Obamacare Fallout

by Stephen Lendman

obamacare2-602x423

Obama’s signature program is rife with inequities. It makes a dysfunctional system worse.

It rations healthcare. It’s unaffordable. It leaves millions uninsured. It leaves millions more underinsured. It compromises privacy. A little noticed disclaimer states:

“You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transmitting or stored on this information system.” 

Medical privacy rights are violated. NSA and other US spy agencies will have full access to Americans’ medical history. They have lots more than that. More information below.

On October 24, Infowars headlined “CIA-Funded Software Company Manages Private Data for Healthcare.gov,” saying:

In-Q-Tel is a CIA venture capital firm. It’s “heavily invested into Socrata. (It’s a) software company (providing) data collection and management for Healthcare.gov and Medicare.gov.”

It announced a “strategic investment and technology development agreement with In-Q-Tel (IQT).”

Both “entities will work together to further develop Socrata’s data consumerization platform for internal business analysts in data-rich organizations.”

“Users of Socrata’s technologies can transform raw data from multiple sources into more sophisticated and useful resources.”

Socrata will work with NSA, CIA and other US spy agencies. They’ll do so to transform raw data into what’s more easily used.

Healthcare.gov obtained information includes place of residence, social security number, bank account numbers, other financial information, medical history, place of employment, earnings, immigration status, military background, criminal record if any, phone numbers and email addresses.

US spy agencies get it all. They can use it any way they wish. Obamacare is more than ripoff healthcare. It violates core constitutional rights. It exploits unprincipally. It does so secretly. It does more harm than good.

On October 24, Acting Man.com headlined “Obamacare Side Effect – Doctors Abandon the Health Care Insurance System Altogether,” saying:

Many apparently “had enough.” They’re opting out. They’re fed up with bureaucratic red tape. Obamacare makes it worse than ever. They’re going cash only.

They’re able to spend more time with patients. They don’t need extra staff help dealing with increasing amounts of paperwork.

Doing so requires treating more patients to cover costs. It results in less time spent on proper care.

Doug Nunamaker is a family physician. “The paperwork, the hassles, it just got (too) overwhelming,” he said. “We knew we had to find a better way to practice,” he added.

He charges flat monthly fees. It’s the equivalent of cheap insurance. For children, it’s $10. For adults up to age 44, it’s $50. Seniors pay $100.

He advises patients to carry high-deductible insurance coverage. It’s needed in case emergencies, serious illness or expensive treatments.

His patient list numbers 400 – 600. Before it was 2,500 – 4,000. He needed volume to cover expenses. He’s comfortable with more time for treatment.

“My professional life is better than expected,” he said. “My family life and personal time are better. This is everything I wanted out of family medicine.”

Small numbers of doctors operate this way. Others join them annually. American Academy of Family Physicians data show 4% did so in 2012. In 2010, it was 3%.

A 2013 Medscape survey found 6% of physicians practicing this way. Burdensome Obamacare mandates suggest increasing numbers opting out ahead.

They want less bureaucracy. They want more time for patients. They don’t want Washington or predatory insurers telling them how to practice. They want doctors and patients alone deciding.

At the same time, healthcare advocates raise concerns. Cash only medicine perhaps will end up excluding many less well off patients. Everyone should have equal access. Universal single-payer alone provides it.

Bureaucratic red tape is eliminated. Insurers don’t provide healthcare. Doctors do. Medicare’s original design worked as intended.

Enrolling was simple. It still is. Enormous savings are achieved. Universal coverage assures comprehensive affordable care.

Predatory middlemen are excluded. Doing so saves $400 billion or more annually. Using it for care instead of profits covers everyone.

Marketplace medicine prioritizes profits. It does so at the expense of equitable treatment. It lets private insurers game the system. It lets them rip off enrollees freely.

Commodified healthcare falls short. It has no place in free societies. Obamacare makes it less equitable than ever.

Powerful interests blocked earlier US healthcare reform efforts. In 1917, 15 states introduced health insurance coverage for all legislation.

Eight others established commissions to study doing so. Proposals were weak and confusing. They were dead on arrival.

In the 1930 and 1940s, government-sponsored health insurance resurfaced. The issue remained contentious. Industry giants again blocked change.

Post-war, employer-provided coverage increased. Retirees, the disabled, unemployed, and others were uninsured. Years of debate followed. Medicare and Medicaid resulted.

In 1965, amendments to Titles XVIII and XIX respectively of the 1935 Social Security Act established them. Efforts to cover everyone failed. Prospects today are far dimmer than then.

Obamacare eliminates the possibility. Healthcare giants writing the law designed it that way. On June 28, 2012, a Physicians for National Health Program press release said:

“What is truly unrealistic is believing that we can provide universal and affordable health care in a system dominated by private insurers and Big Pharma.”

“The American people desperately need a universal health system that delivers comprehensive, equitable, compassionate and high-quality care, with free choice of provider and no financial barriers to access.”

Convoluted arguments upheld ACA’s controversial individual mandate provision. Americans have no say. They’re required to buy coverage from private insurers. They have to whether or not they want it.

They’re cheated. They get much less than they pay for. Independent experts believe America’s least advantaged at left in no-man’s land.

Federal subsidies are woefully inadequate. They’ll get inadequate coverage at best. They’ll be denied expensive treatments if needed.

Imagine the world’s richest country mandating it. Everyone can get whatever they want based on the ability to pay. Inability means too bad, out of luck.

Ninety-year old Dr. Quentin Young is a longtime Physicians for National Health Program (PNHP) leading member. His newly released autobiograpy is titled “Everybody In, Nobody Out: Memoirs of a Rebel Without a Pause.”

“Had I been in Congress, I would have unequivocally voted against Obamacare,” he said. “It’s a bad bill.”

“We rather think because of its ability to enshrine and solidify the corporate domination of the health system, it’s worse than what we have now.”

