![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Both government and corporations have power in light of their access to resources, their infrastructure, and their influence over other institutions. However, they have very different mandates. The government of a democracy or of a representative republic is required by law to protect its citizens. The board of a corporation is required by civil law to protect the investments of its shareowners.
The power of both of these institutions exists. It is. power is not, in and of itself, either good or evil. Power is a tool that can be turned to purposes, not a purpose itself. The leaders of both corporations and governments are human beings, predominantly, in both cases, human beings who were born into privilege and identify with the privileged class, but also, in both cases, including human beings who through exceptional talent, luck, or some combination of the two, rose from some class below the privileged class to amass power. Therefore, from a social justice perspective both institutions leave much to be desired.
Both institutions have legal constraints on them as well as mandates. In the case of the government, the constraints include international law, a country's constitution, court decisions stemming from that country's constitution, executive decisions made by the appointed or elected leader, laws passed by a legislature, and possibly some semi-codified form of common law handed down through tradition. This structure remains more or less true from the national down to the local level. In the case of a corporation, legal constraints consist solely of laws passed by governments at various levels.
Occasionally, the constraints on either government or corporate power (or both) break down and dictatorship or oligarchy ensues. Preventatives for these problems include, in the case of government, strong checks and balances between different branches of government, elected government with high voter turnout and an educated populace, and a strong cultural tradition of rule by law. In the case of corporations, oligarchy is prevented through strong government regulation, strong organized labor, and, ideally, the rejection of the concept of "corporate personhood".
The confusion over the current health care debate in the United States is a perfect example of how people commonly misunderstand the respective roles of government and corporation in a country. Let's review the roles of these institutions with regard to health care.
In this context, the mandate of the government is to enable (all of) its citizens to get the best possible health care at the lowest possible cost, in such a way as to not endanger the citizenry either through neglect or through leaving the government or its citizenry insolvent. There are many ways to achieve this, with solidly debatable pros and cons, but these debates almost entirely take place within the context of this mandate. Even when the suggestion is made that health care and insurance should remain "outsourced" to private insurance, the underlying assumption is that government has a mandate to protect its citizens, and even the most anti-government of those debates center around the word "protect" and its applicability to health care.
In the context of this debate, the mandate of insurance companies and drug companies and for-profit hospitals and other corporate interests in the medical field is to maximize profits to their investors over the next quarter. There is no corporate mandate (for any of these corporations) to make citizens more healthy, to provide better (product/service) at a better value, or any other such notion. Corporations exist solely to make money for their investors.
Once upon a time, and in some fields, it was (is) relatively easy to determine when a corporation's interest in profit and a person's interest in a good (product/service) coincide. In many fields today, and in the health care field in particular (along with several other highly technical fields) this is simply not knowable to the average consumer.
Several confounding factors contribute to the problem of consumer inability to make an informed choice regarding health care or health insurance. These include the wealth of conflicting information and theories on various aspects of health care, the dizzying array of choices that make accurate evaluation difficult, the deliberate obfuscation of data engaged in by corporations with a vested interest in keeping a particular product or service at its status quo or expanding, and nearly unique to health care, the almost complete inelasticity of price at the point of service.
Put in simpler terms, health care and health insurance corporations can easily lie to you and get away with it because you can't keep up with the most recent news, and even if you can you probably don't have enough technical knowledge of health issues to properly evaluate. Most importantly, though, when you or someone you love is ill or injured and in danger or in serious pain, you will completely ignore the cost to you in your effort to treat the illness or injury
In this respect, health care is like other services long provided by governments, including police and fire protection (how much would you be willing to pay to catch your loved one's murderer or put out your house fire), and is an utterly legitimate governmental undertaking, especially in countries with any variation of a "general welfare" clause in their constitution.
Because there is power inherent in the institutions of government and corporations, there is also the capacity for the abuse of power in both these institutions. Corporations that rise alone without government collusion are usually brought back to size by laws passed by elected officials. Governments that attempt to restrict a populace too severely in a democracy are generally voted out, often with the help of corporations that view the government's role of protection as being in danger if a popular uprising occurs. Thus, the power of government and the power of corporate influence often serve as checks and balances upon one another, as does the power of unionized labor where it flourished.
The preventatives and sometimes even remedies for the rise of corporatism is to maintain strong voters rights laws so that as few barriers as possible great average people who attempt to participate in the electoral process, and, in order to ensure an educated populace, to maintain a strong public education system that emphasizes, in addition the the "three Rs", critical thinking skills and a thorough understanding of government and historical context.
A ham-fisted leader in either government or corporate structures may do damage for a few years, but both institutions have self-correction mechanisms that preserve the institution at the expense of the individual. Power in either institution can work to the detriment of the health care access of the general population, but only corporations have a mandate that actively encourages that they ignore the health outcomes of the populace. Governments have a vested interest in the health of their citizens in addition to a mandate to protect them. For this reason among many, the involvement of government in health care, wherever it has been tried, and often to the extent that it has been tried, has consistently improved health outcomes among the populace.
