I've Said It Before...

But there are certain circumstances where "for profit" corporations do not offer the best benefits for services based on the payment for those services.

Corporations are built upon the idea that profit is their motivation. Indeed, the structure of a corporation is designed to offer the most profit for the least amount of expenditure, as Walmart seems to exemplify.

Corporations are beholding to their investors, their stockholders, to provide the greatest amount of dividends regardless of whether that particular corporation is actually providing the proper level of service to garner those dividends.

Hence corporations cook the books, move unprofitable ventures to other subsidiaries, and end up with Annual Reports which support continued investment based upon the level of return on that investment.

Could you imagine police work being run by for profit corporations, such as Blackwater? Could you imagine K -12 education being run by for profit corporations as we have in our "higher education" systems of colleges and universities?

Can you imagine firefighters who work for a "for profit" corporation being responsible to you to put out a fire if you live on the "wrong side of the tracks"?

If your answer is no to the above, then why should anyone believe that health insurance and health care are the same thing?

In the above scenarios, if a for profit police force were the norm, then one would suppose that those able to afford the protection would benefit from it and those who could not afford the protection would not benefit from it.

If one's children's education were based upon for profit corporations, and one couldn't afford that education for their own children, then what should anyone expect for the future of their children?

And one circumstance we have recently seen, which is firefighters and the possibility of corporate for profit operations, in 2008 the Santa Ana winds fueled a hellish fire fought by many thousands of firefighters from around the county. Yet at the same time for profit "protective" organizations were mobilizing their forces to protect the property of members with advanced techniques and materials whilst allowing firefighters ending up letting a home burn down next door due to the lack of resources.

There are certain areas of American lives that can easily support for profit circumstances, such as clothing, food, personal desires, etc., whilst the for profit motivation ends up leaving anyone else in harm's way still in harm's way. In other words, the profit motivation for corporations allows American citizens to suffer even though these corporations have the ability to end that suffering.

The Medicare Plan D signed into law by President George W. Bush is a good example. For all practical purposes the law gave senior citizens access to life saving drugs based on their current needs, but the reality is that senior citizen's needs change frequently whilst the ability to change the program to fit the need is limited by Congress, thus the people suffer many damages from not having the medicine available at a cheaper rate to not having the ability to purchase life saving medication at all.

There are certain industries who should not be based on the for profit scenario, but rather an apportionment of each individual's ability to pay in terms of taxes in order to supply the best care to the greatest amount of the people.

We're not talking about something new. Taxes pay for our police force, our education system and our health care for both the very poor and the very old, yet somehow any other avenue towards tax based equal care of all Americans is somehow socialistic.

Well, if that is how the Republicans want to define the circumstance then so be it, but the fact is that all American citizens should have the ability to be relieved from some of their own inadequacies in affording this insurance or that insurance.

Don't get me wrong. I am for capitalism as far as the ability of the individual to participate comes from their ability to pay for luxuries, but there are situations where, when we get into those areas where one is not able to pay, should we simply consign their fate to the idea that they brought their situation upon themselves?

Are there monetary or political reasons NOT to allow children a good education?

Are the prized possessions of those too poor to pay for fire protection services expected to lose the history of their lives, not to mention their domicile to live those lives?

And if we are on the topic of prized possessions then can one not extend that concept to family and friends, none of whom are on equal footing across the entire spectrum of the American existence.

For example, on March 30, 1981 John Hinkley, Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan, whilest Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinkley's brother in Dallas. Now this is an extreme example of a disparate American existence, but I wanted to show that even brothers of a family which has access to the Vice President of the United States don't have equal footing.

If brothers of a prominent family well versed in political assuagement and well above the affluent line are of such disparate lines of reasoning, then there can be no use for using pedigree as a standard for measurement of one's capabilities. Therefore why allow anyone to become the low man on the totem pole? Is there justification? Based on history one has to assume that such is not the case.

America has the responsibility to educate it's children to become the next intelligent generation with the ability to understand history and apply those lessons. America has the responsibility to make certain that the greatest good is done for the greatest amount of Americans, even if it means supplying unencumbered education and health care.

An educationally challenged nation cannot do more for themselves than what is necessary on a local basis. Their ideas will not meet the needs of the nation.

A health challenged nation cannot do more for themselves because there are too many unhealthy individuals to provide the goods and services and allow for profit corporations to prosper.

But even though corporations can and will exploit the people for their own ends, we cannot, as a nation, allow a continued policy of ignoring the education of our young and the detrimental impact of capitalism's designs on America's health.

Remember, health care is not health insurance. Health care provides health to the American people whilst health insurance provides trillions of dollars to the insurance providers. They are not the same.