The next 2 years.

As much as everyone seems to be all abuzz about the election results, I (for one) am having difficulty finding any momentous emotion. the past 20 years have seen the continual ebb and flow of the parties, often to similar extremes. But what has really been accomplished? We are now done with another season of mudslinging ads, which tell us NOTHING about what the candidate actually believes. We are done with another season of having our intelligence insulted by idiots who truly believe that one sound-byte from 10 years ago, taken completely out of context, matters. We are done with another season where the 2 combined candidates wasted 20 million dollars on ads telling us how fiscally irresponsible their opponent is. Pffft. All lies. All political manuevering to get where the candidate wanted to be: in power. This election, more than any election in my life, has left me feeling that our government is out of touch...possibly beyond repair. Our government has become an elitist class all its own: making rules as it sees fit, excluding itself as it sees fit, raising taxes to play its games, just as it sees fit. In the mean time, this is all done with our lives and our money at stake. If they fail...oh well. They can go back to their million-dollar homes and retire with their fat government pensions and their own non-public healthcare programs, because they are now a retired elitist.
I have no faith that the new congress will do any more than the last congress... or the one before that. Sure, some signature bills and discussions will take place, to make themselves look so busy and all-important to their constituents...but I have little belief that anything will happen on capitol hill that is outside of the norm. Republicans will say that they want to be fiscally conservative, but continue to spend money. Democrats will say that they want to be socially progressive but support more measures to take away personal choice. And each will blame the other for stopping their *real* agenda...conveniently.
To me, the power of this election stands within the states. many states now have new governors...and many incumant governors were awakened by surprisingly close elections. Both are products of a constituency that is tired of political shenanigans.
The governors need to exercise their power. It takes only 37 governors' support to hold a constitutional convention. One needs to be called. Then the following changes need to be brought to the table:
1. congress shall pass no law that does not apply, in its entirety, to congress as well. Likewise, congress shall pass no law that applies to congress without it also applying, in its entirety, to the american citizenship.
(get these guys to have to live by the same laws/standards that we do, and things will change. make them retire on medicare and social security, and those programs WILL get fixed.)
2. Congress shall pass a balanced budget every fiscal year. Once the budget is approved, no bill/law can be presented/signed without it being budget neutral. Any unexpected budget deficit comes out of congress' salary and benefit package, first. If, after exhausting all monies there, the bill/law is still in defecit, it is shelved. In times of crisis, such as wartime, the senate can bring the budget to popular vote by a 60-vote super-majority. Budget over-ride is for one fiscal year only.
3. Included in the balanced-budget amendment is the necessity to pay down at least 1% of any outstanding national debt every year.
4. The federal government will pass no law requiring its citizens to purchase a product/service.
(this is really already implied in the 10th amendment. State's should have the right to govern themselves. The federal government should have no right to force its citizens to purchase a product (e.g. healthcare) and tax its citizens for said product, and then pass on the financial burden of the program to the state and its citizens. Let states develop their own programs.)
5. No federal government official or employee can accept lobby-money, gifts, or special treatment. (this, in the real world, is called a bribe...it's illegal)
6. Election reform: No political advertising may mention or allude to a candidate's opponent, with the exception of a documented voting record. If a voting record is mentioned or alluded to, the candidate paying for the policial ad, must pay for equal time, immediately following thier ad, for their opponent to defend their record. All monies contributed to candidates must be completely anonymous. Companies, organizations, or the Press can not publically endorse a candidate.
7. No political candidate may serve more than 2 consecutive terms. If the candidate wishes to return to public service, he/she must have been out of public office for 2 consecutive terms.

Ok...7 easy things that would change the political playing field.
...but it's just my opinion...

DADT

Quite frankly, I think I simply hate all politicians. I fail to understand why anyone chooses a life of public service and then, once elected, spends the rest of thier tenure refusing to serve the public that elected them.
I am currently of the persuasion that most politicians do not run because they want to help people, but because they want the prestige and power. Call me cynical if you like, but the results that we see on Capitol Hill only reinforce my statement.

I have now read *literally* hundreds of FB comments, discussions and blogs about the vote to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). After doing so, I have come to a single conclusion, and I think the conclusion applies to the entire last decade of politics: democrats are blindly blaming republicans and republicans are blindly blaming democrats. The key words in my statement are "blindly" and "blindly." The politics on Capitol Hill have gotten so partisan, that the public has follwed suit. No one even questions 'what' or 'why,' they simply agree with their party's stance on any given subject, no matter how ludicrious.