Worse or better is immaterial, he stressed. “The health system isn’t working in this country – fiscally, medically, socially, morally.”

“I don’t have any sympathy for the idea that the president had to compromise because his opposition was strong.”

“Winning is not always winning the election. Winning is making a huge fight and then taking the fight to the people – re-electing people who are supporting your program and defeating those who aren’t.”

PNHP examined Obamacare mandate by mandate. It’s nightmarish in complexity. It’s fundamentally inequitable.

“To this day,” said Young, “much to the chagrin of many of our friends who wanted reform, I remain adamant in my rejection of Obamacare.”

Young and other single-payer advocates deplore private insurers. They game the system for profits. They deny or delay expensive treatments. They overcharge, underinsure, and exploit people unfairly.

Obama could have done things different, said Young. “He could have stuck to all the virtues of single payer.”

He acted polar opposite. He sold out the way he did to Wall Street. US consumers are stuck with what demands rejection.

Millions will learn how much to their chagrin. Young expects a dirty fight ahead to change things.

“I’m sure the battle over health care reform isn’t going away,” he said. Odds against winning today perhaps are greater than ever.

_______________________________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

___________________

APPENDIX

Consumers Abandoning Healthcare.gov

by Stephen Lendman

headlined “The Healthcare.gov Fiasco.”

“The contractors who made this website were at best sloppy, and at worst unqualified for the job,” it said.

“So why? How did this happen to arguably the most important and lasting website of this president’s administration?”

Systems in place had to “integrate into various legacy systems, and that system could only be tested so much, and that building a highly scalable FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certified web service was impossible from the get-go.”

When things go wrong, they throw “more money at the same people who caused the problem to fix” it.

Consumers have until December 15 to be eligible for coverage on January 1. They initially had until February 15 to avoid being assessed penalties. Open enrollment at first ran through March 15.

On October 22, the Obama administration announced a six week extension before penalties are incurred. Consumers will have until March 31 to enroll. Those doing so by then won’t be penalized.

Fines thereafter will be assessed for not having coverage three straight months. Extra time is gotten to get it. Consumers needing it now have to muddle through best they can.

An October 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed calls Obamacare’s rollout a Titanic taking on water. It’s more than a huge embarrassment. It’s a major disaster. It’s a political one.

Despite about three and a half years to be ready, it crashed and burned. It’s Obama’s “brand.” It “informally carries his name.”

“It was unveiled with great fanfare.” It doesn’t work. It features “crashed systems, frozen screens, (and) phone registrations that prompt you back to the site that sent you to the 800 number.”

It’s a disaster with no solution so far. It’s unclear when or if things will be properly fixed.

Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley was asked if Housing and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius should be fired.

“To me that’s kind of like firing Captain Smith on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg,” he said.

October 1 was Obamacare rollout day. Everything should have gone smoothly. Problems should have been found and corrected in time. Consumers needing to enroll in healthcare exchanges can’t do so.

Consumer Reports advised its readers to avoid Healthcare.gov for another month. It’s “barely operational,” it said.

According to the Washington Post, traffic from October 1 to October 13 plummeted 88%.

On October 26, London’s Guardian headlined “Responsibility for Healthcare.gov’s IT problems lie with dot gov,” saying:

“This was a management not a technology failure. Obama’s error was not to empower technologists to tell him the truth.”

He bears full responsibility. It’s his signature program. It bears his name.

Merici Vinton was one of Consumer Financial Protection Board’s (CFPB) first digital lead employees. She assisted its chief technology official, Eugene Huang, in developing its technology and digital strategy.

She oversaw its successful ConsumerFinance.gov launch. She said making digital and tech work in government requires:

“(1) Never build a website that’s too big to fail; instead start small.

(2) Let’s do open source when possible (preferably always).

(3) Let’s have in house strategy, design, and tech.”

None of this is revolutionary, she said. It’s common private sector practice. “(M)any government agencies outsource their technical capabilities to the point where the vision and strategy is out of house.”

“Not only that, fixing a typo on a website can take 24 hours.” It shouldn’t be that way. “Start small, have a vision, fix federal hiring and procurement. And stop putting website requirements in legislation.”

CFPB does it right “and continues to,” she said. “We launched a pretty basic, consumer facing public website in six to eight weeks.”

Building a complaint intake system followed. It took six months. Mortgages, credit scores, bank accounts, and other products were added.

The system now integrates with over 100 financial institutions, government agencies and 50 states.

Everything wasn’t done at once. Rollouts proceeded incrementally. Knowledge gained along the way helped things go smoothly. The end product works as intended.

On October 25, Reuters headlined “Frustrated by Healthcare.gov. some consumers buy off exchange.”

They’re avoiding an inoperable web site. They’re contacting insurers directly. They’re enrolling on their own. Perhaps things should have been set up this way in the first place.

Some insurers report up to double the amount of normal traffic. If callers don’t qualify for government subsidies, they sign them up directly.

Off-exchange purchases may jeopardize the administration’s plan to enroll millions of Americans by March 31. January 1 eligibility requires doing so by December 15.

Many young healthy people may opt out altogether. A higher risk pool means higher costs.

On October 25, Reuters headlined “White House says ‘Obamacare’ website will be fixed by end of November.”

Administration official Jeffrey Zients heads efforts to fix things. He said Quality Software Services (QSSI) is overseeing repairs.

A year ago, lawmakers questioned it about earlier work. At issue is being owned by the nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group.

QSSI helped helped set up Healthcare.gov. It’s the site’s second most important contractor after CGI. It worked on three areas:

  • building a data hub to permit information transfers between different groups;
  • designing a tool to help users register; and
  • testing how technology it designed worked.

UnitedHealth Group’s ownership suggests a conflict of interest. Current web site problems indicate faulty QSSI design. Choosing it to oversee fixing its own flawed technology denotes poor selection.

