Friday, September 2, 2011

Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith

Bill Keller of the New York Times recently turned his column to the issues surrounding the importance of the religion of our presidential candidates. He began by musing about whether we would disqualify a candidate if they believed we had been visited by space aliens only to arrive at the conclusion that since one out of three Americans believe we have had visitors from space that not knowing for sure yourself is reason enough to give a person the benefit of the doubt. He then states emphatically that he would, however, need to ask more questions of any candidate that professed such a belief. I can fully understand his logic because if the reason the person believes we have been visited by aliens is because he is nuts then maybe giving him control of enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the entire human race is not such a good idea.

So what kind of questions would you ask of an alien visitation believer to see if they are nuts? I think I might ask them things like when did the aliens come? Where did they land? What do they look like? Are any of them still here? Now the last two are the really important ones to me because he is nuts if he leans over to me and says,"Yeah there here and my opponent Joe over there is one. They took over his body." After I determine that he is really not kidding then I am going to be really really hesitant to to turn him loose with our army and all our nukes. Of course, to be fair, just in case Joe has had his body taken over by aliens I will go talk to Joe.

Now I am going to walk up to Joe and slap him on the back and tell him I just heard a funny joke about him from his opponent. Joe is going to start to look a little defensive and ask me what I heard. I am then going to flatly tell him that his opponent believes he has had his body taken over by aliens. Now will come the true test of whether Joe is a pure blood politician or an alien wannabe. A pure politician will respond in one of three ways. He will either swear that his opponent is the real alien, tell his advisers to find a positive spin on this disaster, or simply in his best Jon Huntsman sounding voice call it " the type of nonsense that makes people hate politics." If he is an alien, human, or anything other than a politician he will split a gut laughing about how absolutely ridiculous that idea is and what kind of loon his opponent is. The reason a real politician won't do those things is because you can never predict what the American people heckle you over. Even reporters are walking on eggshells about what is fair game in the realm of asking questions for the candidates.

At the Iowa GOP debates there was a very negative response to the question being asked of Michelle Bachmann about what it means to her to be submissive to her husband. I am a Christian woman and I have been taught all my life that a wife should be submissive to her husband so I didn't think it was such a bad question. I mean shouldn't all the Christians out there want to know whether she practices what she preaches? The problem wasn't that she was asked because I can tell you if Pat Robertson asked her that question on the 700 club nobody would have booed him.

I think we need to know exactly where these candidates who openly wear their religions like a badge of honor really stand. We need to know what the priorities of the three that try really hard not to talk about their religion are and where they stand on issues. Of course I am at an advantage when it comes to Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman because inasmuch as I am a Latter Day Saint I know the realities of what the church expects them to do. You see I know that the greatest pressure they might get from our church leadership is for a visit to the White House for our elderly prophet. However, since he has already been there during President Obama's tenure as President I doubt that he would be overly impressed with doing it again. Then again I am not sure he has slept in the Lincoln Bedroom or not so he might push for that privilege a little bit. It wouldn't take much to get either Mitt or Jon to invite him because it would be an honor for them as Latter Day Saints to host the Prophet just as much as it would be an honor for the Prophet to be hosted by the President.

Ok, Enough of the pleasantries and the visualizing of Jon (not Mitt I'm not his greatest fan) in the White House strolling along the hall to the Lincoln bedroom with the Prophet chatting about typical things LDS men discuss with one another, BYU Sports, with a bunch of secret service agents following them. Let me get back on track here. The question at hand is, "Do the American People have the right to ask candidates about their religious beliefs, particularly ones that might make them unworthy to serve as the President due to their inability to uphold the oath they must take to be president?"

Personally, I think the first thing a candidate needs to do is open up about every ugly little gory detail that they have hiding in their closets before their opponents do and they find themselves having to make ridiculous statements like, "I am not a witch." Of course if you do that you do need to do it in such a way that you actually address your current perspective on all those things. Now my ideal situation is one like you find in the 2006 Robin Williams comedy, "Man of the Year." The scene is one where Mr. Williams character Tom Dobbs, a television comedian who is running for president, goes through a list of everything he has ever done that could cause one of those political nightmares that candidates often find themselves addressing so their opponent can get them off message. In the movie, this fictional presidential candidate states that he has smoked a joint, visited a hooker since he is single that should not be an issue, and that one of his hands is stronger than the other because as a teen he spent a lot of time in the bathroom looking at porn. There are several other things on his list and then he says to the reporters something to the effect of, Is there any more nonsense you want to know? Then he tells them to get ready because the real campaign was about to begin. Up to that point he had looked and sounded just like every other politician. However, he had lost it while listening to the political BS during the Presidential Debate and went back to being himself and attacking the candidates on their voting records and campaign contributors. If you haven't seen the movie you need watch it. Tom Dobbs is my ideal presidential candidate, too bad he isn't real.

Yes, we do have the right to ask the questions and since we, the people, do not have the opportunity to ask candidates ourselves then we need the media to ask the tough questions for us and hold them accountable for their answers. However, if I am going to expect my President to answer those questions then I need to be willing to answer them too. So exactly what are the questions the candidates need to answer? Well once again Bill Keller has helped us out by formulating very important questions for a questionnaire that he has sent to each of the candidates. I challenge each of you to ask yourself these questions not only from the perspective of your personal beliefs but ask yourself what kind of answers would you want from the man or woman who has at their disposal the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, the best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world, and who has control over the current universal currency of the world, thereby giving that person control over the global economic markets.

Here are the general questions and my answers:

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?
Absolutely as long as you allow the candidate to fully express their beliefs in an open question form first before stepping on to specific questions. This will give each candidate a chance to present the big picture of their beliefs in context before you hone in on specific beliefs.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

Certainly, as long as the remarks you are questioning them about come from the material they promote. We have little control over other people and we can like a publication or a speech by a person while disliking their other rhetoric. These nuanced relationships exist in most of our lives and often include people we are close to, such as, relatives, lifelong friends, and ministers.


3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?”

Yes and No. We do not have a state based religion but we do tend to be a "Judeo-Christian" nation.

(b) What does that mean in practice?

Nothing. It means that there are more people in this country that claim as their religion some "Judeo-Christian" sect. It is a statistic that is interesting just like the total number of Autistic people, the total number of Latinos, or any other group.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

This is a little tricky so let me step through it very carefully. My religion has 13 basic articles of faith. This dilemma can be resolved by reviewing two of them in conjunction with the 1st Amendment Right of Religious Freedom.

The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My understanding of this is that I have the freedom to worship whatever, or whoever, I so desire and have to respect the rights of everyone else to do likewise. The 11th Article of Faith of my church clearly states:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

As long as the conflict between the government and my religion is not based in the government making a law respecting my church or the free practice of our religion then we would have no issue. I even would approve of the government including clauses in controversial legislation that affirms the right of churches to exercise their 1st amendment rights to not support those laws. My example of a proper use of such a clause would be in a law allowing for same sex marriages. Although, a state government may choose to allow same sex marriage it should not force churches who view marriage as a religious rite to perform such marriages or allow their buildings to be used for such ceremonies if it is against their religious beliefs. This includes forcing the issue through alternate non-discrimination and equal use laws like the ones on the books in California that could have been used to force churches to rent their facilities to same sex couples if same sex marriage becomes legal in California.

Now let me address the one thing that guarantees that there would not be a conflict between my religion and the government unless it was in a situation like the one addressed above. While the 11th Article of Faith expresses our views regarding Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religious Oppression the 12th Article of Faith addresses our responsibility as citizens of the world and representatives of the Lord when it states:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Ultimately if all legal recourse to change a law that we feel is unjust has been exhausted then we resolve to follow the example that Christ did when he submitted himself unto the Roman Government that led to his crucifixion.



5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench?
I would have no issues with having a Muslim appointed the the federal bench. The only concern I would have to have appeased is the answer to the very questions that are being asked here with regard to a conflict between religion and the laws of the country but I would also expect that of any person of faith.

(b) What about an atheist?

I would have no issues with having an Atheist appointed the the federal bench. The only concern I would have to have appeased is the answer to whether they could rule objectively to uphold the 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech when that speech included religious speech.


6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

No, their religions should not affect the way you look at them. but I am prejudiced in this area since I am a Mormon.

Yes Mormons are Christians we simply have a different definition of the true nature of God and Christ and do not accept the Nicene Creed. We believe in God the father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three distinct entities with one purpose so that they are "as one" just as a husband and wife are "as one" in a marriage while actually being two distinct people.


