We are continuing our series of podcasts dedicated to the exploration of the body, the somatic disciplines and the underlying principles. This is the second of the two introductory episodes, laying out the context, the definitions, and some of the foundations of the main body of the series.
We are starting a major series of podcasts dedicated to the exploration of the body, the somatic disciplines and the underlying principles. The first two episodes are the introductory talks, laying out the context, the definitions, and some of the foundations of the main body of the series.
In this episode, we are talking an important aspect of any transformation – accepting and letting go of the old, before embracing the new.
Most of us have heard the admonition, “Treat others as you would have others treat you.” It’s the golden rule. And most of us have also heard it’s corrupted corollary, “He who has the gold makes the rules.” The first is a recommendation for getting along. The second is a sad recognition of the current facts.
This recognition is doubly sad as we observe America’s ongoing debate, if one could call it that, over healthcare. Once again those with the wealth, i.e. pharmaceutical companies and health insurance providers, are making the rules. And by what yardstick are these rules being measured? The primary metric for the pharmaceutical industry is the one with which we are the most familiar: charge as much for your product as you can and don’t worry too much about the product’s quality or ultimate effect. The primary metric for insurance companies is similar. It’s called the Medical Loss Ratio. This ration is the amount of money the insurance companies get from their clients versus the money they spend to keep their clients healthy. Currently the ratio is about 20 percent profit versus 80 percent outlay for the client (see http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/march/medicalloss_ratios_.php). This ratio makes Wall Street very happy, but what does it mean for the rest of us if cutting client care is the most important item on health insurer’s agenda? It most likely means that even more people in America won’t be able to afford health insurance and that even more people who can afford it will go underserved. This also means that those who fear a healthcare system run by government, such as Medicare which operates five to ten times more efficiently than private insurance providers, are currently faced with a healthcare system run by Wall Street, the same folks who created the current financial debacle (see http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/transcripts/index.html).