Technology consultant Stanley Nachimson expressed surprise about QSSI’s involvement, saying:

“They certainly want to make sure the whole process is fixed and is operating correctly as quickly as possible. (S)ometimes it’s hard to review your own work.”

Will it fix what it botched in the first place? Is another firm more qualified to do it?

Until now, a technology company didn’t supervise the entire project. HHS’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) served as system integrator.

Problems will be fixed in weeks, claims Zients. It remains to be seen if his optimism matches reality.

QSSI’s executive vice president, Andrew Slavitt, said the administration waited until days before launch to fully test Healthcare.gov.

A simulation failed. The site crashed. Launch proceeded as planned. It proved disastrous. No one knows for sure when things will be resolved.

What wasn’t made right in three and half years may take months to do properly now. In the meantime, millions can’t sign up. Others haven’t done so. Perhaps many more aren’t sure what to do.

Washington runs web sites for 36 states. They’re troubled like Healthcare.gov. Another 14 states built their own exchanges. They have fewer problems to resolve.

QSSI’s parent company UnitedHealth spokesman Matt Stearns said:

“There are a number of other components to the registration system, all of which must work together seamlessly to ensure (glitch-free) registration.”

Since October 1, nearly 20 million attempts to access Healthcare.gov succeeded only about 500,000 times. A small subset of applicants actually got coverage.

The bottom line to date is a testimony to failure. It’s not the first time Washington botched things. On October 21, Computer World headlined “Healthcare.gov website ‘didn’t have a chance in hell.’

Most US IT projects fall short. They miss deadlines. They cost more than budgeted. They don’t satisfy users. “Such is the case with Healthcare.gov.”

According to research firm Standish Group, about 94% of federal technology projects in the last decade fell short. Over 41% failed completely.

The most likely failure is a “big bang” release like Healthcare.gov. Other problems involve too many changes along the way and too much bureaucracy fouling up things.

Large projects require slow, incremental rollouts. Testing and feedback are needed. Glitches found need fixing before introducing more parts of the whole package.

Cast software analysis and measurement firm senior vice president Lev Lesokhin said Healthcare.gov isn’t just a web site. It has lots of moving parts.

It has many interactions and interdependencies with other government agencies and private sector firms. It has hundreds of thousands of lines of code. It’s a very complex design.

It won’t be easy fixing what’s wrong. It remains to be seen if doing it in weeks is possible. Poor design may require enormous amounts of time, effort and cost to fix.

In the meantime, uninsured Americans needing coverage can’t easily get it. Poor ones qualifying for subsidies may end up waiting longest.

Obama bears full responsibility. It’s his signature program. It bears his name. Its failure reflects another stain on his legacy.

It’s fitting for a program that never should have been introduced in the first place. Its worst problems are yet to come. They’re unrelated to web site glitches.

___________________________________

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/consumers-abandon-healthcare-gov/




Why have young people in Japan stopped having sex?

What happens to a country when its young people stop having sex? Japan is finding out… Abigail Haworth investigates

Japanese man and woman lean away from each other

Arm’s length: 45% of Japanese women aged 16-24 are ‘not interested in or despise sexual contact’. More than a quarter of men feel the same way. Photograph: Eric Rechsteiner

Ai Aoyama is a sex and relationship counsellor who works out of her narrow three-storey home on a Tokyo back street. Her first name means “love” in Japanese, and is a keepsake from her earlier days as a professional dominatrix. Back then, about 15 years ago, she was Queen Ai, or Queen Love, and she did “all the usual things” like tying people up and dripping hot wax on their nipples. Her work today, she says, is far more challenging. Aoyama, 52, is trying to cure what Japan‘s media callssekkusu shinai shokogun, or “celibacy syndrome”.

Japan’s under-40s appear to be losing interest in conventional relationships. Millions aren’t even dating, and increasing numbers can’t be bothered with sex. For their government, “celibacy syndrome” is part of a looming national catastrophe. Japan already has one of the world’s lowest birth rates. Its population of 126 million, which has been shrinking for the past decade, is projected to plunge a further one-third by 2060. Aoyama believes the country is experiencing “a flight from human intimacy” – and it’s partly the government’s fault.

The sign outside her building says “Clinic”. She greets me in yoga pants and fluffy animal slippers, cradling a Pekingese dog whom she introduces as Marilyn Monroe. In her business pamphlet, she offers up the gloriously random confidence that she visited North Korea in the 1990s and squeezed the testicles of a top army general. It doesn’t say whether she was invited there specifically for that purpose, but the message to her clients is clear: she doesn’t judge.

Inside, she takes me upstairs to her “relaxation room” – a bedroom with no furniture except a double futon. “It will be quiet in here,” she says. Aoyama’s first task with most of her clients is encouraging them “to stop apologising for their own physical existence”.

The number of single people has reached a record high. A survey in 2011 found that 61% of unmarried men and 49% of women aged 18-34were not in any kind of romantic relationship, a rise of almost 10% from five years earlier. Another study found that a third of people under 30had never dated at all. (There are no figures for same-sex relationships.) Although there has long been a pragmatic separation of love and sex in Japan – a country mostly free of religious morals – sex fares no better. A survey earlier this year by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA) found that 45% of women aged 16-24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact”. More than a quarter of men felt the same way.

Sex counsellor Ai Aoyama with a client and her dog

Learning to love: sex counsellor Ai Aoyama, with one of her clients and her dog Marilyn. Photograph: Eric Rechsteiner/Panos PictureMany people who seek her out, says Aoyama, are deeply confused. “Some want a partner, some prefer being single, but few relate to normal love and marriage.” However, the pressure to conform to Japan’s anachronistic family model of salaryman husband and stay-at-home wife remains. “People don’t know where to turn. They’re coming to me because they think that, by wanting something different, there’s something wrong with them.”