7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

Unlike Dominionism we do not believe that Christians have a divine right to rule the earth while in our current mortal state. We do believe that after the return of Christ that this will be the case but it will not be "us" that is ruling the world but Christ who is ruling the world. You have to understand that there is a problem with the semantics around the name Jesus Christ. Christ is not his surname it is his title. He is Jesus, The Christ which is to say the embodiment of the son of the eternal father. This spiritual being who was set apart to give us the message of our purpose here may have come here to different groups under different names and yet be the same spirit of the son of the living God. For all we know the Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him, may have housed the spirit of the son of God. He taught that the Christians had strayed because they put too much emphasis on the person of Christ which was actually quite contrary to most of Christ's teachings. Islam considers Jews to be unbelievers because they deny the power of God by denying his prophets and Christians to be the misguided ones because their focus is not on worshiping God/Allah but on worshiping Christ. Although there has been no formal revelation as to the true nature of the spirit of Muhammad by any latter day Prophet there is also no reason why in our religion that Christ could not have manifest himself as such particularly since we do believe that after his resurrection but before his ascension he visited the peoples here on the American continent. So we do feel that only Christ that spiritual being whether manifest as Jesus or in some other form will be the only person to rule unilaterally here on this earth.

We do believe that man was given Dominion over the Earth and all that is on it but man is also charged with being a good steward of this gift.


8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution?

Personally, I believe that the beginning of the big bang is described nicely in Genesis as is the beginning of the evolutionary cycle. I believe that the big bang was the equivalent of God reaching out his finger and touching that which was nothing and beginning the process to become something. The six "days" are the six evolutionary cycles where God may have intervened to speed things along slightly according to his divine plan which would explain missing links between stages of evolution. In other words God had in his mind an ideal timeline, he started the process and left it alone, then he came back to check on things and if they were not far enough along he intervened and jump started the next cycle so he could keep things moving on his timeline.


(b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

Yes, I do. However, I believe that it should be taught in such a way that children of faith can arrive at the understanding that I just explained above through logical reasoning. In other words, if a teacher is asked about creationist theories s/he should be able to say something to the effect of the following:

At this point in time there is no evidence that would rule out the evolutionary process being guided by a deity but at the same time there is no evidence to support that presumption either. Believing in a deity is a matter of faith and personal choice. Evolution is a matter of science that defines only the process. Reconciling the two in an intertwined existence is a personal faith based conclusion but there is nothing in science that concretely rules out such a reconciliation



9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

Absolutely not. As a Latter Day Saint we have a strict order of prayer which consists of addressing our Heavenly Father, thanking him for the blessing he has allowed us to have, asking him for our needs, then closing in the name of his son and our redeemer Jesus, The Christ. We do not believe in vainly repeating the Lord's name numerous times or praying loudly, or many other behaviors that are commonly done in prayers. If prayer is allowed to be led by teachers in public schools then the prayers of all religions would have to be allowed and that would expose my child to prayer in a way that I believe is an abomination in the sight of God. No prayers so that every parent's right to train up their child in their religious beliefs which is part of their free exercise of their religion is fully protected under the law while respecting the free practice of the religions of others to include Atheism which is a religion that does not believe in the existence or worship of any deity.

With that being said, I do believe that faith based clubs run by the students with only a faculty adviser that operates in the same capacity as a faculty adviser to the chess club or the drama club should be allowed and that every religion has the right to have such a club. My real preference would be a Religious Diversity Club that would have the focus of allowing students to openly discuss their religions under the supervision of adults that would be charged with keeping the conversation civil but allow the students to explore the similarities and differences in their religions.


I want to thank Bill Keller for formulating these questions and giving me the opportunity to respond to them. I will be looking forward to seeing the candidates responses. Now Bill went on to ask questions that were geared to each candidate individually. Since I share the same religion with Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney I decided to answer the questions he asked of both of them. You will find those answers here.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

World Traveler: Healthcare Patchwork Quilt

In reality I am traveling the world via my computer. I research for days before I post a World Traveler report. This report has actually been years in the making. Years of research and years of making phone calls. I have been really amazed at the number of people in foreign countries that speak English at some level. Most of them are actually quite good at it. Of course about half of the world was once under the control of Great Britain so I guess this should not surprise me much. However, these countries have long been independent from British control and yet the English there is as good as most of the teenagers I know here in the US. They also speak texting so OMG means the same to them as it means to my teen. If all else fails and the person on the end of the line does not understand me I will resort to speaking texting and I can usually get an English speaking person on the phone pretty quickly.

I decided that I would take a look at some of the healthcare models out there right now. However before I do that I wanted to share a paragraph from a Washington Post article by T.R. Reid posted on 23 August 2009 entitled "5 Myths About Healthcare Around the World." T.R. Reid states:

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.


Now to be fair this author did not actually cover how we handle healthcare for the poor who are raising children. I could be wrong here but I have decided that the reason the author did not touch medicaid is because it is such a nightmare that even the author was confused about who created this nightmare and what model they used to create it. Medicaid is a nightmare because it is not universal across the states. Right off the bat I will attest to the fact that people in NC have better services than the people of Alabama get through Medicaid but much of that has to do with the availability of services within the state. However, there is still a great deal of the problem resting in the fact that the state manages what is and is not covered by the medicaid funds provided by the federal government.

Assuming that I am right about why the author chose not to talk about medicaid in the article then the author and I have something in common because I too am bamboozled at who or what this method was modeled after. Therefore, like the author I too am going to steer clear of this nightmare for right now. I promise you all that I will do a little more research on Medicaid and spend an entire post just on it. Maybe even a series on it if I find enough information to create clarity or totally boggle the mind about the stupidity of the model. Meanwhile lets look at the rest of healthcare in this country based on the author's description of how we handle the care.


Veterans Hospitals and Tribal Medical Facilities

"For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills."

Ok, so we give the men who go to war for our country universal healthcare that is paid for through our taxes. Now this is the same type of healthcare that we constantly hear denounced and not good enough for the general population of the USA. Bureaucrats on death panels will decide out medical care if we go to a government run system. Or we are slipping into a socialist agenda in the country.

Now I don't know about you but I would think that a country that likes to go to war as much as we do and who promotes the value of our men and women in uniform would afford them the highest quality healthcare available. Somehow, I must have lost a page in the playbook here where they go from being our heroes to be the scum of the earth that we throw into a medical system that we would not wish on our dogs let alone on ourselves. If you have a copy of that missing page in your playbook of Life In America then please scan and e-mail it to me because I am dying to know what the veterans did that moved them from hero to zero so that we are willing to toss them into this "bad ole socialized medicine" model of medical care.

The other group that we are willing to sacrifice to "socialized medicine" actually has a model close to what medicaid uses. The money is federal but managed by the tribe. However the tribal council has to live with the rest of the tribe so they do a much better job of managing the money. Now I am once again confused here. If we think socialized medicine is bad then why do we force it on the group of people that we are indebted to for the entirety of this country. However, if it is so great then why do they get it and the rest of us don't.

So let me get this picture clear in my mind; on one hand we have people saying that socialized medicine is bad while on the other hand we are providing it to the former soldiers who have given their service to our ideals of democracy and we are giving it to a people from whom we stole this land. However the rest of the citizens of this country are too good or not good enough for this same benefit.
Makes perfect sense to me. NOT!

The Worker
"For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals."

Well Isn't That Special! However partially inaccurate.

The average American worker does not actually get a useful insurance plan and the majority of the companies out there do not contribute one red cent to their worker's insurance. Companies like Wal-Mart, Wendy's, and Kroger. If you want insurance and you are not management then you can buy it for a pretty decent amount of money but the group rates are because a few labor unions in a group of states where they rule the roost have bargained with insurance companies to provide workers in their similar trades the opportunity to buy into healthcare plans as part of a collective group in states where those very same unions barely have members because the laws of the states protect the businesses from labor unions.

To be fair I have to admit that most white collar jobs do provide healthcare to their employees at little to no cost for the employee and reduced cost for the employee's family. They also do something that creates part of the problem when we try to discuss a socialized medicine or single payer system with white collar workers, they take the money directly out of their checks before the employee gets their pay. Employees rarely if ever can tell me exactly how much they currently spend on healthcare because they are used to getting that check and the healthcare is already taken care of and they learn to live on the budget after the healthcare payment is made. They can tell me how much their co-pay is and how much they spend on their prescription drugs. However, if I press them to tell me how much their premium is for their health insurance 90% or more will not be able to accurately relate that number to me.

