Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Health Savings Accounts: a Boon to the Bosses

Pot Shots wants to emphasize a point merely implied by Vice President Cheney in his comments about mistaking Harry Whittington for a quail: marijuana played no part whatsoever in this episode.

So, for five days the Bush Administration had to stay “off-message” while the wags in the media snickered about the shooting accident In those five days a little item about $7 billion in tax relief for the oil companies (that just recorded the greatest profits since King Midas) came and went The Cheerleader-in-Chief was back with a vengeance on Friday, shilling for “Health Savings Accounts.” These duplicitous devices shift the basic burden of paying for healthcare from the bosses to the workers, while enabling the former to save on payroll taxes.

The biggest backers of HSAs, according to a Wall St. Journal piece Feb. 3, are “the insurance industry and the financial-services industry, which is poised to reap billions of dollars in fees from managing money squirreled away in HSAs.”

Wal-Mart and GM are among the companies promoting HSAs to their employees. The Journal noted hopefully, “Just as the 401(k) -invented as a supplemental benefit- ended up supplanting pensions, HSAs could do the same to traditional employee health insurance

“Employers decide whether to contribute money to the accounts. Even if they do contribute, the employer’s total cost for each employee in an HAS is generally lower than for a worker in a traditional health plan. For example, employers typically pay $3,284 for a single employee in a traditional insurance plan; covering the same employee in a high-deductible plan would cost $2,850

“Even if they don’t contribute a cent, employers still get tax benefits. And the more of their own pay employees set aside each year, the bigger their employers’ tax breaks. That’s because employers ordinarily have to pay a variety of payroll taxes on cash income their employees earn; these taxes fund Social Security, Medicare and state and federal unemployment programs. But under at least some HAS arrangements, employers can skip most of those taxes on employee contributions to the account, bringing the employers savings of as much as 7% to 10%, according to some estimates.”

Teflon Kills

An Environmental Protection Agency advisory group acknowledged Jan. 30 that the main ingredient in Teflon -perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA- is “likely” to cause cancer. PFOA enters the body from food cooked in Teflon pots and pans or packaged in stick-free containers; also, via microfibres from stain-resistant carpets and clothing, and fumes from nail polish. There is no avoiding indirect exposure because vast quantities of PFOA and its precursor chemicals are released into the environment in the Teflon manufacturing process. “No hidin’ place down here,” says the old song.

DuPont is the sole US manufacturer of PFOA and Teflon; 3M and the fast-food chains are major distributors. The ominous news about Teflon is being conveyed to the American people incrementally -just like the news about cigarettes and every other cancer-causing commodity- amidst denials, stalls and obfuscation from the corporations that make and sell the deadly stuff. People who keep birds have known for decades that an overheated Teflon pan can kill a canary in the next room. “Mere anecdotal evidence” said DuPont’s experts. Numerous studies have linked PFOA to cancer in lab animals, and high levels have been found in people’s blood. “The chemical hasn’t been linked to cancer in humans” was DuPont’s response to the EPA’s Jan. 30 warning, according to the Wall St. Journal. Meanwhile, out of the goodness of its corporate heart, Dupont “said it had committed to ‘virtually eliminate’ sources of exposure by 2015 and has already reduced manufacturing emissions by 94%.”

A common assumption in all these drawn-out exposes is that the deadly products cannot be withdrawn from circulation immediately. Sales are simply more important than public health. The WSJ piece on the EPA’s Teflon findings noted, “One reason PFOAs and fluoropolymer coatings are so widespread is because alternatives have been hard to develop.” But why are alternatives required? Any cook knows that cast iron, stainless steel, or enamelware, properly used and washed, is close to stick-free. The marketing of stick-free cookware by DuPont in the postwar years was a classic case of creation of demand. DuPont claimed their toxic synthetic was salubrious because it enabled cooks to use less butter, olive oil, lard, etc. “Easier to clean” was another big selling point.
“War on Terror” A Better Rationale For Militarism than “War on Drugs”

The U.S. Department of Defense has less need to rely on the War on Drugs to rationalize its funding requests now that they’ve got “terrorism.” This is made clear in Afghanistan, where poppy cultivation is again widespread as the U.S. military seeks support, or at least neutrality, from the farmers.

The DOD’s direct involvement in the War on Drugs was authorized by the coke-crazed Congress of 1988. Over the years DOD developed 179 sub-programs -building and maintaining air bases, training other countries’ troops, intelligence gathering, overflights, etc.-costing $1 billion/year and enabling the U.S. to introduce troops into some 30 countries. But the missions often involved restrictions imposed by the locals or some constitutionalists in the U.S. Congress, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his neo-con clique wanted their operatives to be able to go anywhere and do anything. Given the U.S. military’s real longterm mission -securing oil production facilities and guarding the pipelines and ports- “counter-terror” seems like a much better rationale than the WOD.