Official alarmism doesn’t help. Fewer babies were born here in 2012than any year on record. (This was also the year, as the number of elderly people shoots up, that adult incontinence pants outsold baby nappies in Japan for the first time.) Kunio Kitamura, head of the JFPA, claims the demographic crisis is so serious that Japan “might eventually perish into extinction”.

Japan’s under-40s won’t go forth and multiply out of duty, as postwar generations did. The country is undergoing major social transition after 20 years of economic stagnation. It is also battling against the effects on its already nuclear-destruction-scarred psyche of 2011’s earthquake, tsunami and radioactive meltdown. There is no going back. “Both men and women say to me they don’t see the point of love. They don’t believe it can lead anywhere,” says Aoyama. “Relationships have become too hard.”

Marriage has become a minefield of unattractive choices. Japanese men have become less career-driven, and less solvent, as lifetime job security has waned. Japanese women have become more independent and ambitious. Yet conservative attitudes in the home and workplace persist. Japan’s punishing corporate world makes it almost impossible for women to combine a career and family, while children are unaffordable unless both parents work. Cohabiting or unmarried parenthood is still unusual, dogged by bureaucratic disapproval.

Aoyama says the sexes, especially in Japan’s giant cities, are “spiralling away from each other”. Lacking long-term shared goals, many are turning to what she terms “Pot Noodle love” – easy or instant gratification, in the form of casual sex, short-term trysts and the usual technological suspects: online porn, virtual-reality “girlfriends”, anime cartoons. Or else they’re opting out altogether and replacing love and sex with other urban pastimes.

Some of Aoyama’s clients are among the small minority who have taken social withdrawal to a pathological extreme. They are recoveringhikikomori (“shut-ins” or recluses) taking the first steps to rejoining the outside world, otaku (geeks), and long-term parasaito shingurus(parasite singles) who have reached their mid-30s without managing to move out of home. (Of the estimated 13 million unmarried people in Japan who currently live with their parents, around three million are over the age of 35.) “A few people can’t relate to the opposite sex physically or in any other way. They flinch if I touch them,” she says. “Most are men, but I’m starting to see more women.”

Young women shopping in TokyoNo sex in the city: (from left) friends Emi Kuwahata, 23, and Eri Asada, 22, shopping in Tokyo. Photograph: Eric Rechsteiner/Panos Pictures

Aoyama cites one man in his early 30s, a virgin, who can’t get sexually aroused unless he watches female robots on a game similar to Power Rangers. “I use therapies, such as yoga and hypnosis, to relax him and help him to understand the way that real human bodies work.” Sometimes, for an extra fee, she gets naked with her male clients – “strictly no intercourse” – to physically guide them around the female form. Keen to see her nation thrive, she likens her role in these cases to that of the Edo period courtesans, or oiran, who used to initiate samurai sons into the art of erotic pleasure.

Aversion to marriage and intimacy in modern life is not unique to Japan. Nor is growing preoccupation with digital technology. But what endless Japanese committees have failed to grasp when they stew over the country’s procreation-shy youth is that, thanks to official shortsightedness, the decision to stay single often makes perfect sense. This is true for both sexes, but it’s especially true for women. “Marriage is a woman’s grave,” goes an old Japanese saying that refers to wives being ignored in favour of mistresses. For Japanese women today, marriage is the grave of their hard-won careers.

I meet Eri Tomita, 32, over Saturday morning coffee in the smart Tokyo district of Ebisu. Tomita has a job she loves in the human resources department of a French-owned bank. A fluent French speaker with two university degrees, she avoids romantic attachments so she can focus on work. “A boyfriend proposed to me three years ago. I turned him down when I realised I cared more about my job. After that, I lost interest in dating. It became awkward when the question of the future came up.”

Tomita says a woman’s chances of promotion in Japan stop dead as soon as she marries. “The bosses assume you will get pregnant.” Once a woman does have a child, she adds, the long, inflexible hours become unmanageable. “You have to resign. You end up being a housewife with no independent income. It’s not an option for women like me.”

Around 70% of Japanese women leave their jobs after their first child. The World Economic Forum consistently ranks Japan as one of the world’s worst nations for gender equality at work. Social attitudes don’t help. Married working women are sometimes demonised as oniyome, or “devil wives”. In a telling Japanese ballet production of Bizet’s Carmen a few years ago, Carmen was portrayed as a career woman who stole company secrets to get ahead and then framed her lowly security-guard lover José. Her end was not pretty.

Prime minister Shinzo Abe recently trumpeted long-overdue plans to increase female economic participation by improving conditions and daycare, but Tomita says things would have to improve “dramatically” to compel her to become a working wife and mother. “I have a great life. I go out with my girl friends – career women like me – to French and Italian restaurants. I buy stylish clothes and go on nice holidays. I love my independence.”

Tomita sometimes has one-night stands with men she meets in bars, but she says sex is not a priority, either. “I often get asked out by married men in the office who want an affair. They assume I’m desperate because I’m single.” She grimaces, then shrugs. “Mendokusai.”

Mendokusai translates loosely as “Too troublesome” or “I can’t be bothered”. It’s the word I hear both sexes use most often when they talk about their relationship phobia. Romantic commitment seems to represent burden and drudgery, from the exorbitant costs of buying property in Japan to the uncertain expectations of a spouse and in-laws. And the centuries-old belief that the purpose of marriage is to produce children endures. Japan’s Institute of Population and Social Securityreports an astonishing 90% of young women believe that staying single is “preferable to what they imagine marriage to be like”.

Eri Tomita, 32, office worker in Tokyo‘I often get asked out by married men in the office who want an affair as I am single. But I can’t be bothered’: Eri Tomita, 32. Photograph: Eric Rechsteiner/Panos PicturesThe sense of crushing obligation affects men just as much. Satoru Kishino, 31, belongs to a large tribe of men under 40 who are engaging in a kind of passive rebellion against traditional Japanese masculinity. Amid the recession and unsteady wages, men like Kishino feel that the pressure on them to be breadwinning economic warriors for a wife and family is unrealistic. They are rejecting the pursuit of both career and romantic success.

