Single-Payer Healthcare as a Local Public Utility.

Hits: 195

In thinking about the for-profit nature of healthcare and what this means in the context of a national single-payer system, I had the thought that healthcare ought be considered a public utility, with a local utility board to regulate the services offered within said local community.

I was driving to my breakfast joint and passed work crews doing utility work on the roadside. How did they get the contract for doing that work? They are a work crew as a part of the public utility for water. I read a bit more and there are different kinds of utilities, yet they are all monopolistic. There is typically no competition within the local municipality. There is local regulation through a utility board. The different kinds of utility relate to ownership and profit making.

The different kinds of utility arrangement are 1) publicly owned utility (non-profit), 2) privately owned utility (investor owned utility, for profit), and community owned utility (the local citizens own said utility). All of these different kinds of utilities are regulated by a public utility commission (PUC).

Viewing healthcare resources within a local community as a non-profit utility makes much sense as we want a monopolistic approach to care for all citizens. Healthcare as a utility supports the single-payer funding odel, still allowing for local regulation.

How do such other developed countries as Canada, France, and Switzerland manage to assure high-quality care to all while spending as much as one-third less than we do?

The Art of War in the 21st Century

Hits: 122

[This turnaround happened mostly thanks to CHAOS—a strategy of intermittent, unannounced strikes; as Nelson explained in a Jacobin interview, the basic thinking behind CHAOS is that “the strike is going to take any form and we are not going to give you any warning.” CHAOS is terrifying to management, and brutally effective; Alaska Airlines was so shaken by the tactic and so intimidated by the AFA-CWA bargaining committee that bosses settled the contract via fax—and inadvertently gave flight attendants a massive raise in the process.] [1]

[1] Sara Nelson’s Art of War –

This idea of CHAOS is an idea that I had formed over a decade ago, not having heard of this strategy, by the ASFA-CWA. In my terms having researched network modals, network stability & network phase changes, through my research on Complex Adaptive Systems [2].. Any organization is a network of relationships, some of which are fiscal. Identify the primary nodes or sub-networks (micro-networks) that connect the network together and craft a strategy of disruption to influence those primary network nodes and cause failures.

The best way to ‘combat’ a network is through the overloading of its capabilities & capacities. I termed this a strategy of network overcapacitation. There are two approaches that should be addressed together, which could be termed 1) event spiking & 2) network reduction.

Event Spiking (1) – The first approach is to increase the number of events. An example regarding the struggle against cash bonds and pretrial incarceration, as the system of justice affects the poor grievously. The strategy of event spikes in this context means as the number of people who request a jury trial increases it over-capacitizes the scheduling system and increases the number of pre-trial inmates to overcapacitize the jails.

Network Reduction (2) – The second approach is to reduce the network density. This is the strategy chosen by the Flight Attendants. By having recurring bouts of sick-calls, the network gets limited in how much capacity they can handle. The random nature of when these events may occur, adds to the system failing in scheduling activities.

Non-Violent Social Warfare (NVSW) – Traffic jams are a way to overcapacitize the road network, for instance accidents at critical nodes for the logistics of an industry would increase Time To Deliver. This is the target of NVSW! How to generate macro scope challenges with synchronized micro actions. I view this all as non-violent social warfare.

The coming target of this approach & strategy is the healthcare industry. How can we generate a macro scoped event in the national healthcare network? How might we overcapacitize the health insurance industry? How about the medical billing network? And hospitals overcharging? And let us not forget about the pharmaceutical industry! CHAOS!

Another facet of network stability is that any flow network, such as electricity or petrochemical or trucking logistics or airports or healthcare, they all have two network layers, joined at the hips: the flow network layer & the control network layer. Every network has a control layer. There is the actual flow network layer itself, that materially moves work items through the network system and then there is always a control network layer that manages scheduling and routing decisions in the underlying flow network layer. Therefore, the subjects of interest in any network are the critical nodes in the control network layer. Overcapacitization of the flow network affects the control network. Overcapacitization of the control network layer generates those macro failure events we are looking for.

So what sort of macro events in the control layer are of interest & achievable? If you have a strategy that repeatably and randomly activates the Emergency Management network phase mode, the network will start to degrade. This is especially true if the consistent activation of Emergency Management starts to cause exhaustion of the critical nodes involved in Emergency Management, then Emergency Management itself will become overcapacitized. Acting repeatably to phase change a network into Emergency Management mode, will over time cause network exhaustion and that will be the macro failure we are looking to generate.