For these reasons, I support the US government providing a public option for health insurance.
The power of both of these institutions exists. It is. power is not, in and of itself, either good or evil. Power is a tool that can be turned to purposes, not a purpose itself. The leaders of both corporations and governments are human beings, predominantly, in both cases, human beings who were born into privilege and identify with the privileged class, but also, in both cases, including human beings who through exceptional talent, luck, or some combination of the two, rose from some class below the privileged class to amass power. Therefore, from a social justice perspective both institutions leave much to be desired.
Both institutions have legal constraints on them as well as mandates. In the case of the government, the constraints include international law, a country's constitution, court decisions stemming from that country's constitution, executive decisions made by the appointed or elected leader, laws passed by a legislature, and possibly some semi-codified form of common law handed down through tradition. This structure remains more or less true from the national down to the local level. In the case of a corporation, legal constraints consist solely of laws passed by governments at various levels.
Occasionally, the constraints on either government or corporate power (or both) break down and dictatorship or oligarchy ensues. Preventatives for these problems include, in the case of government, strong checks and balances between different branches of government, elected government with high voter turnout and an educated populace, and a strong cultural tradition of rule by law. In the case of corporations, oligarchy is prevented through strong government regulation, strong organized labor, and, ideally, the rejection of the concept of "corporate personhood".
The confusion over the current health care debate in the United States is a perfect example of how people commonly misunderstand the respective roles of government and corporation in a country. Let's review the roles of these institutions with regard to health care.
In this context, the mandate of the government is to enable (all of) its citizens to get the best possible health care at the lowest possible cost, in such a way as to not endanger the citizenry either through neglect or through leaving the government or its citizenry insolvent. There are many ways to achieve this, with solidly debatable pros and cons, but these debates almost entirely take place within the context of this mandate. Even when the suggestion is made that health care and insurance should remain "outsourced" to private insurance, the underlying assumption is that government has a mandate to protect its citizens, and even the most anti-government of those debates center around the word "protect" and its applicability to health care.
In the context of this debate, the mandate of insurance companies and drug companies and for-profit hospitals and other corporate interests in the medical field is to maximize profits to their investors over the next quarter. There is no corporate mandate (for any of these corporations) to make citizens more healthy, to provide better (product/service) at a better value, or any other such notion. Corporations exist solely to make money for their investors.
Once upon a time, and in some fields, it was (is) relatively easy to determine when a corporation's interest in profit and a person's interest in a good (product/service) coincide. In many fields today, and in the health care field in particular (along with several other highly technical fields) this is simply not knowable to the average consumer.
Several confounding factors contribute to the problem of consumer inability to make an informed choice regarding health care or health insurance. These include the wealth of conflicting information and theories on various aspects of health care, the dizzying array of choices that make accurate evaluation difficult, the deliberate obfuscation of data engaged in by corporations with a vested interest in keeping a particular product or service at its status quo or expanding, and nearly unique to health care, the almost complete inelasticity of price at the point of service.
Put in simpler terms, health care and health insurance corporations can easily lie to you and get away with it because you can't keep up with the most recent news, and even if you can you probably don't have enough technical knowledge of health issues to properly evaluate. Most importantly, though, when you or someone you love is ill or injured and in danger or in serious pain, you will completely ignore the cost to you in your effort to treat the illness or injury
In this respect, health care is like other services long provided by governments, including police and fire protection (how much would you be willing to pay to catch your loved one's murderer or put out your house fire), and is an utterly legitimate governmental undertaking, especially in countries with any variation of a "general welfare" clause in their constitution.
Because there is power inherent in the institutions of government and corporations, there is also the capacity for the abuse of power in both these institutions. Corporations that rise alone without government collusion are usually brought back to size by laws passed by elected officials. Governments that attempt to restrict a populace too severely in a democracy are generally voted out, often with the help of corporations that view the government's role of protection as being in danger if a popular uprising occurs. Thus, the power of government and the power of corporate influence often serve as checks and balances upon one another, as does the power of unionized labor where it flourished.
The preventatives and sometimes even remedies for the rise of corporatism is to maintain strong voters rights laws so that as few barriers as possible great average people who attempt to participate in the electoral process, and, in order to ensure an educated populace, to maintain a strong public education system that emphasizes, in addition the the "three Rs", critical thinking skills and a thorough understanding of government and historical context.
A ham-fisted leader in either government or corporate structures may do damage for a few years, but both institutions have self-correction mechanisms that preserve the institution at the expense of the individual. Power in either institution can work to the detriment of the health care access of the general population, but only corporations have a mandate that actively encourages that they ignore the health outcomes of the populace. Governments have a vested interest in the health of their citizens in addition to a mandate to protect them. For this reason among many, the involvement of government in health care, wherever it has been tried, and often to the extent that it has been tried, has consistently improved health outcomes among the populace.
For these reasons, I support the US government providing a public option for health insurance.