“It’s too troublesome,” says Kishino, when I ask why he’s not interested in having a girlfriend. “I don’t earn a huge salary to go on dates and I don’t want the responsibility of a woman hoping it might lead to marriage.” Japan’s media, which has a name for every social kink, refers to men like Kishino as “herbivores” or soshoku danshi (literally, “grass-eating men”). Kishino says he doesn’t mind the label because it’s become so commonplace. He defines it as “a heterosexual man for whom relationships and sex are unimportant”.

The phenomenon emerged a few years ago with the airing of a Japanese manga-turned-TV show. The lead character in Otomen (“Girly Men”) was a tall martial arts champion, the king of tough-guy cool. Secretly, he loved baking cakes, collecting “pink sparkly things” and knitting clothes for his stuffed animals. To the tooth-sucking horror of Japan’s corporate elders, the show struck a powerful chord with the generation they spawned.

Satoru Kishino, 31‘I find women attractive but I’ve learned to live without sex. Emotional entanglements are too complicated’: Satoru Kishino, 31. Photograph: Eric Rechsteiner/Panos PicturesKishino, who works at a fashion accessories company as a designer and manager, doesn’t knit. But he does like cooking and cycling, and platonic friendships. “I find some of my female friends attractive but I’ve learned to live without sex. Emotional entanglements are too complicated,” he says. “I can’t be bothered.”

Romantic apathy aside, Kishino, like Tomita, says he enjoys his active single life. Ironically, the salaryman system that produced such segregated marital roles – wives inside the home, husbands at work for 20 hours a day – also created an ideal environment for solo living. Japan’s cities are full of conveniences made for one, from stand-up noodle bars to capsule hotels to the ubiquitous konbini (convenience stores), with their shelves of individually wrapped rice balls and disposable underwear. These things originally evolved for salarymen on the go, but there are now female-only cafés, hotel floors and even the odd apartment block. And Japan’s cities are extraordinarily crime-free.

Some experts believe the flight from marriage is not merely a rejection of outdated norms and gender roles. It could be a long-term state of affairs. “Remaining single was once the ultimate personal failure,” saysTomomi Yamaguchi, a Japanese-born assistant professor of anthropology at Montana State University in America. “But more people are finding they prefer it.” Being single by choice is becoming, she believes, “a new reality”.

Is Japan providing a glimpse of all our futures? Many of the shifts there are occurring in other advanced nations, too. Across urban Asia, Europe and America, people are marrying later or not at all, birth rates are falling, single-occupant households are on the rise and, in countries where economic recession is worst, young people are living at home. But demographer Nicholas Eberstadt argues that a distinctive set of factors is accelerating these trends in Japan. These factors include the lack of a religious authority that ordains marriage and family, the country’s precarious earthquake-prone ecology that engenders feelings of futility, and the high cost of living and raising children.

“Gradually but relentlessly, Japan is evolving into a type of society whose contours and workings have only been contemplated in science fiction,” Eberstadt wrote last year. With a vast army of older people and an ever-dwindling younger generation, Japan may become a “pioneer people” where individuals who never marry exist in significant numbers, he said.

Japan’s 20-somethings are the age group to watch. Most are still too young to have concrete future plans, but projections for them are already laid out. According to the government’s population institute, women in their early 20s today have a one-in-four chance of never marrying. Their chances of remaining childless are even higher: almost 40%.

They don’t seem concerned. Emi Kuwahata, 23, and her friend, Eri Asada, 22, meet me in the shopping district of Shibuya. The café they choose is beneath an art gallery near the train station, wedged in an alley between pachinko pinball parlours and adult video shops. Kuwahata, a fashion graduate, is in a casual relationship with a man 13 years her senior. “We meet once a week to go clubbing,” she says. “I don’t have time for a regular boyfriend. I’m trying to become a fashion designer.” Asada, who studied economics, has no interest in love. “I gave up dating three years ago. I don’t miss boyfriends or sex. I don’t even like holding hands.”

Asada insists nothing happened to put her off physical contact. She just doesn’t want a relationship and casual sex is not a good option, she says, because “girls can’t have flings without being judged”. Although Japan is sexually permissive, the current fantasy ideal for women under 25 is impossibly cute and virginal. Double standards abound.

In the Japan Family Planning Association’s 2013 study on sex among young people, there was far more data on men than women. I asked the association’s head, Kunio Kitamura, why. “Sexual drive comes from males,” said the man who advises the government. “Females do not experience the same levels of desire.”

Over iced tea served by skinny-jeaned boys with meticulously tousled hair, Asada and Kuwahata say they share the usual singleton passions of clothes, music and shopping, and have hectic social lives. But, smart phones in hand, they also admit they spend far more time communicating with their friends via online social networks than seeing them in the flesh. Asada adds she’s spent “the past two years” obsessed with a virtual game that lets her act as a manager of a sweet shop.

Japanese-American author Roland Kelts, who writes about Japan’s youth, says it’s inevitable that the future of Japanese relationships will be largely technology driven. “Japan has developed incredibly sophisticated virtual worlds and online communication systems. Its smart phone apps are the world’s most imaginative.” Kelts says the need to escape into private, virtual worlds in Japan stems from the fact that it’s an overcrowded nation with limited physical space. But he also believes the rest of the world is not far behind.

Getting back to basics, former dominatrix Ai Aoyama – Queen Love – is determined to educate her clients on the value of “skin-to-skin, heart-to-heart” intimacy. She accepts that technology will shape the future, but says society must ensure it doesn’t take over. “It’s not healthy that people are becoming so physically disconnected from each other,” she says. “Sex with another person is a human need that produces feel-good hormones and helps people to function better in their daily lives.”