All of this network warfare fits modern military doctrine through Computer Network Operations and Network Warfare Operations [3], although the military has restricted those definitions to be computer-centric. What we are discussing here is logistical network warfare, targeting any flow network that moves work items through different states til completion. The concepts are the same. Below are some definitions (NetA, NetD & NS), just bear in mind that these can apply to more types of networks than just computer networks.

Network attack (NetA) is employment of network-based capabilities to destroy, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp information resident in or transiting through networks. Networks include telephony and data services networks.

Network defense (NetD) is employment of network-based capabilities to defend friendly information resident in or transiting through networks against adversary efforts to destroy, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp it.

Network warfare support (NS) is the collection and production of network related data for immediate decisions involving NW Ops. NS is critical to NetA and NetD actions to find, fix, track, and assess both adversaries and friendly sources of access and vulnerability for the purpose of immediate defense, threat prediction and recognition, targeting, access and technique development, planning, and execution in NW Ops.

[Nelson continues, getting into the meat of her explanation of why women have emerged as the most effective leaders of today’s labor movement—and why flight attendants now find themselves on the organizing vanguard. “It’s now finally the day when we get to not just say that we have each other’s back, but that we can call upon the broader social discussion to say, ‘We’re not going to accept that as a society. No, we’re going to say that every woman and man is a feminist.’ And if we can hear each other’s stories, then it’s more likely that we’re going to find our common ground, and if we find our common ground, that is where our power lies, and that is where the change is effected. And that’s why I believe that women are going to lead the revitalizing of the labor movement.”]

Yes, I have long thought that women will come to govern the power structures and institutions of our nation. They can out-organize the men and the male power structure. That is called the OODA loop [4]. Women have organizational leverage!

[1] Sara Nelson’s Art of War –
[2] Complex Adaptive Systems –…/innovation-in-complex-adaptive-sy…
[3] Computer Network Operations and Network Warfare Operations –
[4] The Ultimate Guide to the OODA Loop –

How to take over your town: the inside story of a local revolution

Hits: 153

Here is the story [1] of a local uprising, ignoring traditional party boundaries and infighting, to take over the local political tier of governments, the town and parish councils. How will this local revolution affect control in higher levels of government. It remains to be seen, but this local revolution is seeing a transformation of getting the business done. They are responsive and participatory with the local citizenry. They may well be open to a change in the political economy, sealing the revolution for the future.

This is the sort of local revolution I am talking about in the category “Political Revolutionism”. Transform the local political scene to be efficient and accomplished. Solve the local problems in unique ways that ignore the traditional political party boundaries. The party system is what is creating such a mash-up of getting the business done. Go BIG or go home!

Buckfastleigh is not alone. This kind of local uprising has started to occur all over the country. At the May local elections in England, one of the most noticeable changes was the huge increase in the number of independent councillors elected to local authorities, whose numbers increased nearly threefold. Tangled up in that is the proliferation of organised groups, such as BIG, that reject traditional party labels and seek control of the lowest tier of government – town and parish councils – where creative possibilities have tended to be lost in a sea of protocol and tradition.

The article goes on to write about the town of Frome, who seem to have started this movement. They even published a How-To book [2], Flatpack Democracy: A DIY Guide to Creating Independent Politics
by Peter Macfadyen.

Macfadyen reckons there are between 15 and 20 town and parish councils being run along the lines of the Frome model, “with a non-confrontational way of working and a participatory approach to democracy”.

As with all the independents I meet, they insist that orthodox party divides have no relevance to politics at the most local level.

[1] How to take over your town: the inside story of a local revolution –
[2] Flatpack Democracy: A DIY Guide to Creating Independent Politics
by Peter Macfadyen –

Hegel’s History of I and We

Hits: 87

"What generosity? The question we must ask is What kind of society are we building for ourselves? What kind of society do we envision for our collective efforts?"