In the summer of 2002, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued a memo which, according to an LA Times story by Paul Richter, “said the department had ‘carefully reviewed its existing counter-narcotics policy’ because of ‘the changed national security environment, the corresponding shift in the department’s budget and other priorities, and evolving support requirements.’ The Pentagon will now focus its counter-narcotics activities on programs that, among other things, ‘contribute to the war on terrorism,’ Wolfowitz added.”

FRED GARDNER is the editor of O’Shaughnessy’s Journal of the California Cannabis Research Medical Group. He can be reached at: fred@plebesite.com

 

More articles by:

Fred Gardner is the managing editor of O’Shaughnessy’s. He can be reached at fred@plebesite.com

May 24, 2018
Jeff Warner – Victor Rothman
Why the Emerging Apartheid State in Israel-Palestine is Not Sustainable
Kenn Orphan
Life, the Sea and Big Oil
James Luchte
Europe Stares Into the Abys, Confronting the American Occupant in the Room
Richard Hardigan
Palestinians’ Great March of Return: What You Need to Know
Howard Lisnoff
So Far: Fascism Lite
Matthew Vernon Whalan
Norman Finkelstein on Bernie Sanders, Gaza, and the Mainstream Treatment
Daniel Warner
J’accuse All Baby Boomers
Alfred W. McCoy
Beyond Golden Shower Diplomacy
Jonah Raskin
Rachel Kushner, Foe of Prisons, and Her New Novel, “The Mars Room”
George Wuerthner
Myths About Wildfires, Logging and Forests
Binoy Kampmark
Tom Wolfe the Parajournalist
Dean Baker
The Marx Ratio: Not Clear Karl Would be Happy
May 23, 2018
Nick Pemberton
Maduro’s Win: A Bright Spot in Dark Times
Ben Debney
A Faustian Bargain with the Climate Crisis
Deepak Tripathi
A Bloody Hot Summer in Gaza: Parallels With Sharpeville, Soweto and Jallianwala Bagh
Josh White
Strange Recollections of Old Labour
Farhang Jahanpour
Pompeo’s Outrageous Speech on Iran
CJ Hopkins
The Simulation of Democracy
Lawrence Davidson
In Our Age of State Crimes
Dave Lindorff
The Trump White House is a Chaotic Clown Car Filled with Bozos Who Think They’re Brilliant
Russell Mokhiber
The Corporate Domination of West Virginia
Ty Salandy
The British Royal Wedding, Empire and Colonialism
Laura Flanders
Life or Death to the FCC?
Gary Leupp
Dawn of an Era of Mutual Indignation?
Katalina Khoury
The Notion of Patriarchal White Supremacy Vs. Womanhood
Nicole Rosmarino
The Grassroots Environmental Activist of the Year: Christine Canaly
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
“Michael Inside:” The Prison System in Ireland 
May 22, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Broken Dreams and Lost Lives: Israel, Gaza and the Hamas Card
Kathy Kelly
Scourging Yemen
Andrew Levine
November’s “Revolution” Will Not Be Televised
Ted Rall
#MeToo is a Cultural Workaround to a Legal Failure
Gary Leupp
Question for Discussion: Is Russia an Adversary Nation?
Binoy Kampmark
Unsettling the Summits: John Bolton’s Libya Solution
Doug Johnson
As Andrea Horwath Surges, Undecided Voters Threaten to Upend Doug Ford’s Hopes in Canada’s Most Populated Province
Kenneth Surin
Malaysia’s Surprising Election Results
Dana Cook
Canada’s ‘Superwoman’: Margot Kidder
Dean Baker
The Trade Deficit With China: Up Sharply, for Those Who Care
John Feffer
Playing Trump for Peace How the Korean Peninsula Could Become a Bright Spot in a World Gone Mad
Peter Gelderloos
Decades in Prison for Protesting Trump?
Thomas Knapp
Yes, Virginia, There is a Deep State
Andrew Stewart
What the Providence Teachers’ Union Needs for a Win
Jimmy Centeno
Mexico’s First Presidential Debate: All against One
May 21, 2018
Ron Jacobs
Gina Haspell: She’s Certainly Qualified for the Job
Uri Avnery
The Day of Shame
Amitai Ben-Abba
Israel’s New Ideology of Genocide
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail