On April 25, Diogenes published a post titled "Inhumane Humana" about a Type I diabetic friend of his who was being victimized by the Humana health insurance company who refused to bill her insulin to the appropriate part of Medicare, which would have saved her a great deal of money. The friend's name was fictitious, but the story was true to the last detail, and was unfolding as he wrote it.
Now comes a similar story to us, this one from a friend of mine, both on Facebook and in real life. Her husband has chronic lung disease not caused by any bad habit like smoking or drugs, and not from working in a risky profession. It's just from one of those unfortunate rolls of the dice that Nature sometimes throws at us. Like Dio's friend, he requires expensive medications to remain healthy--indeed to live--which are placed out of his family's financial reach by the pharmaceutical industry's limitless greed and insistence on pricing critical medications beyond the buying power of most American people.
Her story appears below verbatim, edited only slightly for paragraph structure and punctuation.
"This is long, but please read. My husband and I have been personally affected by Trump policies. And so have you, but you might not even know it.
"In January I picked up one of Nick's meds at the pharmacy. It was $742.58 for a one month supply. Because I have a separate deductible for my prescription end of my insurance I had to pay the whole thing. It is considered not on the approved list even though there is no generic for it and until I reach the deductible I had to pay full price. Great! But it gets better.
"I went back in February to get that month's supply and the clerk tells me it is now $1104.36! Really!? I asked why and was told it had to do with the manufacturer and I should call my insurance. She was very nice and understanding and I know this is not the pharmacy's fault. I went home and called my insurance and after my running around calling this one and that one I spoke to a girl who told me this: She said the price of the medicine had gone up and then she said, 'I am not sure what your political affiliation is, but this is why. One of the first regulations that Trump lifted after he came into office was rules on drug regulations ( or prices) for the drug companies. Obama had kept them in check for 8 years. They were not allowed to increase cost more than 20% without government regulation. Trump's lift of that particular regulation gave them free rein to increase the cost at their whim.'
"And who do you think were some of his biggest supporters in this election? You got it: the pharmaceutical companies. Remember that promise to lower medicine cost? Well, we are proof that was just a lie. Plain and simple. I don't usually share my business or struggles like this, but people need to be aware of this. This man has NOT got anyone's interest in mind except his and his ego's.
"It didn't take me long to reach that prescription deductible (3 months), but even after that burden I still have to pay a copay for that medicine of $70 per month. You may think that's not bad, but that is one of 10 medicines my husband has to take. I have become an expert at robbing Peter to pay Paul. But I shouldn't have to be. I work and pay a horrible premium for insurance that is lousy. This is making America great again? Tell that to my husband when he can't breathe.
"Now you know someone who is been directly affected by this healthcare mess. I am your friend, your neighbor, your father, mother, grandparent, child, sister, brother, family, coworker. I work next to you every day. I struggle and I am not alone. I am not afraid to work and pay my way. I have been at the same job for 36 years and have never been on welfare. I am you. You could be us at any moment. Always remember that. I hope you stay healthy for as long as you can and never walk in our shoes. But if you do, I will be right there with you.
"People need to be aware this man is dangerous for this country at the very least."
In January of 1898 the writer Emile Zola published "J'Accuse . . .!", an indictment of the French president and government for complicity in the unjust imprisonment of Alfred Dreyfus. Zola was found guilty of libel and had to leave the country for several months, but was ultimately vindicated and Dreyfus was set free.
We need a Zola now to openly and forcefully accuse the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries for crimes against the American people, including not only perpetuating chronic illnesses, but also for indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of our citizens. And Trump is indeed complicit.
--Richard Brown
U.S. Constitution
The voice of the people
19 May 2017
17 May 2017
You're fired!
Disappearance has been an effective tool for tyrants through the course of millennia. That is, the tyrants themselves didn't disappear; they "disappeared" citizens they deemed to be enemies.
The word didn't always have a pejorative connotation. Our word is from the Greek "tyrannos," which refers to a ruler with absolute power which he has usurped from a legitimate monarch or other leader. But power corrupts, and tyrants almost always wind up wielding their power badly. Thus the word took on a negative sense.
Long before the Greeks, tyrants were disappearing people. In ancient Egypt, a former pharaoh or court official might be disappeared by having his name stricken from monuments and buildings, making it seem he never existed.
In some ancient societies, including Israel and Greece, enemies of the government (i.e. the ruler or ruling party) were exiled--cast out of their city under threat of death if they should return. Athenian citizens, who believed their city to be the omphalos of the universe, considered exile worse than death.