Aoyama says she sees daily that people crave human warmth, even if they don’t want the hassle of marriage or a long-term relationship. She berates the government for “making it hard for single people to live however they want” and for “whipping up fear about the falling birth rate”. Whipping up fear in people, she says, doesn’t help anyone. And that’s from a woman who knows a bit about whipping.




Disturbing Obamacare Inequities

by Stephen Lendman
Let’s stop diddling with this piece of crap. Give us single payer or bust! Enough of these bastards and their so-called solutions. 

obama-time-obamacare

A previous article said March 23, 2010 will live in infamy. With strokes from 22 pens, Obama enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It’s a monstrosity. Rules and regulations run thousands of pages. Providing healthcare should be simple. ACA complicates it enormously. It’s rife with inequities. Households can’t possibly understand its provisions. They have no say. They’re forced to comply. ACA is a scam. It’s a ripoff. It’s a healthcare rationing scheme. It’s a boon to providers. They wrote the law. It lets them game the system for profits.

 

It makes a dysfunctional system worse. US healthcare is outrageously expensive. It’s double the cost of other developed nations. It’s woefully inadequate. Obamacare leaves millions uninsured. It leaves millions more way underinsured. It makes US healthcare more than ever unaffordable. It requires buying insurance or be penalized. In 2014, it’s $95 per person up to 1% of family income, whichever is greater.

Fines increase sevenfold over the next two years. In 2016, it’s $695 per person up to 2.5% of income, whichever is greater. Exemptions apply for individuals and families meeting these requirements:

  • uninsured less than three months a year;
  • undocumented aliens;
  • prisoners;
  • members of recognized Native American tribes;
  • income officially deemed too low;
  • lowest-cost coverage exceeding 8% of household income;
  • belonging to a recognized religious sect rejecting health insurance coverage; and/or
  • belonging to a recognized health-sharing ministry.

Obama granted 1,231 companies, organizations and Congress exemptions. They’re for one year. Perhaps they’ll be extended. Maybe they’ll become permanent. They provide special benefits denied ordinary Americans.  Congressional members and staffs get healthcare through Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) coverage. It affords dozens of options. It lets them choose what’s best for them.

[pullquote]The editors say: In this idiotic, criminal system shoved down the throat of confused, disorganized Americans, the profit motive is left triumphant at the center of its machinery instead of being kicked out as it richly deserves. No profit motive should rule access to healthcare for those in need. As for the rich, those earning above one million a year, let them have their precious private system.[/pullquote]

It subsidizes 70% of premiums. It does so tax free. For an additional fee, congressional members (excluding family members) can get special on-site Washington area military hospital Attending Physician treatment.  Obamacare’s Section 1312 says the following:

“(T)he only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are, (1) created under (ACA); or (2) offered through an exchange established under this act.”

Incidentally, did you hear about the $400-million dollar website?  That’s what the government idiots paid some company to built a site that doesn’t  even work.  Do these bureaucrats know anything about the real world when it comes to using public monies? Our webmaster could build ten websites like that serving the ACA and the ticket would be less than $100,000.  Watch the video below (if you see an error message, click on it anyway).


At the same time, congressional members, their families and staffs qualify for tax-exempt subsidies. They’re afforded special benefits denied ordinary Americans. An August Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed rule was finalized in September. It maintains congressional subsidies. It does so for lawmakers and staffs enrolling in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). It’s available in Washington. It’s for businesses with less than 50 employees.

On October 22, the Washington Post headlined “Health co-ops, created to foster competition and lower insurance costs, are in danger.”

Ostensibly they were created for increased competition. Doing so helps lower costs. They failed the test. They’re troubled. One coop closed. Another is struggling. Federal audits show nine more have financial problems.

“Their failure would leave taxpayers potentially on the hook for nearly $1 billion in defaulted loans and rob the marketplace of the kind of competition they were supposed to create,” said WaPo.  “And if they become insolvent, policyholders in at least half the states where the co-ops operate could be stuck with medical bills.”

Pressure from insurance industry lobbyists created what’s not working. “(O)nerous restrictions” doom many coops to fail. “Federal grants were converted to loans with tight repayment schedules.”  Coops “were barred from using federal money for crucial marketing.”

“(T)hey were severely limited from selling insurance to large employers. ” They’re the most lucrative customers.

Obama officials approved limited coop funding. It was “cut to a small fraction of what experts told Congress” was needed to assure their viability.  Coops initially were meant to be nationwide. Only two dozen began operating. They differ from traditional insurers. They’re nonprofit.  Onerous rules hamstring them. They’re troubled. They’re scrambling to survive against long odds. According to Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Professor Karen Davis:

“One provision after another got stuck in there to limit their probability of success.”

“It’s a little ironic to say you are for competition in the free market and then you don’t make it easy for new entrants.”

A system ostensibly created to help ordinary Americans was designed to fail. Earlier US coop experiments were “littered with failures,” Davis added. Insurance giant lobbying assured it. This time appears no different.  Former Baltimore health commissioner Peter Beilenson is Evergreen Health Co-op CEO. He calls obstacles he faces “by far the most challenging (ones) (he’s) been involved with in (his) 21-year career.”

Evergreen is financially troubled. It’s heavily debt burdened. Its solvency is in doubt. The entire coop experiment looks headed for failure. Obamacare rules bear full responsibility. They mandate fining nonprofit hospitals for providing free healthcare. They’re covered under ACA’s Section 501c3. They’re required to meet four specific requirements to maintain tax exempt status:

  • Conduct periodic community health needs assessments (CHNA).
  • Provide written financial assistance and emergency care policies.
  • Establish charge limitations for emergency or medically necessary care; and
  • Set policies and procedures related to billings and collections.

America has nearly 5,000 community hospitals. Around 2,900 are nonprofit. Complying with Section 501 isn’t easy. Doing so involves considerable time and expense.  Obamacare imposed enormous burdens. Penalties for noncompliance are $50,000 annually. Multiple hospital organizations face larger fines.