How do you discuss the cost of a universal healthcare system with people that have no idea how much they pay for what they already have? I have no answer for that simply because I am not one of those people and never have been. I have to know. I have to understand what I am buying and if it is worth my money. I do know that until we get them to wake up to what they are paying and what they are getting we will never convince them that there is a better way.

The Elderly
"For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule."

Well now this really bites the big one doesn't it. A huge number of the elderly are the very ones that are screaming that we are sliding into socialism when we want what they have that we are helping to pay for. I actually understand their fears. They were part of the cold war generation coming after World War Two. Their fears make sense because they see Russian spies at every turn infiltrating our government. My parents are part of this generation and by the grace of my heavenly father I still have one of them with me, the saner one. My father, rest his soul, was a conspiracy theorist, anti-government, anti-communist, libertarian anarchist who trusted the government as far as he could throw it. I am pretty sure he is going to be upset with all of us because we did not bury any of his guns with him or his MREs.

My dad used to tell me that shoes were a Russian plot against our nation because when they decided to come over here and take over they were going to take all our shoes away from us so we could not chase them down and kill them all. So he taught me to shoot before I turned 12 and I never wore shoes unless I had to go into a building that made me or it was too cold to go without them according to my saner parent. Of course coats were a communist plot against our nation too but I am not going into his logic on that one ever!

My dad was a bit over the top but after listening to several of his friends talk at his funeral I have decided that he was not alone in his concerns that we have life far too good over here and that communism/socialism is not going to take over our country through nuclear war but through infiltration. The cold war is not over to them. The cold war was never about nukes to them. It was always about the ideal democracy versus the ideal society. It was always about the fact that most of his friends barely graduated high school and yet managed to make it in the world to the point that they had six figure incomes prior to 1990.

You see my dad actually lived the American Dream. He was a high school drop out with a GED that he got while in the military. He served in the Army and the Coast Guard. Remember that little difficulty we had with Cuba over some toys they had borrowed from Russia? Well my dad was sitting on a Coast Guard Cutter monitoring that entire escapade. It was his Cutter that first noticed a CHAYKA signal coming from Cuba where there had not been one before. He was coming on duty to monitor the LORAN station on the cutter when the person that he was to relieve picked up the first CHAYKA signal. This led to the reconnaissance flights over Cuba which found the build-up of Soviet missiles. You see there should have been no reason for the navigational signal to be where it was because that area was not a major port. It was there to help the Russian vessels avoid detection by the ever vigilant US Coast Guard while they slipped missiles into Cuba.

After his service in the military and due to his extensive knowledge of the electronics of the time he was eligible to be tested by IBM and he got hired. This was in the 1960s and by 1983 he had left them and followed former IBMer George Amdahl into what would be the only real competition that IBM would ever see, Amdahl Corporation. In 1983 my dad lived in the silicon valley in sunny Cupertino, CA and had a gross income of just over $105,000 per year. He had the bull by the horns and was winning the war. He was the image of what the American Dream was all about. When he died in 2003 his annual income was not even as much as my mom made which was upwards of $72,000 per year. When she retired her first Social Security benefits were on her $71,873 annual salary and his Social Security was higher so she drew off of his. At the next review another quarter had passed and her Social Security would be paid based on her final salary which was $72,439 per year. This means that somewhere along the way as expenses and the cost of living climbed, my dad's income went down. He changed jobs when Amdahl Corporation was bought out by a Japanese company and when he did he took a horrible pay cut. The American Dream was dead to him.

Where do we go from here?

From here we have to decide if we are going to continue to have this crazy quilt model of healthcare or whether we are going to move beyond the cold war fears of universal social programs being a sure sign that we are headed down a road to being a communistic/socialistic country. We really have to step beyond this fear of the communist plots and seeing Soviet or Chinese spies behind every tree. Now we cannot push those fears onto Muslims either because every Muslim is not a radical jihadist. If we are insistent on a quilt model because we have to make everything we do uniquely American then we need to examine the various models and take pieces of each one and make one large well designed patchwork quilt to cover all of America.

To accomplish that task, We first have to step back and take a long look at a country that has surpassed us in education, healthcare, and economic strength. We have to look at how they did it and reach for a working model. Admittedly, they have not done everything perfectly. They have had incidents happen that have made them have to stop and re-evaluate their methodologies. However, over all they have accomplished a miraculous recovery from a state of utter devastation unlike anything America has ever experienced and surpassed us in advances in technology development to the point that I challenge any one out there to show me a home that does not contain at least one item developed, designed, or manufactured in this country. What country? JAPAN.

To be perfectly honest Japan's healthcare system is not the pristine model that I would hold up and say that we need to copy it totally. They totally underestimated the number of people that they would need to treat and so there were incidents of deaths that occurred due to the failure to have beds available to treat patients. There are horror stories of patients being turned away from as many as 14 to 15 hospitals due to lack of space and dying from conditions that would have been treatable if they had been admitted at the first or even the second hospital. Hospitals are still the primary source of medical treatment instead of private practice or even public sector physicians. However, there are aspects of the Japanese system that are useable for us and that is what I will explore here.

Japan has a system that is disjointed to a certain degree. Part of their system is based in the employed arena and the other part is based in the unemployed arena, If you have a job your payments go into a system that only has employed people in it. If you are unemployed you are covered by a tax funded system. The employed system has numerous groupings in it based on the type of job a person has.This all seemed a little clunky to me but upon further exploration I found that the Japanese think it is a little clunky too. They are in the process of streamlining this system and the changes they have already decided upon are not yet fully implemented. This unfortunately leaves me only the old system to evaluate at this point in time.

What do we need to take from the Japanese system?
We need to take three things from the Japanese system that are absolutely crucial to us being a World Leader in how we manage the healthcare of our citizens.
Those three things are:
1. All the elderly must be fully covered for all their medical needs regardless of how many of them there are at any point in time.
2. All premiums, fees, co-pays, or any other financial outlay by the family must be on a sliding scale based on income of the family.
3. We need to fully fund alternative medicine and wellness programs including traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Native American medicines as well as nutritional programs and programs that treat stress through relaxation techniques including spa and therapeutic massage treatments.

What can we take from other countries that they do right?

Canada:
Portability:
Canada's system is a Provincial Insurance Program running under federal mandates. It is jointly funded by the federal Canadian government and the provincial governments. Their portability program makes sure the new province has time to prepare for the potential expenses of the new arrival by having the old province continue coverage of the person until the waiting period for the new province kicks in. The maximum wait time is 3 months for any province.

Public/Private Mixture: Canada currently has a system where there are private "for profit" clinics and private insurance available. By law these clinics are not supposed to provide any services covered by the Canadian healthcare system. Private insurances cover anything not covered by the public healthcare system. I believe we need to look at the viability of having a more intense mixed model and how that might work for the USA.

United Kingdom:
The United Kingdom actually consists of four separate National Healthcare Services for each of the four countries England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Immediately after WWII the NHS was established as a centrally controlled entity. Eventually, over time it was devolved into four separate entities. However, each entity treats any UK citizen. SO if I am a resident of London who is visiting Scotland and I get sick my medical care is covered in Scotland.

In England and Wales, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) sets guidelines for medical practitioners as to how various conditions should be treated and whether or not a particular treatment should be funded. These guidelines are established by panels of medical experts who specialize in the area being reviewed.

Cost control in the UK is handled as describe here:
In Scotland, the Scottish Medicines Consortium advises NHS Boards there about all newly licensed medicines and formulations of existing medicines as well as the use of antimicrobiotics but does not assess vaccines, branded generics, non-prescription-only medicines (POMs), blood products and substitutes or diagnostic drugs. Some new drugs are available for prescription more quickly than in the rest of the UK. At times this has led to complaints.


This is one of the fear-mongers favorite things to bring to the attention of those who fear socialization of medicine. What most people fail to realize is that this exact same method is used by private insurance companies to decide what they will and will not cover. The difference in the two is that the government agencies are considering the cost burden for the total population to fund these treatments versus the actual outcomes and the insurance company is considering the bonuses that can be paid to the employees of the company like the CEO and the Claims Specialists if coverage is refused and the company makes more money. Personally if I have to die because someone refuses to pay for an experimental treatment that might or might not save my life I would prefer it to be because they did not want to unduly burden my next door neighbor with more taxes rather than to buy a CEO of my insurance company a new Yacht.

One thing to remember regarding the devolved UK system is that it is managed by each country and they have different approaches to their national healthcare system. An example that comes to mind is the fact that while England is allowing more private sector involvement with their NHS, Scotland is doing everything it can to move in the totally opposite direction toward a position where there will be no private involvement in their NHS. This might even be a workable solution so long as the mandates are set nationally about what is and is not covered by the Centralized healthcare.