In the ancient world, to be exiled, even if one settled in a city not all that far away, was an effective disappearance, as other citizens of the exile's city were forbidden to have contact with him. As the line in "Jesus Christ Superstar" goes, "Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication." Even so, some disappearees are still known. St. John the Divine, credited with writing the Book of Revelation, had been exiled to the island of Patmos by the Roman emperor Diocletian.
Out of sight, out of mind. The French term oubliette, which derives from the term for "forget," referred to covered pits in dungeons where enemies were tossed, to be forever forgotten. The Bridge of Sighs in Venice was another means of disappearance; once an enemy crossed it they were gone forever.
The list goes on. For Hitler, the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" was incineration and unmarked burial; for Stalin and later Soviet leaders it was Siberia; for FDR it was internment camps in the Western states where as many as 120,000 Japanese-Americans were disappeared for the duration of WWII.
The reason always given by tyrannical governments for putting their own citizens out of sight is that they are "enemies of the state." We've heard it from the Soviets, the North Koreans, the Chinese. But remember Louis XIV's famous statement: "I am the State."
When a leader begins to believe that, she or he is on the road to tyranny. Nixon had his enemies list, we recall, and if he couldn't disappear them he could certainly try to get them out of his way. And then there's Trump.
"You're fired" has become a Trumpian icon since he uttered it ad nauseam on the execrable "Apprentice" series. In his blinkered view of the world from a business perspective being fired by Trump probably meant in his mind that the person was gone and forgotten--disappeared. And so s/he had been from his solipsistic point of view.
But in a world where the phrase "You're fired" has become the stuff of late-night comedy and its originator the butt of jokes, Trump's narrow vision doesn't prevail. The Great Pretender may think that firing people--high-profile people at that--is his equivalent of dropping them into an oubliette, but all it does in reality is to make them even more visible, and gives them a platform to denounce him. Three cheers for the Trump oubliette!
--Richard Brown
The word didn't always have a pejorative connotation. Our word is from the Greek "tyrannos," which refers to a ruler with absolute power which he has usurped from a legitimate monarch or other leader. But power corrupts, and tyrants almost always wind up wielding their power badly. Thus the word took on a negative sense.
Long before the Greeks, tyrants were disappearing people. In ancient Egypt, a former pharaoh or court official might be disappeared by having his name stricken from monuments and buildings, making it seem he never existed.
In some ancient societies, including Israel and Greece, enemies of the government (i.e. the ruler or ruling party) were exiled--cast out of their city under threat of death if they should return. Athenian citizens, who believed their city to be the omphalos of the universe, considered exile worse than death.
In the ancient world, to be exiled, even if one settled in a city not all that far away, was an effective disappearance, as other citizens of the exile's city were forbidden to have contact with him. As the line in "Jesus Christ Superstar" goes, "Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication." Even so, some disappearees are still known. St. John the Divine, credited with writing the Book of Revelation, had been exiled to the island of Patmos by the Roman emperor Diocletian.
Out of sight, out of mind. The French term oubliette, which derives from the term for "forget," referred to covered pits in dungeons where enemies were tossed, to be forever forgotten. The Bridge of Sighs in Venice was another means of disappearance; once an enemy crossed it they were gone forever.
The list goes on. For Hitler, the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" was incineration and unmarked burial; for Stalin and later Soviet leaders it was Siberia; for FDR it was internment camps in the Western states where as many as 120,000 Japanese-Americans were disappeared for the duration of WWII.
The reason always given by tyrannical governments for putting their own citizens out of sight is that they are "enemies of the state." We've heard it from the Soviets, the North Koreans, the Chinese. But remember Louis XIV's famous statement: "I am the State."
When a leader begins to believe that, she or he is on the road to tyranny. Nixon had his enemies list, we recall, and if he couldn't disappear them he could certainly try to get them out of his way. And then there's Trump.
"You're fired" has become a Trumpian icon since he uttered it ad nauseam on the execrable "Apprentice" series. In his blinkered view of the world from a business perspective being fired by Trump probably meant in his mind that the person was gone and forgotten--disappeared. And so s/he had been from his solipsistic point of view.
But in a world where the phrase "You're fired" has become the stuff of late-night comedy and its originator the butt of jokes, Trump's narrow vision doesn't prevail. The Great Pretender may think that firing people--high-profile people at that--is his equivalent of dropping them into an oubliette, but all it does in reality is to make them even more visible, and gives them a platform to denounce him. Three cheers for the Trump oubliette!