Most serious is potential loss of nonprofit status. Losing exemption makes them subject to numerous federal, state and local taxes.  They’ll no longer be able to issue tax-free bonds. Charitable fundraising will be denied.

Obamacare requires everyone other than above listed exemptions buy health insurance. It’s no longer an option. It’s to enrich insurers. It’s to discourage charity.

Nonprofit hospitals are endangered. Henceforth, they must prove their service is needed. They must satisfy Obamacare mandated rules. They’re overseen by IRS bureaucrats.  Failure to comply risks losing tax exempt status. Eliminating nonprofits affords insurance giants greater profit opportunities. They wrote Obamacare rules to assure them.

They’re complicated and disturbing. Healthcare experts believe it’s hard to impossible for charitable hospitals to properly comply. Lewis and Roca law partner D. Douglas Metcalf questions whether they’ll survive, saying:

They “should be advised that the new (ACA) requirements will play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured.”

“The new law leaves many gray areas, and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance.”

“Following the new procedures as best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status.”  Doing so won’t be easy. Many may fail the test. Obamacare perhaps planned it that way.

Less competition lets insurance giants game the system advantageously. Doing so means higher premiums. Imposing them assures greater profits. Coverage becomes less affordable.  Millions of Americans will be shut out. They’ll be without vital healthcare when most needed. For many it’s pay or die. Obama bears full responsibility.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html 

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.




Obamacare and the assault on workers’ health benefits

By Kate Randall and Barry Grey, senior political analysts with wsws.org

american healthcare

Developments in two major US cities underscore the anti-working class agenda underlying the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare.

On Monday, Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr announced that health insurance is being eliminated for retired city workers under age 65 and replaced with a $125 monthly stipend to use toward purchasing coverage on the insurance exchanges set up under the ACA. Retirees over 65 will be moved to Medicare.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the city will go forward with a plan to eliminate health insurance subsidies for retired city workers by the end of 2016.

Orr and Emanuel wasted no time in seizing on the launch of the Obamacare exchanges, which opened for business October 1, to announce their assault on retirees’ health care. In both Detroit and Chicago, workers who labored for decades with the promise that health care would be provided for them and their families in retirement are being robbed of their benefits and forced to purchase individual plans from private insurers on the Obamacare exchanges.

The essential aim of the ACA is rapidly emerging. Behind the talk of providing coverage for the uninsured, Obamacare was devised from the outset as a means of dismantling the employer-based system of health insurance that for decades guaranteed a basic level of health care for tens of millions of workers in the US. While Obama’s counter-reform will still leave some 31 million people uninsured, it will dramatically reduce health care costs for private and public employers by hiking workers’ out-of-pocket costs and slashing their benefits.

Health care coverage for their employees will cease to be the accepted norm for large and medium-sized businesses. Instead, workers will be left to their own devices, forced to confront gigantic health insurance corporations as individuals, with minimal subsidies from the government or their private employers that will do little to offset huge increases in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

In essence, a voucher-type system is being instituted, and the principle will inevitably be extended to Medicare and Medicaid, the government-run health programs for retirees and poor people, respectively. This will provide the means for privatizing and dismantling these basic social programs.

In contrast to Western Europe, Canada, Australia and other industrialized capitalist countries, where health care was sponsored by the state, in the US employer-sponsored insurance became the norm in the years after World War II. The years 1940 to 1960 saw a seven-fold increase in the number of people enrolled in such health plans. By 1958, three-quarters of all Americans had some form of health coverage.

The extension of health coverage by employers was a gain won by the working class in the course of bitter struggles. The fact that it is being gutted is yet another expression of the betrayal of the working class by the trade unions and the transformation of these organizations into de facto arms of the corporations and the government.

Cities and states across the US are considering moving their retirees, and in some cases their active employees, off of city-funded benefits. Neil Bomberg, program director at the National League of Cities, said in an interview with Bloomberg News, “Cities and towns will be looking at ways to reduce those costs, and the exchanges may provide a very viable mechanism.” The state of Washington is considering dumping its entire active workforce onto the Obamacare exchanges.

Bankrupt Stockton, California ended subsidized coverage for its retirees on June 30. The Association of Retired Employees of the City of Stockton estimates that as many as 300 of these retired workers will not purchase coverage through the ACA because they will not qualify for subsidies or will be unable to afford the premiums.

Major companies including IBM, Time Warner, Caterpillar and DuPont have already shifted their retirees off of company-administered health care plans and into privately run health care exchanges. Such exchanges, managed by private companies such as Extend Health, are basically the same as those set up under the ACA—but with a company stipend instead of a government subsidy.

Companies such as Sears Holding Corp. and Darden Restaurants have moved their active employees to these private exchanges. Health consultant Accenture predicts that this private insurance exchange market will undergo an astronomical growth in the not-to-distant future, rising from about 1 million this year to 40 million by 2018. This means that nearly a quarter of the 170 million people presently enrolled in company-sponsored plans will be dumped by their employer onto these private exchanges over the next five years.

The changes being imposed on retirees’ health benefits in Chicago and Detroit serve as a warning that the political establishment is seizing on the economic crisis, and the claims of underfunded and unsecured pension and health care obligations, to implement deep-going changes that threaten to plunge large numbers of workers and retirees into poverty. It is no coincidence that these attacks are being carried out in major cities run by Democrats with long-standing connections to Obama.

Rahm Emanuel was White House chief of staff for most of Obama’s first term. Orr campaigned for Obama and played a major role in Obama’s 2009 forced bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, which was used to slash the wages of newly hired auto workers in half.

The unions are complicit in these attacks. They are allied with Obama and the Democrats and support Obamacare. Their only concern is that the union officials maintain their huge salaries and perks, sustained by the inflow of union dues.

The concerted attack on health care in the US demonstrates the incompatibility of private ownership of the health system and the basic social rights of the working class, including health care and a secure retirement.