DADT was the first piece of legislation that Bill Clinton (he was a DEMOCRAT, for those who have forgotten) signed into law. When its popularity waned, he blamed the republicans for fooling him. ok. whatever.
Telling the gays to hush up and stay in the closet was a mistake, and the public at large (not to mention the gay world) listened to all the political talk and bought it anyway, primarily because a democrat told them that it was ok.... So, now here we are, almost 20 years later. The party that liked the legislation is giving lip-service again. the party that didn't like the legislation to begin with is being blamed for not repealing it.
So the question to me is, 'what changed'? The answer is, 'politicians'.
In my cynical little mind, all I can say is this: This whole 'human rights' issue is being used as leverage during a tight mid-term election year. neither side cares about who it affects, or how it affects people, or even if it is constitutional. This is a lip-service power struggle...and BOTH sides are EQUALLY guilty for the repeal legislation failing.
The democrats knew that the legislation would fail. how did they know? because the GOP stated firmly (months ago) that they would NOT vote for any legislation that added to the already soaring, unchecked deficit. The democrats, trying to paint the GOP as the party of "no," tacked DADT onto a financial bill, KNOWING that the GOP would vote against it...even the Republicans who support the repeal voted against it...as did a couple of fiscally conservative democrats. The votes to repeal it EXISTED. EVERYONE knew it. they only needed 1 GOP vote and they had 7. This legislation was tacked onto a financial bill as a parlor trick, in an attempt to dissuade the independents and moderates who are leaning toward voting for the GOP in November. Had the democrats truly cared about this legislation, they would have let it stand alone.
I don't expect the current GOP to be supportive of things like human rights (not since they sold their souls to the religious right)...but I am highly dissapointed that the democrats just used their own constituents as political pawns. Mostly because, IF THIS TRICK FAILS, and the GOP regains control...with some Tea Party-ers in the mix...this legislation will not be able to pass for many years. And that is a tragedy

Virginia, Severability, and the Supreme Court

The Virginia Debacle.

Last week, one of the most important judicial decision of the decade was handed down in Virginia and went virtually un-noticed by the rest of the country.
Virginia is one of the states that is trying the new healthcare law in court. Specifically, they are contesting the thought that the Federal Government has the authority to require a patriot to purchase a product that they don’t want…in this case, health insurance. The fact of the matter is that this will unlikely go to the Supreme Court. The federal court will rule that it IS unconstitutional. The reason is this: the Supreme Court has already argued and ruled this type of requirement ‘unconstitutional’ when a part of the Brady Bill was contested in the late 1980’s. Precedent is already set.
But the fact is, that the states are only sending this through the courts for a single reason: the Healthcare law has no “severability” clause. Most major legislation contains clauses that basically say, ‘if any part of this law is struck down by the courts, the unaffected portions remain law, anyway.’ This was an odd over-sight by the writers of the law. Without severability, if any part of the law is deemed unconstitutional, the entire law could be thrown out. The signers never noticed because, well, they admittedly never read the bill, they just signed it. Since it was passed by reconciliation instead of a vote, it was too late to add it, once it was discovered to be missing.
There are court precedents leaning both ways regarding ‘severability.’ Most often the judgment depends on the effect of the unlawful portion, in regards to the rest of the law. In this case, the portion stating that everyone must purchase insurance seems like a very small part of the law, so it might be overlooked, rather than the cause of declaring the entire law unconstitutional.
I disagree. I believe the requirement to be the hinge upon which the law moves.
By example: let’s say that the court rules that the federal government can’t force its patriots to purchase insurance (as the Supreme Court has already ruled). Once this is applied, we return to the thought of people only having insurance if they want it. The problem is that this undermines many other parts of the law in substantial ways. The biggest and most obvious are the ‘pre-existing condition’ clause and the ‘high risk pools.’ The high risk pools are designed to spread the cost of higher-risk insurees across the lower-risk insurees’ premiums…much the way no-fault insurance works. It doesn’t matter whether you have a good driving record or a bad driving record, everyone pays the same premium. . Couple that with the fact that companies will HAVE to immediately insure people, regardless of pre-existing condition, and here’s what has the potential to happen:
Citizen A chooses not to pay $300/month in premiums for 20 years because he is young and healthy. Rather, he pays out-of-pocket for a routine exam every now and then. One day, he gets sick and goes to his doctor who tells him that he has terminal cancer. Citizen A walks down to his insurance agent and buys insurance. Since there is no waiting period and no pre-existing clause, he is, BY LAW, allowed to do this. The company, BY LAW, has to insure him. He has paid no money into a risk-pool, but BY LAW has the right to take out as much as is deemed necessary for treatment.
Ultimately, this is like being allowed to drive without car insurance, but having a law stating that you can buy insurance after an accident…and they HAVE to cover you.
This will bankrupt every insurance company in a matter of months.
Now my cynical side comes out. Isn’t this what the government really wanted (and proposed) to begin with? To eliminate the insurance companies and force everyone to have government-run insurance? The framers of this law were not stupid…they knew the consequences. That is why, there is a $5 Billion dollar reserve to set up the public insurance option that was reportedly not in the bill. (I know this because, unlike most of congress, I actually READ all 2026 pages of the bill before it was signed into law.)
Every single person in this country, regardless of their stance on healthcare reform, had better understand how this first-level ruling in Virginia will affect them. If this portion of the law is thrown out without the whole law, in a matter of months (of the law taking full effect), Billion-dollar industries will fold, unemploying hundreds of thousands of people, further devastating banks and Wall St.
Someone better get a grip on this law and start directing it before it drags us all into bankruptcy…without any insurance at all.