From this article title “The Spirit of History?”, by Terry Pinkard [1], he describes the views of Hegel, in the philosophy of history. He writes of Hegel’s “three fundamental ideas”:

  • First, the key to human agency is self-consciousness.
  • However, even our often more distanced reflective self-consciousness is itself only a further realisation of the deeper and distinctly Hegelian self-relation: all consciousness is self-consciousness.
  • Secondly, Hegel thought that self-consciousness is always a matter of locating ourselves in a kind of social space of ‘I’ and ‘we’. Saying ‘I’ or saying ‘we’ is just speaking from one of two sides of the same dialectical coin. In many cases, ‘we’ seems to add up to lots of instances of ‘I think’ or ‘I do’, but in its most fundamental sense ‘we’ is just as basic as ‘I’. Each individual self-consciousness is fundamentally social. The generality of the ‘we’ manifests itself in the individual acts of each of us, but ‘we’ is itself nothing apart from the individual acts of singular flesh-and-blood agents. When I know what it is that I am doing, I am also aware that what ‘I’ am doing is, so to speak, the way ‘we’ do it.
  • It is a mistake to think that one side of the coin is more important: ‘I’ is not merely a point without further content absorbed completely within a social space (a ‘we’), nor is ‘we’, the social space, merely the addition of lots of individual ‘I’s. Without practitioners, there is no practice; without the practice, there are no practitioners.
  • Third, for humans, just as with any species, there are ways in which things can go better or worse for individuals within the species. Trees without the right soil do not flourish as the trees they could be; wolves without the right environmental range cannot become the wolves they could be. Similarly, self-conscious humans build familial, social, cultural and political environments that make it possible to become new, different and better versions of ourselves. But what we can make of ourselves depends on where we are in history.

In this sense of “two sides of the same dialectical coin”, are the concepts of “I” and “We”.

Now to the political in the modern era, this country proclaiming its valourious dedication to political freedom, we in the United States have learned to proclaim the rights of the individual. However, as early as the Pilgrims landing or a colony at Jamestown, these we immigrant groups, bound together with similar philosophies defining the group. This country was settled by “We”.

As with the rights of the individual, as expressly declared in our Declaration of Independence (corrected to John Locke’s original conceptualization in our Fourteenth Amendment) of the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property, we also proclaim the rights of the group, the “We”. As refined from the Declaration to our Amendments, from the First Amendment and the Right to Assemble we see the rights of the group. As well, the freedom of religion allows for Churches of various faiths and eschatology, each of which forms a group. The aspect of States Rights, recognizes that smaller groups in the minority as writ large, across our Land, may have a local majority as set forth the rules of conduct therewith.

The efforts to cure the poor of their afflictions are approached as a group doing ministry among the poor and downtrodden. Civic groups encourage business development in local contexts. Other groups have a National presence, but must operate locally. Consider political parties, a group of “We” in which local chapters conduct local operations to gain membership, inform and elect.

The point being that these concepts of “I” and “We”, as “two sides of the same dialectical coin”, each should be celebrated in these United States. The power of agency, dominion and authority are local in nature and so the celebration of individual rights of the “I” are connected to States Rights and Right to Assembly of the “We”. The combination of the power of individualism with the power of community, if enshrined in legislation, will lead to a renaissance of local politics and empower localities the agency, dominion & authority to fix local problems such as drug abuse and homelessness and despair of the working poor, as well as increase markets.

One possible political theory as to how a locality may manage and operate itself goes by the term “Anarcho-syndicalism” [2]. Another good source of modern philosophies as to the capability to thrive in the local context is the works of Abdulla Ocalan, most prominently the idea of “Democratic Confederalism” [3]. He promotes local democratic autonomy.

Living by the dialectic joining of the power of individuals and the power of communities, we would be able to remake society to care for those needy, which is expressly commanded to us by our Lord Christ Jesus.

Generosity on the street? Not much. Consistently, as I go forth in my efforts of Pastorial Care, I speak with many homeless, who fly signs for donations, or walk the streets and ask people for help. Most people, I learn do not give at intersections, nor when passing a man or woman on the street. At least that is the case in my town. Those better-off walking Main Street, I have asked and they do not carry cash with them to help out. Just like in Denver where office workers would come out to smoke but only bring the one cigarette for themselves, no generosity! Men and women spend all day flying a sign and may get Zero donations. It is a tough situation living rough. So I ask, at noticeable volume,

"What generosity? The question we must ask is What kind of society are we building for ourselves? What kind of society do we envision for our collective efforts?"

[1] The Spirit of History? –
[2] Anarcho-syndicalism –
[3] Democratic Confederalism –