True reform of the health care system can be carried out only on the basis of the socialist reorganization of society, placing the entire health care industry—the insurance companies, pharmaceutical corporations and health care chains—under public ownership and the democratic control of the working class.




Grand Theft Health Insurance—(or repeal Obamacare, but for the right reasons)

Single Payer West Virginia Tommy Douglas and Healthcare, the Movie
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER
mokhiber-3The corruption and treachery of Democrats, who didn’t even stop to consider, let alone fight for single payer, saddled the nation with a widely (and justifiably) hated law.—Eds
Here I sit, in West Virginia, staring down at January 1, 2014.  That’s when my health insurance policy expires and I have a decision to make — renew or not renew?

Right now, I’m paying about $7,000 a year in premiums for a monster deductible and yearly out of pocket of about $15,000 for myself and my family. My health insurance company informed me yesterday that my premium will double to $14,000 on January 1.

I’ve been trying to get onto the Obamacare web site now for ten days to search for an alternative.  No luck. I made it through four pages yesterday — then got a message saying I’d have to wait because there was too much traffic. When I clicked the continue button, it wiped out the information I had typed into the first three pages.

But even if I do get onto the exchanges, it’s probably not going to matter.

read in a newspaper that Highmark is the only health insurance company on the exchange in West Virginia. Yesterday, I called Highmark and spent an hour on the phone with a nice young man — but the results were not good. The skimpiest plan is going to cost me more than I’m paying now for a higher deductible and out of pocket result.

Thank you Obamacare.

My insurance agent told me yesterday I had only one alternative — wait for six years until Medicare kicks in and keep fighting for single payer.

Right now, I’m paying about $7,000 a year in premiums for a monster deductible and yearly out of pocket of about $15,000 for myself and my family. My health insurance company informed me yesterday that my premium will double to $14,000 on January 1.

Obviously, the Democrats and anyone who defends them are not going to be of any help in the next round. They are irrevocably tied to President Obama and Obamacare and even those Democrats nominally in favor of single payer refuse to criticize it for the industry written law that it is.

I agree with Dr. Quentin Young of Physicians for a National Health Program when he says that Obamacare should have been defeated because it enshrines and solidifies corporate domination of the health care system.

But what to do next? Well, first thing is to watch a movie called Healthcare — The Movie. It’s a short documentary — 62 minutes — but packs a big punch. The movie was produced by a husband wife team — the wife Canadian — Laurie Simons — and the husband American — Terry Sterrenberg.

The movie toggles back and forth between the USA and Canada — with Americans struggling with bankruptcy, death from lack of health insurance and the dark cloud of health insurance armageddon menacing their lives from cradle to an often early grave.

The Canadians, by contrast, are living in a relative health care nirvana, thanks in large part to Tommy Douglas, a boxer and Premier of Saskatchewan who stood up to the red baiting being dished out at the time by the Canadian medical establishment. Douglas emerged victorious and his efforts resulted in the creation of Canada’s single payer Medicare for all. The movie is narrated by actor Kiefer Sutherland — Tommy Douglas’ grandson.

The film features great historic clips — including a remarkable scene where a CBC television show host asks the question — who is the greatest Canadian? And then, in reality show format, puts it up to a vote.

“After six weeks, ten finalists, and more than a million votes,” the CBC host says, “it ended tonight with one name . And I have the envelope here. The greatest Canadian as decided by you is — Tommy Douglas.”

Imagine that — the country says that Tommy Douglas, the father of single payer in Canada, is greater than its greatest hockey player — Wayne Gretzky.

Tommy Douglas’ courageous act — standing up for the people of Canada against the vicious attacks of the powers that be — has resulted in a system that delivers health care for all Canadians — no complex bills, no deductibles, no deaths from lack of health insurance, no medical bankruptcies — all funded by a progressive tax system.

The movie profiles Canadians with serious medical illness — who come out financially unscathed — no bills, no bankruptcy, no health related financial worries.

And then compares those Canadians to the suffering human beings south of the border.

The movie does a good job of making us Americans feel like crap compared to our cousins up north.

Check out this sequence, for example:

How many people in the United States die each year because they have no health insurance?

45,000

How many people in Canada die each year because they have no health insurance?

Zero.

How many people go bankrupt each year in the United States because of medical expenses?

922,819

How many people go bankrupt each year in Canada because of medical expenses?

Zero.

How many Americans do not have health insurance?

50 million.

How many Canadians do not have health insurance?

Zero.

How many Americans go without medical care because of costs?

115 million.

How many Canadians go without medical care because of costs?

Zero.

One of the stars of this film is a young American from Portland, Oregon named Lindsay Caron.

“I was a free-lance artist for a long time,” Caron says.  “I gave that up to go sit in an office and file papers so that I could have health care.  And it amazed me that other people in other countries never had to think about that. I kept hearing that Canada’s system was broken, and that Canadians were flocking over the border to get US care.  And so I wanted to go to Canada with a camera and ask a couple hundred people. I bought a ticket up to Vancouver, Canada. I rented camera equipment. And I took my bicycle. I thought maybe I would stay  in Vancouver for a couple of days and cycle on back to Portland. I ended staying there the whole week.  I got up in the morning, set up a camera on the street and just start asking people questions.”

Caron finds out what polls in Canada consistently confirm — that the vast majority of Canadians would never in a thousand years give up their Medicare coverage for the nightmare south of the border.

It all came about because Tommy Douglas had the guts to stand up to the political and medical establishment and do what is right for the Canadian people.

Canada did it.

There is no reason we can’t do it.

It’s simply a matter of reordering our priorities.

Let’s put aside, for a moment, our millions of copies of Grand Theft Auto 5 and start playing a new game — Grand Theft — Health Insurance.

The goal of the game is to become a boxer, like Tommy Douglas — and fight back against the insurance industry and its Frankenstein monster — Obamacare.

Repeal Obamacare.

Replace it with single payer.

Russell Mokhiber edits Single Payer Action.