professional Insurance Agents of Washington (PIA Washington/Alaska) whose website asks:
    "How is it going to look when those coming to the state either pay rates that are outrageously high or cannot get insurance at all because this law has chased away all of the insurance companies?"
    Well, I used to be a professional insurance agent (six years) and in order to stay in business I needed my insurance company that stayed in business by investigating suspicious claims, looked for ways to deny and kept me employed. Nothin frivolous about that.

  • Washington State Director, National Federation of Independent Business whose website says
    While big labor can just take money from union dues to fund political operations, NFIB depends on the generosity of its members to make voluntary contributions in financial support of the organization's political operations.With those contributions, NFIB's SAFE Trust PAC supports proven business candidates who have committed to keeping small business in business.
    Now, I of course want to see small business stay in business. In fact, I want to become a small business owner. But what I don't understand is how small businesses paying constantly rising insurance rates can prove that consumer frivolity is the reason for callous and irresponsible insurer behavior in looking for ways to say no.

  • Executive Director, Liability Reform Coalition whose website says they're
    "Committed to Ending Lawsuit Abuse."
    Get a load of LRC's Board of Directors:
    Attorney At Law (Not a self-interested trial lawyer I'll bet)
    Weyerhaeuser Company Vice President of Government Affairs and Corporate Contributions (Contributions? To whom?)
    Mr. -------, State Farm Insurance, Sacramento, CA 95814 (Sacramento? California? I wonder what non-frivolous interest he has in Washington State Initiatives)
    Leadership Council, National Federation of Independent Business
    Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital
    Group Health Cooperative
    LMN Architects
    Washington State Medical Association
    Avista Corporation Director, Government Relations
    Retired physician (who ran for State Representative as a Republican in 2004 and said that "After 30 years in medicine, ------ knows that we must free patients and doctors from the cost of frivolous lawsuits."
    Secretary of State Voters Guide
    SAFECO Corporation
    Liability Reform Coalition

    Not a patient advocate in the lot. Lot's of big players but nobody advocating for the little guys.

  • President, Washington Construction Industry Council. Couldn't find WCIC via google but I did find this same individual in the voter's pamphlet listed as the Executive Director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington whose website has an icon - Reject R-67 - that when clicked takes you to those guys who sent me the flyer: Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates.

    Click on the link to see the long list of businesses and associations worried about how much insurance you pay. The list of individuals might include someone you know.

Bottom line I suppose is a talking point of my own rural authorship; the result of a vacation morning of google and voter pamphlets - after which I designed the image at the top of this article.

Apparently R-67 would not he good for business and  what would not be good for business would not be good for Washington right?

Well, at sixty one, I'm fighting off retirement cause my wife and I need the medical. Under the current system in which insurers have constantly raised the rates regardless of frivolity, I've been notified that when I retire, my monthly insurance premium payment will be $893.

That's about the size of my mortgage payment which , when combined with that same non-frivolous insurance premium that presumably protects my wife's and my health, will probably effectively suck up the entirety of my employment-based retirement.

There's of course Medicare about which I haven't changed my mind since February 16, 2006.

Course living on Willapa Bay I can find plenty of wood to burn for heat and light so reasonably I can pay insurance premiums without worrying about utility bills. (But those who don't appreciate my writing will have their day when I can no longer write online, eh?)

Since I won't need the car I can't afford to insure and won't have any way to drive to the hospital for medical treatment, I might as well concede to the Anti-R 67er's, sell the house, sell the car and move to the streets of South Bend where the hospital is just up the hill.

Unless I'm too decrepit, I can walk up that hill myself rather than pay for the ambulance my insurance company won't cover.

How can I be so frivolous about all this?

It really isn't a matter of frivolity is it?
what would you do?

Leave things the way they are with insurers having unlimited ability to raise premiums based on lies about non-existent or a minimal number of frivolous lawsuits?

That sure as hell won't lower my insurance premiums will it?

It sure as hell is no guarantee - based on current insurer denial behavior (whether you've seen Sicko or not) - that any particular coverage I might need will be there in the true spirit of community-shared risk.

Personally, as a life-entrepreneur who earnestly desires to pay as I go and get what I pay for, I'd rather direct the extortion in the opposite direction and tell the insurers,

"You've denied one claim too many. You and your medical associations have used human pain as a weapon of extortion one time too many.

Now - in court if necessary - you'll have to explain yourselves and if you're no good at explanations, you'll pay."

If, as the silly flyer from Consumers Against Higher Insurance Rates warns, rates could increase as much as $205 a year for a typical Washington family, that would be $17.08 per month.

You know, I would gladly add that much to my retirement premium of $893 just to poke the lying insurers in the eye; to see them suffer - even just one time in court - a dose of wallet pain equal to what we live with.

Cross Posted to Willapa Magazine

 The ruin of citizens who do not attend the official American Economic Church

These are part of the larger overall fraud of a religion that is the equal of Christianity among wealthier and corporate Americans. Led by the ilk of economic theologies spewing forth from an assortment of corporate-sponsored think tanks and theoretical strategists of the Grover Norquist ilk, the economic theology of number-crunched corporate capitalism is as sterile and empty as the whited-sepulchre of literal Christianity's 'innerant and absolute Bible."

Both are fixed and inflexible ideologies built upon concepts and extrapolations now turned to stone. Neither take into account the most powerful force that always successfully resists mindless adherence to a fixed dogma ... human nature.

Much like the Pharisaic Falwells, Robertsons and LaHayes, these current self-appointed born-again purveyors of economic theory inevitably run into problems when human masses don't follow the playbook.

Just as many Christians have demonstrated that not all of us willingly live lives as blind followers of rigid Scribes and judgemental Pharisees, we all do not manage our economic lives according to some wise and proven dogma of capitalism.

And just like Christian history has demonstrated overwhelmingly the human capacity for unrighteous dominion, crusades, inquisitions and outright murder, economic history is replete with evidence of the human capacity for unrighteous economic dominion, economic crusade, inquisition, manipulation and in some cases the outright murder of citizens who did not attend the official economic church.

Moneyed capitalism lies behind the election fraud - an action that betrays any notion that unrestricted free-market activity is driven by a natural desire of all participants for the highest good of all concerned.

Moneyed capitalism and its dark sinfulness of greed and self-interest lie behind the moves already in progress to redistribute the wealth in this country.

Rescue of Social Security by gutting it, protecting the environment by raping it, taxing more of the poor and less of the rich, putting more and more citizens out of reach of affordable health care and suppression of wages and benefits are not tenets of an economic theory or policy that reflects the intention of achieving the highest good for all concerned.

They are in fact high evidence of pursing Darwinian economics - the survival of the most agressive at the expense of the most vulnerable.

That is what is at stake when we let corporate media tempt us to look the other way while the fox raids the henhouse. That is what is at stake if we let our apathy dominate our sense of American freedom and the power of democratic process.

All those self-important arrogant talking heads are absolutely not smarter than we are. But they sure like to pretend we are.

Are we going to pretend they're right?

© Arthur & Lietta Ruger 2002-2008. The American Choice is a  political internet journal based in Bay Center, Washington. The views expressed not authored by Arthur or Lietta Ruger are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of The American Choice or SwanDeer Productions. Permission of author required for reprinting original material, and only requests for reprinting a specific item are considered.