I wrote to Richard C. Cook recently to applaud his article entitled "It Stinks" and to request permission to post it on OpEd News. He gladly granted permission, and further replied that he had actually received a lot of "hate mail" about it with the notable exception of one letter from Australia which he kindly forwarded to me. The subject line of the following letter from David Robinson was very appropriately, "I Can Smell It", suggesting that the foul stench of corruption in the US health care debate extends half way around the world and is clearly evident to anyone who is paying attention:
Hi Richard, I read your article on Rense.com and just wanted to agree with your perspective on the hijacked health care debate in the US.
I have been wondering quietly why there is such an instinctive 'anti communist' objection to it when large swathes of the population over there go without health care because of they can't afford private health insurance and care is denied to those who can't afford it?
We have had government funded health care in Australia for as long as I can remember and it works brilliantly. (I think our medicare system was the first of its kind and Canada / Britain's were modeled on it?) We pay a few hundred bucks each year as part of our income tax returns and for that just about everything is free and readily available when you need it - no matter who you are. Even drugs are subsidised for the low income brackets and pensioners so no-one goes without medication. (US pharma firms have lobbied hard to get our government to abolish the Pharmceutical Benefits Scheme we have here so they can charge what they like... So far it has been resisted and they continue to sell their product to our goverment at the price deemed reasonable and fair for the size of the purchase. Can't be losing money or they wouldn't do it)
The system is not perfect but it works for the majority of people in the majority of cases. Of course the devil is in the detail and no doubt the lobbyist are working overtime to rig the system in their favour so this is where the peoples efforts should be focused - excluding the corporations from the process."
David Robinson
Australia
Coming from yet another developed country whose health care system is far superior to that found in the US, I was very favorably impressed with Mr. Robinson's views cited above. So I also requested permission to post his views at OpEd News. The following was his expanded response:
Hi David, please feel free to cite my comments in context wherever you feel it is appropriate - happy to have my thoughts contribute.
As far as my Bio goes I am simply an independent small business owner who as a citizen is deeply concerned by the direction the world in general is headed. There was a time when I envied the freedoms the citizens of the United States enjoyed but of course that is increasingly a thing of the past and we are all now struggling to maintain 'freeman' status in any sense of the word. The mass cognitive dissonance that appears to have taken hold around the world is testament to the effectiveness of the corporate elites relentless propaganda and all but total domination of the mainstream communication sphere.
This of course is blatantly evident in the health care debate currently going on in the USA. The only reason to want a government in the first place is to provide communal fundamental infrastructure and to enforce a level playing field for all to participate isn't it? Education, health, transport, energy and telecommunications transmission assets are all better when owned and operated by the government on the citizens behalf, We have had them all and I can tell you from personal experience that they all worked better and cost less when run by the government as a public service and not by big business for profit. This is self-evident because the government doesn't need to make a profit on its activities.
The American citizens zealous fear of 'socialism / communism' is being used against them relentlessly. How is it that it is OK to hand over 2 generations of future tax revenues to the banking and insurance industries without taking ownership but to do the same AND take ownership of the institutions is somehow socialist? We all know that if the central banks were taken back into government control and the money was created directly without interest every single person in the world (except private banksters) would be much better off ... money would become the enabler it was intended to be rather than the principal mechanism of oppression and wealth concentration it has become.
On the health care issue real doctors who dedicate themselves to the science of healing fellow humans will continue to do so with enthusiasm. When provided with adequate equipment and the motivation to heal rather than produce profit they will thrive. In fact you would all be better served if doctors who become a medical professional because of the high incomes and status attached rather than the altruistic motivation of helping others were driven out.
I want to assert that I am by no means a fan of socialism / communism. Just because a government provides critical infrastructure and services to the citizens whom they represent does not a commie make. We still vote our politicians in and we also restrict lobbying and campaign contributions to a large degree which makes our government more citizen rather than big business focused. I believe you have a similar movement in a few states over there moving to the same system where each candidate is funded equally by the electorate so that the wealthy cannot dominate as easily.
The problem for us (Australia) is that the relentless pressure from internationalised US big business is taking its toll and we are incrementally being moved toward the US system of money and influence talks while the citizen walks.
David Robinson
Brisbane, Australia