Dental Services:
Each NHS system within the United kingdom provides dental services through private dental practises and dentists can only charge NHS patients at the set rates for each country. Patients opting to be treated privately do not receive any NHS funding for the treatment. About half of the income of dentists in England comes from work sub-contracted from the NHS, however not all dentists choose to do NHS work.

Please note that there are no restrictions to only dental surgeries or such nonsense. They realize that if a person cannot chew their food that they are more likely to have stomach and other digestive problems so they treat the teeth as part of the body to be cared for.

Medications:
All medications have a single price. It does not matter if your doctor gives you 10 pills or 60 pills you pay a single price for all medications. The cost is about $10US and people over 59 and under 16 are free. This applies only to England. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have no prescription drug cost.

The next country I want to look at is the one that the WHO lists as the best in the world for healthcare. So America pull up a chair and break out your freedom fries while we go take a long look at how France does what they do. Most of my information comes from the Wikipedia site for the French healthcare System with verification from friends and several government agencies regarding the accuracy of what is in the article. The parts that I have chosen to include here have been personally verified by me through one of my sources. I will not provide a link to the entire article, because I cannot guarantee that other facts contained in the article are accurate. Let me state one thing that is running around and is semi-fact and semi-fiction with regard to a certain government program for new mothers. The only way the French government workers that come in after a child is born to help the new mother can actually do laundry for the family is if there is a problem of neglect by the mother due to things like postpartum depression or the inability to care for the child due to complications of the pregnancy. The government workers are not maids but are there to guarantee the well being of the family and to support the mother in her new role as a caretaker of a child. This is even done for mothers who already have children in order to be sure the older child is coping well with the new addition to the family with little to no typical jealousies being expressed by dangerous behaviors. They have the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure mentality and they also have the lowest infant mortality rate in the world as well as the fewest cases of child abuse and neglect.
span style="font-weight:bold;">France:
Solidarity: An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity: the more ill a person becomes, the less they pay. This means that for people with serious or chronic illnesses, the insurance system reimburses them 100 % of expenses and waives their co-payment charges.

Government Responsibility:
The government has two responsibilities in this system:

The first is a government responsibility that fixes the rate at which medical expenses should be negotiated and it does this in two ways. The Ministry of Health directly negotiates prices of medicine with the manufacturers, based on the average price of sale observed in neighboring countries. A board of doctors and experts decides if the medicine provides a valuable enough medical benefit to be reimbursed (note that most medicine is reimbursed, including homeopathy). In parallel, the government fixes the reimbursement rate for medical services.... These tariffs are set annually through negotiation with doctors' representative organizations.
The second government responsibility is oversight of health-insurance funds, to ensure that they are correctly managing the sums they receive, and to ensure oversight of the public hospital network.


One thing that I removed from the previous quote that I disagree with is the right of doctors to charge whatever rate they want to charge. The reason I disagree with it in context to the French system is that the French system requires the individual to pay and reimburses the individual assuming they have a job and can afford the funds. Since they charge the person up front if they charge more than the government agreed price then the individual gets stuck with the difference. This is not a good scenario in my opinion. My one complaint about the French system is the pay and get reimbursed model. Of course this does not limit access to healthcare in any way since they are all seen and billed later for the treatments they receive.

Investment Income:
Another thing that is great about the system is the fact that people who make all or most of their money from investment income pay into the system also which reduces the amount that the workers have to pay. This is done in a way that includes other forms of income also. This is a recent change and this is how it is explained in Wikipedia:
Because the model of finance in the French health care system is based on a social insurance model, contributions to the scheme are based on income. Prior to reform of the system in 1998, contributions were 12.8% of gross earnings levied on the employer and 6.8% levied directly on the employee. The 1998 reforms extended the system so that the more wealthy with capital income (and not just those with income from employment) also had to contribute; since then the 6.8% figure has dropped to 0.75% of earned income. In its place a wider levy based on total income has been introduced, gambling taxes are now redirected towards health care and recipients of social benefits also must contribute. Because the insurance is compulsory, the system is effectively financed by general taxation rather than traditional insurance (as typified by auto or home insurance, where risk levels determine premiums).

Gatekeepers: The system is highly dependent on Gatekeeper General Practitioner Physicians. These doctors decide if a patient need to see a specialist or be hospitalized.
The médecin généraliste (commonly called docteur) is responsible for patient long-term care. This implies prevention, education, care of diseases and traumas that do not require a specialist. They also follow severe diseases day-to-day (between acute crises that may require a specialist).

They survey epidemics, fulfill a legal role (consultation of traumas that can bring compensation, certificates for the practice of a sport, death certificates, certificates for hospitalization without consent in case of mental incapacity), and a role in emergency care (they can be called by the samu, the emergency medical service). They often go to a patient's home if the patient cannot come to the consulting room (especially in case of children or old people) and they must also perform night and week-end duty.


SAMU:
The other ting we need to take from France is not really about how they finance medical care as much of my focus has been on up to this point but about how they actually deliver care, specifically how they deliver Urgent or Emergency care. France has, in my opinion, the best Urgent/Emergency care response ideas in the world. The greatest cost in Urgent/Emergency care are the operation of buildings. This is also the one time when getting to those building is the hardest.

Have you ever had the flu and just finally gotten to the point that you realize that you are not winning the war but you really do not feel like getting up and going to a doctor or the hospital? Well in France you would not have to because the doctor would come to courtesy of SAMU. This is wonderful because if I am going to my doctor for my annual checkup I would really prefer not to sit in the waiting room with someone with the flu. By that same token if I have the flu I should want to keep myself isolated from even my family members as much as possible in order to prevent them from getting it. Riding in a closed up car with them to the doctor's office is not how you accomplish that goal.

In France if you are ill you can call SAMU and explain the illness to them and they will dispatch the appropriate type of medical care directly to you. It is far more cost effective to send the doctors to the patients in many cases of extreme and particularly contagious illnesses that to bring the patient to the doctor and risk infecting others. SAMU also covers trauma patients and one of the options available is literally a mobile intensive care unit MICU for those who might have need of such extreme levels of care. The MICU units have a specially trained doctor on board who is prepared to handle most anything that a normal Intensive Care Hospital Unit can handle. The MICU units are solely for the purpose of rapidly stabilizing the patient and to transport the patient to a hospital Intensive Care Unit. The advantage is the rapid application of ICU protocols often improve the chances of the patient to recover from their illness.

Now I do not want to give you the impression that if you have a common cold that you can call SAMU ans they will send a doctor to you. That is not reality. reality is that only about 65% of all incoming calls get an ambulance response. The calls are triaged by medical staff based in a hospital. These people will do everything in their power to avoid sending an ambulance to you if there is another option. However, if there is not another option within 10 minutes of the end of the call you will have someone knocking on your door to take care of you.

Wikipedia fully describes the role of SAMU liek this:
SAMU missions were defined in a law of 1986 as hospital based services providing permanent phone support, choosing and dispatching the proper response for a phone call request. The central component of SAMU is the dispatch centre where a medical regulation team of physicians and assistants has the task of:

analysing calls to decide on patient need
deciding the best solution for the patient's care
dispatching the most appropriate mobile care resource (MICU, Ambulance, or Mobile care professional), or
directing the patient to an alternative fixed resource such as primary care medical surgery or hospital service, or
offering care advice over the telephone

Because of aggressive triage (called medical regulation) , only about 65% of requests to SAMU actually receive an ambulance response.[2] Current performance on emergency calls is arrival at scene within 10 minutes, for 80% of responses, and within 15 minutes for 95% of responses.[3]

This means that SAMU controls a variety of resources within a community from general practitioners to hospital intensive care services.

SAMU is organized at the 'Département' level, with each Department organizing its own service, each of which is identified with a unique code, for instance SAMU 06 in Nice and SAMU 75 in Paris.[4]

Additionally, two SAMU have special tasks :

The Paris SAMU is responsible for providing service to fast trains (TGV) and Air France aircraft, while in flight.
The Toulouse SAMU is responsible for providing service to ships at sea.