Sharing the Pie.

This week, a friend of mine reminded me of a quote that Michelle Obama made about 2 years ago. She said, "...the truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
It was not a new quote to me at all, but it has been plaguing me all week. What if I don't want to give up my "piece of the pie"? Who is the government to tell me that I HAVE to? Seriously, what right do our own *elected* officials have to tell me that I have to give more of my money to fund programs that I don't believe in? The government is supposed to work for us. I don't get to walk up to my boss and tell them how much they are going to pay me...that's just not the way the world works. Yet, we allow the government to work this way.
Naturally, I have a solution *grins* or two:
The first one goes like this: figure out how much of our tax money actually goes to fund the federal programs outlined by the constitution (3 branches of govt, interstate commerce, protection of borders). Make those our taxes. By *super* rough calculations, this should cut everyone's federal tax bill by about 60%. Since everyone now has an additional 40% of their *previous* tax dollars, they can contribute to the social programs of their choosing...or not, if they so choose. It would be interesting to see where people would give if it were their CHOICE, rather than having it just taken away from them and allocated as the government sees fit. My guess is that most of the welfare programs that reward people for laziness would be gone. What Americans appear to have forgotten is that the government can't give you anything that it hasn't first taken away from someone else. Why is that even legal, much less expected?
The truth is that it would never work because everyone would just spend *their* money on the things that *they* think are important...kind of like it were their own money to begin with.....
??
Yeah.
Anyway, here is my second option.
On every tax form, there is an allocation table. everyone who pays taxes gets to choose *where* their tax money goes....sort of like donating money to a charitable organization.... After the expenses outlined in the constitution are paid, the money is distributed according to each person's allocation table. Then, each program has to live within it's budget. The power and accountability returns to the people instead of the establishment

The money that I earn is *mine.* Seriously, why does the government have the right to take it from me and do things with it that I oppose?

New Subject

You want a rant? THIS is going to be a rant!

I absolutely came unglued this morning on my way to work. Something that I already knew suddenly stop and go, WHAT?!? The construction workers working on I-290 are on strke. What I suddenly noticed this morning...or paid attention to, for the first time time in 112 days...was the signage that lets all the motorists know that the project is funded by the "Community Re-investment Act of 2009." You remember this...the government gave away $589B of our tax money (that's $4,496 per taxpayer, if you're one to do the math) to projects and pork-barrels in an attempt to jump-start the economy. I *still* say that giving each taxpayer that amount in a refund check would have cost the same amount, except that the money *actually* would have been spent jump-starting the economy....but I digress....
In Chicago, hundreds of millions of it are being spent to repave the least needy expressway that we have. What suddenly pushed me over the edge is this. Here are hundreds of workers who were, because of the recession, assumedly unemployed. So, their company is given hundreds of millions of dollars to put them back to work and what do they do? work? be happy to have a job? no...they STRIKE. Now, at this point, I honestly want to go get every one of them a nice big glass of shut-the-hell-up. Pick up your shovel, quit crying like a school-girl and go earn your paycheck. Because, quite frankly, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who would take your job in a heartbeat if it were offered to them...not to mention, Arizona would *happily* ship out their illegal immigrants that the Federal Government is so gung-ho on protecting at the costs of its own citizens.
Now, before I get pegged as anti-union, let me tell you that I am not anti- or pro- anything when it comes to labor. I believe that investors (business owners) have a right to get a return on their investment, and I believe that a worker has the right to be compensated for their efforts. An imbalance of power on *either* side is equally destructive.
I just don't understand the need to push...in this economy...for anything more than is being offered. Most of us have gotten little or no raise in the past 2 years. Many of us have actually taken pay cuts. I hope that these lazy workers are replaced and unemployed. See how well THAT pays....

Back to Being Me, Part 4

To continue my thoughts about healthcare:
Why the new healthcare law will fail miserably (part 4):
1. It totally fails to address the real problems in the US healthcare system.
a. Over-indulgence by the insurance companies.
b. Unsustainable growth (in this case, by Universal Coverage).
c. No tort-reform on law suits.
(read prior posts to catch up on these points)

d. No accountability for the Publically Insured.