--Richard Brown
15 May 2017
Back to roots
Toward the end of Diogenes' recent retreat, Master Dorje advised him to give attention to those who pay attention to him, or as Rinpoche Dorje put it, "those who have ears to hear." Dio quickly saw the wisdom of that advice. "I'm neither a newsmaker nor reporter," he said. "Everything I work with has become common knowledge, reported broadly by all kinds of media. What I can contribute is opinion, insight and thoughtful commentary, and as the Master said, many--perhaps most--people cannot or will not hear those things. If I am capable of changing anything, it can be only a few minds--yet a small number of minds might bring about great change if they work together. So I will not seek huge audiences, but welcome them if they come; and in the meantime pay attention to those who do me the honor of hearing my words."
Now I must point out here that Diogenes has not gone soft. He remains committed to action that will bring about the downfall of the Great Pretender, and urges his readers to join him in that effort, and to urge their friends, both on and off Facebook, to do the same. This is the way ideas are spread.
On April 19, shortly before he became aware he was having a concentration problem, Diogenes published a post here consisting of a list of headlines taken from major news media and asked readers to vote on which one they would like him to consider. The "winner"was, "Mr. Trump Plays by His Own Rules (or No Rules)," by the NY Times editorial board, published April 18.*
The board, saying the Trump administration is "filled with people who seem determined to wring every last dollar and ounce of trust from the American people," cites one startling and troubling statistic: "The Office of Government Ethics received 39,105 public queries and complaints about Trump administration ethics over the past six months, compared with 733 during the same period eight years earlier at the start of the Obama administration." What this means, of course, is that corruption has become a way of life in the Trump administration. But it also means that people are listening, inquiring, watching, and like us are waiting for the moment to act to bring down the House of Trump like the flimsy and rotten construction it is.
It's often stated that the United States is a nation of laws--that is to say, rules--that govern all of us. Let me say that again: All of us, top to bottom. And being a nation of laws, universally applied and universally observed, is what lets our society and our government work, indeed, exist. An old joke pointing out the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States went like this: "In the Soviet Union, everything is forbidden except those things that are expressly allowed. In the U.S., everything is allowed except those things that are expressly forbidden."
We have a body of elected representatives called Congress that is charged with making the rules that govern the nation. We may not agree with Congress, and they certainly haven't done their job very well over the past several years, but we agree to abide by the social contract we have with Congress that is embedded in the Constitution. Every American citizen is protected equally by our laws, and every citizen must abide by them. Nowhere in any federal oath of office is there a clause granting the oath taker the liberty to break our rules. To allow such a thing could well lead to chaos and anarchy--and the Trump administration is skating dangerously close to that edge.
*Link to the NYT editorial: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/.../mr-trump-plays-by-his-own-rules-or-no-rules.html
--Richard Brown
Now I must point out here that Diogenes has not gone soft. He remains committed to action that will bring about the downfall of the Great Pretender, and urges his readers to join him in that effort, and to urge their friends, both on and off Facebook, to do the same. This is the way ideas are spread.
On April 19, shortly before he became aware he was having a concentration problem, Diogenes published a post here consisting of a list of headlines taken from major news media and asked readers to vote on which one they would like him to consider. The "winner"was, "Mr. Trump Plays by His Own Rules (or No Rules)," by the NY Times editorial board, published April 18.*
The board, saying the Trump administration is "filled with people who seem determined to wring every last dollar and ounce of trust from the American people," cites one startling and troubling statistic: "The Office of Government Ethics received 39,105 public queries and complaints about Trump administration ethics over the past six months, compared with 733 during the same period eight years earlier at the start of the Obama administration." What this means, of course, is that corruption has become a way of life in the Trump administration. But it also means that people are listening, inquiring, watching, and like us are waiting for the moment to act to bring down the House of Trump like the flimsy and rotten construction it is.
It's often stated that the United States is a nation of laws--that is to say, rules--that govern all of us. Let me say that again: All of us, top to bottom. And being a nation of laws, universally applied and universally observed, is what lets our society and our government work, indeed, exist. An old joke pointing out the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States went like this: "In the Soviet Union, everything is forbidden except those things that are expressly allowed. In the U.S., everything is allowed except those things that are expressly forbidden."
We have a body of elected representatives called Congress that is charged with making the rules that govern the nation. We may not agree with Congress, and they certainly haven't done their job very well over the past several years, but we agree to abide by the social contract we have with Congress that is embedded in the Constitution. Every American citizen is protected equally by our laws, and every citizen must abide by them. Nowhere in any federal oath of office is there a clause granting the oath taker the liberty to break our rules. To allow such a thing could well lead to chaos and anarchy--and the Trump administration is skating dangerously close to that edge.
*Link to the NYT editorial: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/.../mr-trump-plays-by-his-own-rules-or-no-rules.html
--Richard Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)