In addition to the mainland French Departements, SAMU also operates in most of the offshore American Departements, such as Guadeloupe (SAMU 971) Martinique Guyane or Pacific and Indian French Islands (Tahiti Reunion)


Conclusion
If the United States wants a quilt of healthcare then we need to price together the best aspects of the working systems around the world. Below is a condensed list of what we need to incorporate into our healthcare system based on my review of the Japanese, Canadian, French and British healthcare systems. In my next Healthcare Patchwork Quilt edition I will cover some of the other healthcare systems that the WHO rate as providing better overall healthcare than the current system here in the USA. Remember we are ranked 37th in the world according to the WHO. France, who we covered here today is ranked first in the world. While Japan is tenth, Canada is thirtieth, and the United Kingdom is eighteenth.


1. Child and Elder Care All the children and the elderly must be fully covered for all their medical needs regardless of how many of them there are at any point in time.

2. Sliding Scale Fee System All premiums, fees, co-pays, or any other financial outlay by the family must be on a sliding scale based on income of the family.

3. Alternative Medicine/ Wellness Programs We need to fully fund alternative medicine and wellness programs including traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Native American medicines as well as nutritional programs and programs that treat stress through relaxation techniques including spa and therapeutic massage treatments.

4. Portability from one state to another is critical in medical coverage as well as portability when transitioning from a status of employed to unemployed. losing healthcare coverage is you become temporarily unemployed or change jobs is totally unacceptable as is having huge premiums that you cannot pay such as the COBRA premiums.

5. Public/Private Mixture A cooperative arrangement whereby basic healthcare services are covered but elective and experimental services are covered by private carriers would work. Private physicians can provide the services but must charge the people on the central plan only what the government has agreed to pay. Public clinics can be operated only if there are not enough private doctors in an area that accept the central plan to reasonably handle the number of patients for that area. This gives the private doctors incentive to accept the program or deal with the competition of a public healthcare facility.

6. Federal/State Cooperation States Rights can be honored if we model after the devolved UK model where each state must meet a federally mandated standard of care but can accomplish that by whatever level of privatization of the program that fits the needs of their residents and does not cost more than per capita than a fully socialized model does.

7. Basic Healthcare The basic standard of care must include a minimum of the following: General Practitioner gatekeepers, hospitalization, inpatient and outpatient mental health, inpatient and outpatient physical, occupational, and speech therapies, preventative and alternative medicines to include nutrition, holistic well being, alternative healing medical procedures such as chiropractic, acupuncture, and acupressure, exercise, therapeutic massage, and stress relief programs, dental to include the most modern best practices but restricting the placement of metal amalgam fillings that contain mercurial compounds, orthodontia and dental surgery, ophthalmology/optometry to include glasses and contact lenses to include up to two pairs of glasses at the same time for children under 16 or a combination of a pair of glasses and a suitable number of contact lenses, all medications whether prescription or OTC with a doctor's order, all best practices surgeries. Best practices surgical procedures will be determined by the central medical board. (see CMB description later)

8. Solidarity is clearly defined in the French plan as the idea that the sicker you get the more your fellow citizens rally behind you and carry the load for you. Amazingly this very "Christian" idea is incorporated into a socialist styling of medical care. Solidarity is vital if we are to improve the quality of healthcare for everyone. Therefore the sicker you get the less is expected from you and the more the community does for you in order to help you recover. Solidarity in France includes the government requiring the employers to pay a portion of the person's salary while they are recuperating and the government pays the rest. The individual can take up to one year off and be fully compensated while they do so. The french also see relaxation and healthy living as critical to recovering one's health so they encourage spending time in health resorts or on the beaches in the southern part of France as part of the recovery process if you are expected to fully recover from your illness. Solidarity expects that you would understand when your neighbor needs to do likewise for their health. Solidarity also means fully supporting those who are not going to recover. Once a person is found to be in a state where recovery is not going to occur they are released from employment and fully covered by their fellow citizens. The government pays for all their needs in the most cost efficient way possible. France does not have huge nursing homes however. The feel the lack of human dignity in such facilities is unacceptable. They have facilities more like apartment buildings that they can require a fully subsidized person to move into if they have no other family members living in their home with them and they still have financial obligations such as a mortgage. If the only expenses the person has is basic utilities then the most cost efficient method is home based healthcare and family centered healthcare where a family member has their pay subsidized by the employer and the government to stay with and care for their sick relative. This is only used if the person is expected to live less than a year in their condition.

9. Family Support Services This is a program that while not under the auspices of the actual medical authority is a critical part of the care given to new mothers and their babies. Home nurses, home care workers, and all medical needs are fully covered. This, while costly, can easily be offset by the reductions in the number of foster care homes required for abused and neglected children. Also the government subsidizes child care so the mothers can return to work and pay taxes. The subsidized day care facilities are not required and a mother can take up to an entire year off while receiving full pay from the combination of her job and the government subsidy. However, after that year if she stays home her income is reduced for the next year and after that she gets no pay at all and can be released by her company. The child's care is still fully funded but her medical coverage sees an increased co-pay because her job is no longer subsidizing her care. Private insurances will often pick up the slack if they already have a policy in place in order to allow the mother to stay with the child up to five years. At that point in time the child begins preschool and the mother is expected to return to work.

10. Government Responsibility Ultimately the federal government will be responsible for administering the mandates for the program and providing the majority of the funding to the program. The federal government will choose a board that will decide the scope of care provided by the program which must include full coverage for the services defined in the basic health care section. They will be the group that decides the best practices options of care and shall be required to provide a minimum of three options for every illness if there are that many available with at least one option being a holistic/naturalistic option. Best practices surgical procedures must include newer and experimental surgical procedures with a 60% success rate in cases with a similar profile to the individual being treated and pre-approval is required unless the procedure must be done within 30 days in order to save the person's life. Individual doctors have the final call on whether they feel they can wait or not and will be paid for the procedure as long as the patient survives. If the doctor acts without prior approval and the patient dies the doctor is not eligible for reimbursement from either the family or the plan. He may however, list the procedure as a medical loss in his accounting statements and be eligible for tax relief due to the loss. All income is taxed to cover the cost of the program. No person can be refused treatment at the point of service for a lack of ability to pay immediately. Co-Pays will be deducted from wages directly if not paid within 60 days of the visit with the amount to be deducted not to exceed 0.25% of the net pay after all other deductions and will continue until the full co-pay is recovered. No company can terminate an employee for allowing their co-pays to be paid this way and employees can opt-in to automatic deduction of their co-pays under this plan.

11. The Board The medical board of the plan will be a permanent feature of the program however, membership is by appointment, paid for days of active service at a nominal fee not to be construed as employment and entitled to no government benefits. The board shall be made up of actively practicing physicians and medical research physicians who work with the plan. No doctor may sit on the board at the same time that they sit on the board of any for profit medical related corporation including Drug Manufacturers, medical supply companies, or medical information systems companies as well as any other company that supplies the plan with any type of service other than direct patient care. The board shall not have power to negotiate remuneration or approve any form of purchases. the sole purpose of the board is to develop the guidelines for care.

Terms on the board shall be limited to no more than 6 years and no member may serve two consecutive terms. The board shall consist of a minimum of two research professionals one in mental health and one in physical health. It shall also consist of the following who are actively practicing physicians within the system: 2 general practitioners, 1 pediatrician, 1 developmental pediatrician, 1 OB/GYN, 1 Urologist, 1 Developmental Delay Specialist, 1 representative from each of the outpatient therapies such as speech, occupational, and physical, 1 representative from all approved alternative medicines, 1 nutritionist, 1 psychiatrist, 1 dentist/oral surgeon, and any other specialists as needed including cardiologists and orthopedists.


12. SAMU We need to bring our urgent and emergency care closer to the SAMU model. This model includes in-home treatment of contagious illnesses that ultimately reduce overall healthcare costs by reducing exposure of the healthy to the sick. SMAU has various levels of at the scene care including the MICU which reduces the need to transport unstable people until they can be stabilized using ICU techniques in the field with highly trained doctors manning these units. The snatch and run model may work well on some types of situations but the stabilize and ICU procedures would work better in numerous cases. It is well worth the investment for the higher quality of care that can be delivered at the initial point of contact. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a paramedic with maybe a year of training in medical care and a few months in cardiac care or a physician with 2-3 years of medical training and as much as 10 years experience in Cardiac care treating you in your home when you are having a heart attack? Me, I want the doctor and all the equipment in his mobile ICU along with his undivided attention which is something I cannot get in a hospital.




So now we have the beginnings of a patchwork quilt that might work. We will add to the quilt later as we visit other countries to look at what they are doing right.


In My Sights: Patrick McHenry on Healthcare

Representative Patrick McHenry NC 10th Congressional District

Representative McHenry has recently, courtesy of our state legislature, become my representative. Since his fellow Republicans in the NC General Assembly has decided to shanghai a part of the city of Asheville into his district then he is going to have to deal with all of us. So Mr. McHenry here we go.

The following statement is copied directly from his congressional website and I will openly address each of them from my perspective.

ON HEALTHCARE:
"Congressman McHenry believes that every American should have access to quality and affordable healthcare. However, a government-rationed healthcare system is not the answer. Healthcare decisions should be made by patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats."


My Questions:
Representative McHenry, are you against rationed healthcare or only government-rationed healthcare?

Representative McHenry, do you actually believe that doctors can do anything they feel is appropriate with their patients?

Representative McHenry, since you believe that patients and doctors should make all medical decisions are you prepared to introduce legislation requiring insurance companies to cover all procedures that a doctor states is required for the care of his patient in all policies?

Representative McHenry, since you believe that government rationed healthcare is not appropriate then would you support a single payer system of universal healthcare if the insurance companies could bid on being the provider of that plan on a competitive basis every 5 years?



Here is what I am looking for from my healthcare system. I have Autistic Children(Please do not jump me about the lack of person first PC language before you google Jim Sinclair "Why I Dislike Person First Language"). My children require numerous services to accomplish what other people's kids take for granted. I expect to get those services without an act of congress or a miracle from God. I could get them if I was in France. I could get them if I was in the UK. I could get them if I was in Canada. I expect to get them here. You see the internet lets me actually communicate with people living in the UK and people living in Canada and people living in France. So I know from real people living in those countries with kids just like mine exactly what they are getting in services for their kids. I want the same.

My position:

1. I want a universal single payer healthcare system with no limitations on the type of service provided so long as it is classified by the majority of the medical community as "best practices" for the illness or condition being treated.
2. I want coverage for experimental treatments covered at 50% until a minimum of 100 cases that represent a cross section comparable to the general population of the country has been shown to respond positively based on case studies only. This assumes that the treatments have been approved by the FDA as an experimental treatment based on positive outcomes from clinical trials. At the time this cross section is reached the experimental treatments should be elevated to a 75% payment until the number reaches 1000 and then it should be elevated to 100% coverage.
3. I want investment income counted as income for the purpose of paying into the national healthcare plan.
4. I want all earned income counted for the purpose of paying into the national healthcare plan.
5. I want a single payer plan that will reduce the amount of money care providers have to spend on overhead to process multiple healthcare plans.
6. I want premiums and co-pays to be on a sliding scale. The more you make the more you pay.
7. I do not care if a single insurance company runs the universal healthcare that is designed and mandated by the people or if the government does it. I do believe that it has to be done so lets stop debating the fact that we need a universal healthcare system and start figuring out how to make one happen.

In My Sights What is it?

In My Sights is going to be an ongoing addition to this blog. It is going to take a hard look at the words that come out of the mouths of various members of both our state legislature and our federal legislature. I am gong to look hard at their ideas and policies and why they are good or bad.

Remember, I am an independent and I am going to hold both the democrats and the republicans feet to the fire. I am going to expect them to do the job they should be doing to make America strong.

Hope to see you soon on my first edition of In My Sights.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Federal government is legally required to provide jobs

“The most galling thing about pundits stating with such certainty that the government cannot create jobs is the implication that the government hashttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif no businesshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif employing people. In actuality, however, the law requires the government, in particular the President and the Federal Reserve, to create jobs. This legal duty comes from three sources: (1) full employment legislation including the Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978, (2) the 1977 Federal Reserve Act, and (3) the global consensus based on customary international law that all people have a right to a job with favorable remuneration to provide an adequate standard of living.“
Click here to go to the complete article by Jeanne Mirer and Marjorie Cohn

I want to say a big thank you to Cecil Bothwell for helping me locate this information. I knew it existed because my father had spoken of it numerous times but he never said the name of the legislation. Cecil put this on his website for his congressional campaign and I appreciate him bringing it to my attention.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Why the Republican Plan of Slash and Burn Will Not Fix the Economy

I have spent many days listening to the American People blindly lining up behind their respective parties and repeating the Mantra spouted by their respective leaders. Unfortunately the leaders in both parties have got it all wrong.

Today I will look at the Republican Party. I have chosen to look at them because they have two distinct factions in the party which I call Dumb and Dumber. Now before all you right leaning independents get frustrated and call me a bleeding heart liberal let me state that I am only going to address fiscal policies here.

I openly admit to being left leaning on social policies, right leaning on less or at least more efficient government, and a total centrist on fiscal policy. Sometimes we just have to spend money people and there is no two ways about that. If I need to go to work and there is no mass transit I have to go borrow money and buy a car to get to the job to get the paycheck to pay for the car. Now after I buy the car from the dealership if I do not have enough money from the job to pay for the car I either have to get a second job, cut out spending money on luxuries like fancy restaurants, or use my credit cards to borrow from Peter to pay Paul until I can get a second job or a raise on the first job. What I cannot do, however, is default on the car loan or my credit rating drops and I lose the means by which to get to any of the jobs I might get. So now that you understand how I see things let’s look at why I call the Republican factions Dumb and Dumber.

Faction: DUMB
These are the hard core Reaganomics snake oil salesmen. They know they are selling snake oil but they also know that it sells so why not. Well, the why not is because the gig is up, guys. The day you knew would come is here. Well that is what we said to them in 2008, when the giant Ponzi scheme created by their trickle-down economics policies came back to bite us in the butt. Isn’t that what we said when we elected Barack Obama to the White House? Well it was what we were trying to say.

Why does the trickle-down theory really not work? One word GREED!

Ok, that might be a little on the harsh and simplistic side but I am a big fan of Judge Judy Sheindlin and her Don’t Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining mentality of personal responsibility right along with the KISS Keep It Simple Stupid application of reasoning. This group does not get to stand around and blame the people who have tried to keep human beings from starving to death while waiting on their trickle-down theory, that they knew full well would not work, to work while they take no responsibility for the disaster they allowed to happen. So as Judge Judy would say, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”

Now I promise I will limit my references to the Democrats since our focus here is the Republicans but I do have to address this one little item. Of course, here in America we have lost Occam’s razor. We have no idea how to do anything in a simplistic or moderate manner so naturally the Democrats went overboard and they could have used a lesson from that nice gentleman Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson at Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Programs also know as Skunk Works. It seems that Mr. Johnson told a bunch of engineers that the jets they were making had to be able to be fixed with some very basic tools under combat conditions by poorly trained mechanics. So the concept was to simplify the design or, Keep It Simple Stupid, KISS it. Needless to say the Democrats need a lesson in how to KISS their social programs or else they will be kissing them goodbye eventually when the country actually goes broke.

So why does trickle-down economics really not work? Well because it is DUMB! Alright, that is not a real answer either so let me explain why it is dumb. It is dumb because it is based in a level of flawed logic that stems from their application of religious theory to people who do not necessarily apply that theory the same way they do. Confused yet? Well so was I for a long time. This is how it really breaks down:

Dumb is thinking that I, as a wealthy person, am going to invest more money into my company if taxes on my income are low. Why would I reinvest in the company? Let me explain why it makes no sense to do that.

It is all about appetites. Let’s say I like big homes, fancy cars, and gourmet food. If my tax rates on my income and/or capital gains is high but my money reinvested in my company is tax free then I can satisfy my appetites through the use of credit and taking out small quantities at a time to reduce my tax debt at any given time. Reinvestment is tax free and makes a safe tax haven for my money. However, if my tax rates are low then I have no need to reinvest into my company or use credit and pay all that interest to feed my appetites because with a low tax rate I can take my money out of investments and just have it in plain old spending cash. For that matter I can even take it out of banks and keep it distributed between the safes in my numerous houses. I can buy new cars, new houses, boats, planes, box seats at theaters and sporting venues, or maybe even my own island like the Carnegie family did. I can be self indulgent with my money because the government is not going to hit me hard if I take it out of investments.

Now the Dumb theory of economics says that I am a good person and that I will put the interests of some poor fellow living in the projects in inner city Chicago, Detroit, or New York City over my own appetites. Well unless I am dumber than the guy in the projects then that is just a really dumb way to believe. Trust me on this if he had my money then I can assure you that he would be feeding his interests and not mine. Money Corrupts. Why does it do that? Money buys absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it is absolutely stupid to believe that the wealthy will invest in creating jobs when they are taxed less. They will invest in making their lifestyles more comfortable regardless of which or how many people they crush in the process.

So much for the grand ideal of "trickle-down" economics saving the United States of America from whatever it was that we needed saving from that time. Now, to be fair I have to give the Dumb side credit for one thing with their economic plan. They do create some jobs because someone has to make the boats, cars, and stuff the rich buy. Someone has to build the homes they want and someone has to prepare and serve them their gourmet dinners. The problem with this is that they make up 1% of the population of the country and there is no way they can financially support the other 99% by spending lavishly on themselves even if they only bought American made products, which they do not. There is not as much prestige in owning a Ford Mustang or a Chevrolet Corvette as there is in owning a Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder Performante or a Ferrari 599 GTB. Neither Lamborghini nor Ferrari make cars in the USA so that is not going to create too many jobs except for the guy they hire to take care of the cars. The only jobs they create are service jobs that pander to their appetites and the insidious effect of this is to subjugate people by making them feel subservient to this elite class of people. This demoralizes the common people and creates a disparity between the classes that inevitably leads to class warfare.

Faction:Dumber

Out of the heartland of America comes the first set of victims of the giant Ponzi scheme that was perpetrated by the Dumb faction. However, since they are envious of the wealthy they side with the party that caters to the wealthy. They listen to the rhetoric of the snake oil salesmen and buy into it. When they lose everything they blame the Democrats and high taxes. How does this happen? Why do they not see that the snake oil salesmen created the environment that cost them their homes and investments? That is easy. It was the taxes they could not pay on those homes that got them repossessed. They do not stop to ask why they could not pay the taxes on their properties they simply look at the fact that the foreclosure on the property was a tax debt foreclosure.

Why did they stop being able to pay their taxes? Nice of you to ask. You didn't ask, I asked! Oh well, at least someone asked.

These Warren Buffett wannabes got involved with that little real estate mortgage thing that we had going on where any idiot that wanted to buy a house could no matter what their credit was like. They would go get foreclosures or distressed properties, fix them up, and arrange with the loan company that gave them the money to do all this with to sell them to a sub-prime borrower for far more than was owed on the home. You know this scheme is the thing the banks financed, the insurance companies insured, the ratings agencies thought was a better risk that current US T-Bills, and the thing that all of them bet against in order to line their personal pockets every time a mortgage failed. These people invested in things like that and made big bucks. They invested some of it in the stock market and they bought gold and lots of it.

Then one day back in 2008 this Ponzi scheme came crashing down around all of them rather unexpectedly for the average investor. Of course the S&P guys knew it was coming long before it happened. They knew this house of cards was precariously perched on an incline in front of a slowly oscillating fan and the first time the fan turned toward this poorly assembled house of cards that it was going to fall and make a huge mess in the process. They knew and did nothing. So now we have these average middle class Americans that have made a bundle buying, renovating, and selling, (a process known as flipping) houses and have invested that money into the stock market so they can be like Warren Buffett, rich.

Of course they are not really rich. They have lots of assets but they are property heavy, liquid capital weak, invested in gold, and heavily invested in a market that is basing a huge chunk of its stability on this giant nightmare called the sub-prime mortgage market. Most of their income is from interest on their investments which they use to pay their bills including their tax bills on their homes. Have you figured it out yet? The winds change as the fan slowly moves along its course, the sub-prime mortgage house of cards falls, the stock market crashes, the interest income dries up and they fail to make their tax bills. Their homes are repossessed for tax debt and it is all the democrats fault for making taxes too high. Never mind that they invested in cases of the snake oil that the Reaganomics snake oil salesmen were peddling. Never mind the fact that they could have liquidated their gold reserves to pay their taxes but decided the day was not yet rainy enough to warrant doing that. Of course they did none of that. They did not do that because the snake oil salesmen went right to work convincing them that the Democrats taxes caused this whole mess. While they were reeling over what had just happened to them the snake oil salesmen brought out their secret weapon, a hockey mom from Alaska who just so happened to be the Governor.

Enter Sarah Palin. This little gun totin' hockey mom who could "See Russia" was going to tell it like it wasn't and make you believe it all the way to the alter call or the bank depending on whether you were broke or made a mint off of insider trading information. Either way this was all the Democrats fault. She does not have to ever run for a single office again. She is the Queen Bee of the snake oil salesmen. The only problem they are having right now is that they seem to be experiencing a little difficulty "handling" her and she has moved into the extreme side of the party. Actually she is the cornerstone of the Taxed Enough Already TEA Party. She is their Golden Girl and if Michelle Bachman falls to one of the Dumb faction members of the Republican party you can look for Sarah Palin to come out in force to get her own name on the ballot in enough states with the TEA Party as a third party in the race with Michelle Bachman as her VP. If they don't do this in 2012 and the Dems win the white house and control of congress watch out for the split in the republican party with the TEA Party moving out under the leadership of Sarah "I can see Russia" Palin with Michelle "Pray the Gay Away" Bachman as her right hand man, uh I mean woman.

All of this, however, does not explain how their plan is Dumber than the Dumb faction of the Republican party. Well, that is a pretty simple thing to explain. If you take a Dumb plan and add more Dumb ideas with it to form a second plan of many Dumb ideas then your plan is going to be Dumber than the original Dumb plan. Alright, I will stop being vague, I promise.

Short recap here, the Dumb plan is trickle-down economics. the Dumber plan is the Dumb plan plus getting rid of the Fed, defaulting on our debts, and gutting the social programs that put money into the hands of the poor that they spend into our economy.

We have already covered why trickle down economics does not work. Getting rid of the Fed is a whole blog entry on its own so for now let me just say that it is not a good idea. Dumb Ideas #1 and #2

Defaulting on our debt I think is pretty self explanatory but if you need help let me enlighten you as to why that would not be smart in really simple terms. If you buy a house and a car on credit and sign an agreement to pay for them based on your good credit and then at some point in time you realize that you do not make enough money to pay those bills and buy food, pay your utilities, and whatever else you need to pay what do you do? Well, the simple answer to the question is that you pay your mortgage and your car payment then cut spending and pay your bills in order of the necessities first and the luxuries last. Hopefully you will have enough for your loans, your utilities, and your food. If not, then where do you go from there? At that point in time you dig out those credit cards and start using them to borrow from Peter to pay Paul while you figure out what to do about the problem. Ultimately you will have to do one of two things, default on your loans for the house and car which will leave you with no way to your job or no where to live or both OR you can increase your income enough to pay your bills. If you choose the default plan then your credit is ruined, you are homeless, and you have no way to work, so you are also unemployed. Would you choose that as your method of handling your expenses? Yes you could sell your house and downsize and spend less but what happens if you cannot downsize enough because of the size of your family. What if you cannot get a smaller or less expensive house or you cannot sell your house because no one has the money to buy it because of the economy? The last thing you want to do is default. You will do anything to avoid default because it will result in you being evicted and your credit rating being destroyed. So explain to me why in the name of heaven would a person think that pushing the USA into a position where it would default on its credit obligations is a good idea? Dumb Idea #3

Dumb Idea #4 is the conclusive evidence that I have that Dumb Idea #1 is based on flawed logic. Remember the flawed logic I spoke of earlier? Remember how it was dependent on a set of religious standards not interpreted the same from one person to the next? Well here is my conclusive evidence of that fact. The very same group that embraces trickle-down economics because rich people are going to invest out of the goodness of their hearts to create jobs for the jobless want to gut social programs because there are nothing but fat, greedy, lazy people on welfare and we ought to kick them to the curb and let them starve if they can't find a job.

Of course part of this actually makes sense in their messed up logic because if we gut the social programs then there will be plenty of desperate workers that will take below minimum wage (which they will have repealed) jobs and live in abject poverty. Meanwhile the Dumber faction's idols are busy living in mansions that they envy because they almost had one like that if those awful old democrats had not had such high taxes in order to support those fat lazy people on welfare.

Of course the reality of what will happen is nothing like that at all. If they cut the social programs the poor will not have money. They will not go shopping. The companies will have fewer customers and will need fewer workers. Fewer workers mean fewer people with money which leads to less spending which leads to needing fewer employees.... Do you see the cycle here yet? I hope so.

Now you see why the republican plans will not work to fix the economy. Removing cash, the green dollar bills that they print at the behest of the Federal Reserve(that entity that they want to get rid of), from circulation by gutting social programs, or refusing to spend money through stimulus spending when there is a recession WILL lead to a depression. Take time to read how we know this to be fact on my Are We Headed For Another Great Depression? post which will be coming out right after my Why the Democrat's Tax and Spend plan will not fix the economy. Remember I am not the only person that sees the problems here.

During these hard times in which we have found ourselves, we see a few of the folks that belong to the Dumb side of this economic struggle biting the bullet and attacking the Dumber side of the party because they actually knew all along that trickle-down economics was a hoax that they perpetrated so they could line the pockets of their rich buddies, who lined their pockets with campaign contributions, which kept them in their 6 figure salaries. They knew that it would not last forever and have lived waiting on the other shoe to drop and the people to rise up and vote them and their pandering politics right out of our government. We almost did it in 2008. They gained it back in 2010 because we lost sight of the problem. Lets not make that mistake in 2012.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

USAP 10 Point Plan

I have looked at all of the President's ideas and they are good but they could be great. They depend far too much on corporations to do the right thing instead of the most profitable thing. They are not going to. Maybe our small to medium businesses will, but not the major corporations. Here are my suggestions for actually improving the country based on several comments I have seen from really great Americans.

This is the United States of America Public (USAP) 10 Point Plan.

1. Work for Welfare
Contrary to what many in the TEA Party believe Americans are not all lazy and expecting a handout. Welfare has a problem that I will discuss later a little more clearly but lets just say that many on welfare would gladly get a job if they could. They would also work in their communities using their skills for the welfare benefits they are receiving while unemployed. We need a work for welfare program that includes an exemption for the disabled or provides jobs that the mildly affected can do within the limits of their physical and mental abilities. Waivers can be issued for those attending college at least half time (this time requirement can be waived for those with disabilities where even half time is too much for them with certification from their doctor or mental health adviser being required)

2. Welfare Exit Strategy
This idea resolves the problem that makes people believe that welfare recipients do not want to get off welfare. The problem comes in the financial realities and the fact that the poor, unlike the federal government, cannot operate on a deficit spending model. Right now if a person receiving Welfare has $1000 in basic necessities expenses and gets $1000 in total welfare benefits from all the different sources (food stamps, section 8, etc.) they break even. What happens when they get a job is this. Lets say that to get to work it costs them $20. Lets say they earn $100. So now they have a total outgo of $1020. Their welfare benefits are reduced by the amount they receive in earned income so their welfare benefits are now $900 and their earned income is $100 for a grand total of $1000. Remember their expenses are $1020. As I stated, poor Americans, unlike the federal government, do not have the option of operating their households on a deficit spending model. Therefore, they choose not to go to work unless they can make enough to compensate for all they will lose AND cover the new expenses for going to work. If they take a part time job or a job that only replaces the benefits alone they wind up in a deficit spending situation. Poor Exit Strategy. Also, There needs to be two sections or rolls to welfare one for those that are classified as temporary because they are capable of work which employs a viable exit strategy that promotes work over welfare and those that are classified as permanent because they are not capable of working. These need to be funded separately with the permanent roll being sacred and not on the table for spending reductions. We have a responsibility as good citizens of the world to care for the truly needy.

3. USAPCN
The USAPCN is the United States of America Public Communication Network and would consist of a FIOS to the door of every home in America system and a universal cellular system that is wholly owned and operated by the people of the United States of America. It would not sell access directly to consumers. It would lease usage to any service provider regardless of the size of their business for the same rate. In order to be considered a business the company must produce a pre-service contract from a minimum of 5 verifiable individuals to whom they will provide service, they must have all necessary business licenses to operate a business within their individual state, county, and municipality. It would operate as a Quasi-Government agency that would be self financing much the way TVA is today.This would also include the operation of 4 central government data centers which the individual agencies of the government would use. These data centers would allow inter-agency communication to be improved which would decrease welfare fraud such as the man who the IRS knew won $2M in the lottery but the local food stamp office did not so he kept getting food stamps after he won the lottery.

4. USAPHN
The USAPHN is the United States of America Public Healthcare Network. It is a public single payer healthcare system that is self-funded through the issuance of bonds. All US citizens would be enrolled in the system upon issuance of their social security card which now occurs at birth. All medical expenses for basic medical, medications, dental, orthodontic, chiropractic, physical therapy, occupational therapy, wellness and health maintenance programs, surgical, optical, and mental health (including Developmental Delay Educational Supports) are fully covered to any licensed practitioner or educational facility in any state. All preventative care will be covered. A list of all covered procedures will be published annually. A list of specifically excluded items will be published annually. There will be a core set of basic care items that cannot be removed including well baby care, care for the elderly, care for the disabled, dental, optical, and mental health. No health insurance company may offer a program that covers any of the the items covered by the USAPHN but they are free to offer plans to cover anything not covered by the USAPHN. HOWEVER, the policies that they sell will be registered with the USAPHN and the insurance companies will pay the USAPHN who will pay the doctors. The ID cards of the individuals will have their plan information electronically encoded and can be swiped at a care provider who will be able to see whether the services they are trying to give to the person is covered or not if the service is outside of the USAPHN core services. Abortion will not be covered except if an OB/GYN that does not perform abortions asserts that the mother's life is in danger or if the women requesting an abortion has filed a rape report with the police within 72 hours of the calculated date of conception. Private abortion clinics are free to continue operation and charge for their services and insurance companies are free to include abortion in their private plans.

5.USAPWS
The USAPWS is the United States of America Public Works Services and is a self funded Quasi-Government agency that is responsible for building any of the USAP infrastructure. Have it build renewable energy complexes for the department of energy entities like TVA and Bonneville Energy. Build only renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Absolutely no new coal, oil, or nuclear power. New forms of renewable energy can be added as their return on investment ratios meet the minimum USAP standard.

6. USAPNTS
The USAPNTS is the United States of America Public National Transportation Service. Amtrak is one portion of this system. However, we need to restructure Amtrak to follow the USAP bond model and get it out of the stock market. We also need to build high speed commuter rail nation wide and provide Bus Links from county seats to rail stations as well as secured parking decks at the Bus Link and train stations. We need to fund local publicly held rail/bus combination mass transit systems on a 75%/25% matching funds basis if it is operated by a single municipality or a partnership between a single municipality and a single county. We need to fund local publicly held rail/bus combination mass transit systems on a 50%/50% matching funds basis for multi-county, multi-municipality transportation authorities.

7.USAPCU
The USAPCU is the United States of America Public Credit Union, a branch of the United States Federal Reserve System, that makes available low interest USAP development loans to the USAP system. It also manages all the funding and bond sales for the USAP programs. Businesses desiring to participate in the USAP programs are eligible to borrow money through the USAPCU.

8. Hand-Up Employment Policy
Give priority employment status to all people that do not get off the Work for Welfare program within 2 years if they are actually working or within 4 years if they are on a school waiver.Those with permanent disabilities would move to the permanent support rolls at this time. Employ all returning military personnel that do not find jobs within one year of leaving the military in a USAP job.


9. USAPUES
The USAPUES is a unified public education system that operates high school vocational centers in each state and an online general education program that is an alternative for parents to local school systems. The school would initially begin as a high school program from grades 9-12 with the intent to expand to lower grades as the need and funding emerges. Make it bond funded and allow corporate/philanthropic sponsorship of things such as computer labs sponsored by Apple and Intel or Microsoft and Intel. Have all the coursework online except the things that require laboratory experience. Make general education mentors available at the vocational centers. Employee highly qualified online mentors. Remove all restrictions from local school systems regarding teaching religious concepts as alternatives to secular concepts and remove federal funding to local school systems that choose to teach that way . Open a USAPUES vocational school within every school district that chooses to withdraw from federal funding once there are at least 50 students signed up to the school in a tech program.

10. Tax Reform
Throw out the current tax code and implement an across the board personal income tax of 15% with the exception for those that currently fall into the 10% tax bracket. We will gradually raise their taxes by 0.5% every other year until we bring them up to the 15%. No deductions, no exceptions, flat tax regardless of the source of the income. Implement a 15% flat tax for all businesses with a net profit of under $500,000 annually, 20% tax for all businesses with an annual net profit between $500,000 and $1M annually, a 25% tax for all businesses with a net profit between $1M and $60M annually, and a 35% tax for all businesses with a net profit over $60M annually. No exceptions, exemptions, or waivers. Restructure our trade agreements to where we charge import duties to companies that are US based and manufacture overseas for sale in the US. They can have an exception to this by manufacturing one product here and one overseas and trade exports for imports. They can buy an import voucher that allows them to bring in an equivalent amount of a foreign produced product as they ship out of a domestically produced product duty free. One other change will be the USAP payroll and capital gains tax which will be listed as a separate deduction on payroll taxes and is a 1% tax on earned income and a 20% tax on capital gains and rollover interest income.