One point that has been relatively untouched by the media and the discussion groups that I have seen is the differences in responsibility and accountability between privately and publically insured patients.
My insurance has a co-pay and a deductible. I can look at two different physicians or two different tests (as courses of action) and I have to decide which is best for me medically, but I ALSO have to consider which is best for me financially. I will have to pay 20% of the bill, so there is a substantial difference between a Physician who charges $100 for an office visit -vs- one who charges $600. Or there is a tremendous difference between an Ultrasound which costs $600 -vs- the MRI that costs $6,000. I am forced to weigh the potential benefits as compared to the out-of-pocket expense. i.e. the MRI may not statistically provide better information.
The same is not true for Public Aid. At *best* most PA plans have a flat co-pay per visit. So, if one doc charges $100 for the office visit and recommends a $600 ultrasound, there is no reason for the publically insured patient to choose that route over the $600 office visit and $6,000 MRI, because there is no vested financial interest on the part of the patient. They pay the same amount (usually nothing).
It is a fact that fewer publically insured patients maintain a Primary Care Provider and get regular preventive care. It is also a fact that more publically insured patients use the Emergency Room as a Primary Care Facility. The reason is not a stretch. There is no financial deterent to someone who pays for no part of the visit. I look at paying 20% of a $200 office visit as a far superior choice to paying 20% of a $2,000 ER visit. If there is no financial accountability, why would anyone care?
Unfortunately, the new healthcare law ceases to address this, very real, problem. I work at an inner-city hospital, where 8 or 10 hour ER waits are standard. Most inner-city ER's run less than 20% privately insured. Additionally, it is estimated that less than 50% of these ER visits are actually emergent. The ER's are plugged up with people who choose to use them rather than to establish care with a PCP. It is my experience, that when these patients are stabalized and set up with a PCP, the vast majority of them will NEVER keep the PCP appointment. In clinics that I have managed, Publically Insured "New" patients have almost a 40% no-show rate...over 400% more likely to No-Show than a Privately Insured "New" patient.
How will universal insurance affect this kind of situation? I think our best indicator would be to look at Massachusetts, since it is the only state that already mandates Health Insurance. In MA: preventive visits are down, ER visits are up. Ironically, the ER visits are not up solely because of Publically insured...they are also flooded with Privately Insured patients who can not get in to see a PCP, because the PCP offices are backed up for MONTHS due to the mandatory, unsustainable growth (see previous post). This has now given Massachusetts the distinction of having:
1 the slowest care in the country,
2 the highest percentage of ER visits, and
3 the most expensive healthcare in the US. Look these stats up on the internet, they're scary.
Thankfully, the rest of the country will soon be modelled after MA, so they won't be alone.
I have yet to see the positive side of this law....

Back to Being Me, part 3

To continue my thoughts about healthcare:

Why the new healthcare law will fail miserably (part 3):

1. It totally fails to address the real problems in the US healthcare system.

a. Over-indulgence by the insurance companies.

b. Unsustainable growth (in this case, by Universal Coverage).
(read prior posts to catch up on these points)


c. no tort-reform on law suits.

When President Obama gave his healthcare pitch to congress (and the nation), he had only a few points that made both sides of the aisle applaud. the biggest was the promise that there would be reform on malpractice insurance and lawsuits (tort reform). If anyone notices, this never made it into the law. Now, let's not be critical of Mr Obama. He truly did want to know if the healthcare system had a problem with frivolous lawsuits. He wanted to know so badly that he tasked his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to find out for him. She said that frivolous lawsuits probably only cost insurance companies about 5 billion dollars a year...not enough to be worried about. Ultimately, she said that tort reform/lawsuits aren't a problem. I was PERSONALLY relieved to hear her unbiased opinion. Oh, as a sidenote, prior to being the Secretary of Health and Human Services for Obama, Sebelius served as executive director and CHIEF LOBBYIST for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association. So naturally, she is impartial to matters concerning lawsuits/lawyers.
First off, I don't find a 5 billion dollar savings to be something that is just brushed aside.
Secondly, there is no way to put a price tag on the cost of frivilous lawsuits because they cause reactions that are not measurable. For instance, they are the driving force behind "defensive medicine." For those not in healthcare, "defensive medicine" is when a Physician orders every possible test available, despite a lack of clear medical necessity, because they are afraid of getting sued if they miss something...even if the patient had no indications/symptoms. Thousands of times every day, an expensive MRI is ordered, when its likelihood of showing anything more than an Ultrasound, is statistically insignificant. Physician documentation and language has changed from "evaluate for symptomatic XXXX" to "rule out XXXX." That may seem like an insignificant change, but it costs patients millions (and probably billions) of dollars every year in additional co-pays and out-of-pocket expense. The end result is NOT the hope of finding some undiagnosed illness...it's the ability to sway a jury, in a court of law, to view the physician as someone who did everything possible...even beyond "standards of practice." And I won't even get into the fact that if an insurance company denies a medically indicated test it's the doctor who gets sued if there is a bad outcome....
Thirdly, is the fact that the original 5B in savings doesn't factor in the steady increases in malpractice insurance. I think that very few people have any idea what it would be like to be forced to make a split-second, life-and-death decision based on: limited current patient information, no comprehensive medical history, and no background of events...and know that if you're wrong, you could be sued and lose everything. So, many types of practices pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per physician, per year in malpractice insurance. And who pays for that? The doctor? you and I both know that it is passed on to the patient in higher costs. And again (referring back to my previous posts), the ones who truly pay for it the most are the uninsured.
There needs to be tort reform. There needs to be regulated price caps for insurance, and there needs to be lawsuit caps on liability. $10M won't bring gramma back. yes, her death may have been unfortunate. yes, given the situation her death might have been post-poned. but $10M? It doesn't bring her back. It doesn't make the pain go away. All it does is drive up costs for everyone...and encourage frivolous lawsuits from everyone on the planet who lost a loved one...regardless of circumstance. And those lawsuits cost money, even if the healthcare provider is proven to be not-at-fault.
If we want true reform on the lawsuits, there is one simple way to reform it. Make one tiny law: if you lose a lawsuit, you have to pay for the defendent's legal fees and damages. Frivolotry, thinks twice.
It seems that this entire law does nothing but give more power and less regulation to the insurance companies...while doing nothing for the patient or the provider.

Back to Being Me, Part 2

To continue my thought that was so rudely interrupted by the oil spill:
Why the new healthcare law will fail miserably (part 2):
1. It totally fails to address the real problems in the US healthcare system.
a. Over-indulgence by the insurance companies. (see previous post before continuing)
b. Unsustainable growth (in this case, by Universal Coverage).
Several years ago, I was managing a sub/sandwich shop. We expanded to a new location because business was good. The new location was huge and nice, all new equipment, all new staff, etc. On our 5th day in business, the owner showed up and announced that he had put an advertisement in the local paper, to print on Friday. What he failed to tell us was that the print ad was a buy one, get one free. When Friday night rolled around, the shop was swamped. We didn't have enough staff, the staff that we did have was under-trained and unprepared, and worst of all, there wasn't enough product. It was a fiasco. The horrible service that night did irrepairable damage to the store's future business. It was labelled as 'slow,' 'inefficient,' and 'inaccurate.' And all were true for the same reason: demand flooded supply.
Now, back in 2010, we understand the lesson, but fail to make the application to healthcare. If there are suddenly 30,000,000 more 'customers,' we have a huge and sudden problem. There are not enough docs to go around. There are not enough exam rooms. The clinics are understaffed. In a normal, supply-vs-demand, free-market world, the demand rises slowly and supply follows. Unsustainable growth in patients requires sudden growth in facilities and providers. We will see niether of those.
Polls among medical students and early-practicing Primary Physicians are all reporting that less people plan to be practicing primary medicine next year than this year...and the trend is sharply downward for every foreseeable year. The reasons? Over-worked and under-reimbursed. The only way that supply catches up with demand is when there is incentive for growth. Half of the previously-uninsured people, entering the healthcare realm, will be on public insurance. The reimbursement from state aid is as low as 6 cents on the dollar; substantially less than it costs to actually see the patient. *And no one seems to be asking the question about where the states are going to get the money to 'insure' the 15M people. That money is not addressed in the healthcare law, it is laid on the already-cash-strapped states to fund for themselves.*
The point is...it's hard to recruit doctors who will not make any money or build clinics that will operate in the red. The options are few, but here is what is being talked about in the healthcare circles that I am in:
1. limiting the number of patients seen...all walk-in clinics, first come, first serve. This is known in the European/Canadian healthcare system as 'rationing'
2. having advanced practice nurses doing the work of primary care physicians. This is also known as 'reducing quality.'
BOTH of these were warned about, but the government ignored the warnings.
3. charging people a 'retainer fee' in order to have a primary care physician (this is already done in Massachusetts...it had to be done as soon as the state passed their mandatory coverage law).
or the most frightening, and yet most realistic:
4. Hospitals/clinics/physicians opting OUT of the federal/state programs. They simply don't contract with the government. They pay higher taxes, but they are not obligated to provide care for Medcicare/Medicaid patients. They close their Emergency Rooms, and only accept clinically-referred patients to their inpatient units. This is already happening all over the country, in response to the new law. And think about this: the places that are already caring for the non/under-insured patients will close their doors to both. The bill may provide more people with insurance...but end up PROVIDING CARE TO FEWER!
This law will collapse on itself because it fails to understand one of the simplest laws of business...supply and demand.

Back to being me, part 1

Because you KNOW I can't stay away from political landmines for more than a week:
I have said before, and I will say again, if you ever want to fix a problem, you need to find the root cause. You can spend all season picking fruit off of a fruit tree. It will go dormant for a while, but will only continue to bear more fruit next year. If you don't like the fruit, you need to cut down the tree...at it's roots.

Why the new healthcare law will fail miserably (part 1):

1. It totally fails to address the real problems in the US healthcare system.
a. Over-indulgence by the insurance companies. The primary reason that people can not afford health care in this country is because health care costs are not driven by consumers. A true free-market society will balance off when supply meets demand. Because the healthcare system in this country is driven by a third-party payor (insurance companies), it does NOT balance itself because the third party payor can control both supply AND demand.
As a not-so-quick overview, here is how our healthcare was destroyed by the (unregulated) third-party payor system (values/amounts are not researched, documentable and provable numbers...they are estimates from my experience):
At one point, every insurance company re-imbursed at about the same level...about 85% of the billable dollar. The Healthcare Facilities happily allowed the insurance companies the 15%, as they brought in "guaranteed" reimbursement. both shared the same bed happily until the insurance companies realized the amount of available money out there. So, Insurance Company "A" ran a report and realized that they controlled 60% of the patients in a local market. When it came time to sign new reimbursement contracts, Co "A" refused to re-sign at 85% reimbursement. Instead they demanded the reimbursement drop to 70% of the billable dollar. The Healthcare Facility had a horrible problem. They were unable to survive on a reimbursement rate of 70 cents...but they were equally unable to survive if they became "out of network" for the 60% of their patients that Co "A" insured. Ultimately, the Healthcare Facility did the only thing that it could do to survive: sign the 70% reimbursement contract...and then raise prices 15% to make up for the difference. the following year, Insurance Company "A" drops reimbursement to 60%, and so on. This volleying game has now gone on, unchecked, for decades...until the point comes (and is passed) where an itemized bill reveals that an aspirin costs $3.00. The price is completely fictitious, based on the reimbursment rates of the third-party provider instead of on the actual free-market cost that would have balanced itself through the natural laws of supply and demand.
So, in 2010, here's what it looks like (and numbers are gut-averages, not to be taken to the bank): Insurance Company "A" reimburses at 45%, Company "B" at 55%, Public Company "C" at 22%, and Public Company "D" at 6% (and those are closer rates than you would like to believe).
Scenerio: a patient comes in with private insurance "A": they have services and receive a bill for $1000. They have a $100 deductible and a 20% co-pay. SO: they patient pays the first $300 (20% of 1000 plus 100). The insurance company re-imburses at 45%, so their portion should be $450, $300 of which has ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE PATIENT, so they actually only pay $150. The truth of the matter is that it actually only costs the Healthcare Facility about 25 cents on the billable dollar to see the patient. So, the actual bill, without a third-party pay system would have been $250. The patient would have been billed $250. But, this IS a third-party payor system, so instead the patient paid $300 (an extra $50, not to mention their premiums throughout the year). The insurance company paid $150 (substantially less than the premiums) and the hospital got paid $200 more than they spent. That sounds like a lot until you plug the actual numbers of patients into the reimbursement rates and realize that anyone on Public insurance actually costs the Healthcare Facility money...no profit, all loss. That loss is spread across the privately insured to balance the budget.
Here's who gets shafted in this system:
1. the insured patient. they are paying more than their fair share of the costs, so that the insurance companies can make money and so that the healthcare facility can see indigent patients.
2. the healthcare facility. they are legally forced to take the publically insured, regardless of profit/loss. so, the more the private insurances lower reimbursement, the less money there is to survive on. Quality cuts and staffing cuts are unavoidable
3. the taxpayer. everyone is worried about how much ObamaCare is going to cost the taxpayer. don't you realize that we ALREADY pay for indigent and publically insured patients through inflated healthcare prices and insurance premiums?
4. and most importantly, the uninsured. If they had $1000 bill, it only truly represented $250 in costs. But because of the whole third-party game, they actually receive a bill for $1000. If it weren't for the game, more people could afford healthcare itself...even withOUT insurance.

So what's my end point?
In walks the new healthcare law. what does it do to correct the horrible state of affairs in US healthcare? DEMAND that all citizens buy insurance. What? It's the insurance game that got us into the problem in the first place. Now, they will simply have more control over more people...giving them MORE bargaining power over the Healthcare Facilities, causing fictitious pricing to go even further out of control. This will cause increased premiums, passed on to the now-captive consumers.
And this is good for whom? I mean...OTHER than the insurance companies....

Simple rules.

Ok, so I have decided that it is time to make a few simple rules for those who would like to date and have any hope at a functional relationship. So, I created a standard application with some questions and rules. Please fill out all questions completely.

1. Do you have a job?
a. yes, full-time.
b. yes, part-time
c. well, I'm an artist so I grab work where I can get it
d. no
2. How long have you been at your job?
a. 3 years or greater
b. 1-3 years
c. less than 1 year
d. unemployed
3. Where do you hope to be in this job in 5 years?
a. advanced at my job
b. advanced at a different job.
c. right where I am now.
d. sponging off someone else who has a job
4. Do you/have you ever done drugs?
a. no.
b. yes, but only if you count marajuana.
c. I have in the past, but have not in at least 3 years.
d. yes.
5. Do you take any prescription medication that makes you stupid if you fail to take it regularly?
a. I am not on any medications.
b. I am on medications, but nothing that alters my moods.
c. I am on medications that alter my moods, but I take them religiously.
d. I go on and off my meds more often than Simon Cowell hates singers.
6. Do you have your own apt/house?
a. I am a home-owner
b I rent my own place
c. I rent with room-mates
d. I live with my Mommy
e. I live with my parents, but I am their caregiver
7. If you have room mates, please describe them:
a. responsible (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. fairly responsible
c. pretty irresponsible
d. unable to commit to a houseplant
8. Are your room-mates:
a. respectful (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. respectful but forgetful
c. in need of being occasionally reminded that they are not the center of the universe
d. incapable of understanding that they may not be the center of the universe
9. Do you have a criminal record?
a. no
b. yes, but it was a single youthful indiscretion
c. yes, but it was because I was an activist
d. yes, but it was only because I got caught
10. Describe your education:
a. graduate degree
b. some college, but no degree
c. high school and college of hard knocks.
d. what does GED stand for?
11. Please put your iPod on shuffle and write down the first 20 songs that are listed
12. Upon completing # 11, I:
a. was totally honest, but you're going to think I'm a freak.
b. was totally honest, but hey, it's who I am.
c. ok, I took off one really embarrassing song.
d. I took off more than one song
13. List 10 of your favorite movies.
14. List 10 of your all-time favorite TV shows.
15. How often do you drink alcohol?
a. no more than two days in any given week, having no more than 2 drinks per day.
b. more than two days in any given week, but not having more than 2 drinks per day
c. no more than two days in any give week, but having more than 2 drinks per day.
d. more than any of the above scenarios.
16. Do you smoke?
a. no, never developed the habit.
b. no, I did but quit more than 1 year ago
c. yes, but only when I drink OR no, but quit less than 1 year ago.
d. yes.
17. Define your sex:
a. the same as is on my birth certificate.
b. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I get teased about my mannerisms
c. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I don't always dress that way.
d. different than is on my birth certificate.
18. Approximately what percentage of your body is covered with tattoos if dressed in cargo shorts and a t-shirt?
a. none
b. less than 1%
c. 2-5%
d. more than 5%
19. Do you have anything pierced that you would be embarrassed to show your grandmother?
a. no, and my grandmother is conservative
b. no, but my grandmother is thankfully liberal
c. yes, but my grandmother is conservative
d. yes, and my grandmother is liberal
20. Describe the total number of body piercings.
a. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more 2 more that are not visible if fully clothed
b. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more than 3 that are not visible fully clothed
c. 1 or more on my face
d. I set off metal detectors when driving near airports.
21. When was the last time you cried?
a. within the last year, but is not commonly more than once a month.
b. 1-2 years
c. 3 or more years
d. within the last year, and it occurs more often than once a month
22. What made you cry?
a. thoughts of family tragedy/associating with a situation, including movies/music
b. thinking about my past
c. fear of the future
d. who knows, it just happens
23. Describe your weight in conjuntion to your height and body frame?
a. I am proportionate, within 15 pounds
b. I am not proportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds less.
c. I am not porportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds more.
d. I am super skinny or obese.
24. List the first 4 words that come to mind when you think about your mother.
25. If someone stares at you blankly, how long does it take you to figure out that they are not interested in what you are saying?
a. less than a minute.
b. 1-2 minutes
c. 3-5 minutes
d. obviously, no one is ever 'not interested' in what I am saying.
26. Please exlpain the following statement in your own words: "God gave you 2 ears and one mouth for a reason."
27. When a friend says that they need help working on their house, do you:
a. grab your tool box and a gatorade.
b. evaluate your plans, but more than likely go
c. evaluate your plans, but more than likely do not go.
d. grab colour swatches in hopes of helping them buy new throw pillows
28. When you are on a second date with someone, do you:
a. offer to buy dinner, but let them pay only if you paid last time.
b. insist on buying dinner regardless of who paid last time
c. do not offer to pay for dinner if you paid last time.
d. come to dinner without any means of paying.
29. Describe your perfect first date.
30. Please explain the following statement in your own words: "sex fades, looks fade, even money can fade, so you better LIKE that person sitting across the breakfast table from you.

Thank you for your time.
Please tally your score as follows:
a=10 points
b=7 points
c=3 points
d=0 points
send your essays and your tallyed answers to me, only if your point total is more than 210, and you had no (none, nada, zip, not any) "d" answers.

yeah, this started out to be funny...but then I changed my mind....LOL

Off of politics; still about idiots.

I thought that I would try to be a little helpful this morning. The best way that I could think to do that would be to impart a little wisdom to the driving-impaired.
My Ode to the three jack-asses driving 58 mph down I-55 this morning, side by side, 3 miles of traffic backed up behind them:
KNOCK IT OFF!

1. The name of the training book you had in Driver's Ed was called "Rules of the Road," not "Suggestions to be Ignored."
2. When on a limited access expressway, slower traffic keeps right and the left lane is for passing. No, REALLY! Read the rule book! It's in there! If you don't know what a 'limited access expressway' is, hand me your license right now, and no one will get hurt.
3. That thing in the middle of your windshield is called a "rear-view mirror." If you look in it once in a while, you may notice that you are NOT the only driver on the road. If traffic is clear in front of you and backed up behind you, there is a problem. The problem is YOU.
4. Your car is equipped with pretty blinking lights called 'turn signals.' It lets other drivers know what you are planning to do, so that they don't inadvertantly kill you.
5. When you see a sign telling you that the lane you are in is going to end ahead, this would be a clue that you should try to get into the OTHER lane. By the way, the reason that the other lane is travelling so slowly is because of all the jack-asses in the closing lane, who try to cut in at the last minute, causing everyone else to have to slam on their brakes. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Pick a side.
6. When you pass an accident, judge the distance between you and the car in front of you before you rubberneck. When you are done gawking, re-judge the distance to the car in front of you. If you are further behind them than before, then YOU are the reason for the traffic jam, NOT the accident....
7. When you pass a policeman with a radar gun, it is not necessary to slow down 10 mph under the speed limit.
8. Likewise, when an officer already has someone else stopped, it is unlikely that he will stop what he's doing to chase you down. You're not that important. He doesn't care WHOSE ticket-money it is.
9. When on a country blacktop, please don't pull out in front of a car moving at full speed, if you plan to drive 40 mph...or WORSE, if you plan to turn again at the next intersection.
10. Inclement weather can impair driving. You can not drive 80 mph and expect everything to be the same. Likewise, there is no real reason to slow down to 20.
11. When a stoplight turns green, please give the person in front of you time to move their foot from the brake pedal to the gas pedal before blaring your horn.
12. When parking, please notice that there are other cars around you. Parking with an extra 10 feet behind you and an extra 10 feet in front of you, is actually taking 2 spaces. If you can't parallel park, please don't try.
13. Parking across 2 parking spaces in a parking lot does not make you look cool...it makes you look like a D-bag. Seriously, you're not as cool as you think you are and neither is your car.
14. That horrible sound you hear when your bass is cranked up to '11' is called harmonic distortion. People who actually understand music usually avoid it, so they can hear things like the words or the melody. As a sidenote, if I wanted to hear your music, I would play it myself. As another sidenote, blowing yet another set of woofers does not make you cool, but it will make you deaf.
15. No one who has ever had to make a car payment for more than a year thinks it's a good idea to spend more money on their rims and speakers than on the entire rest of their car. Seriously.

This has been a public service announcement.

The abortion contortion

title partially stolen. =D
Ok, so yesterday's post stirred up quite a bit of strife. I want to personally thank Jeff, who was the only one of my friends to actually post his comments for others to see. Everyone else berated me in private. The conclusion that I came to? Everyone thinks that compromise is the answer...as long as it is everyone one else who is doing the compromising. No wonder the divorce rate is nearing 70%.
Since the bulk of the angry statements were about abortion, I thought it would be fun to dive in a little deeper. To see how well this works, please note that as of 5:55 this morning, the number of Facebook friends that I have is 241. I suspect it will change as the day progresses....
I am the first to say that I have no clue where I stand on Abortion. Somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, for sure, but exactly where I stand really can't be nailed down. I don't know why, perhaps because I really do see validity in almost every argument. At the same time, I get angry at every argument. So, if you ever wondered what a schozophrenic blogger would look like, you need to look no further. This post WILL be psycho, as I make statements and then disagree with myself....
As I stated yesterday, I'd like both camps to compromise. A fair compromise (to me, but no one else, apparently) would be to make abortion easily accessible for cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic disorders, or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The compromise is that abortion would NOT be easily accessible for those who simply think it is an alternative birth-control method (down to 240 friends already...LOL).
I was told by my friends from both camps that this is an unacceptable compromise. The problem is that both camps look at this issue as either a fundamental right (which means all or nothing) or as a fundamental 'sin' (which also means all or nothing).
I have heard arguments on both sides. I have even argued for certain points on both sides. Ultimately, I don't believe that this is a politcal argument about 'choice' as much as it is a social argument about 'responsibility.' (239, I'm guessing).
Do I believe that abortion kills a baby? yes. Do I believe that some pregnancies could destroy the life of the mother? yes. The arguments here get so bitter, that it concerns me. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, I can't imagine the torture of having to carry that baby to term and then have to face the incarnate form of your worst nightmare. Still, I know of no other violent crimes where part of the healing process involves killing one of the victims. This is why I stand in the area of comprmise. The emotional well-being of the life in front of me (the raped woman) HAS to bear some weight upon the argument. The same holds true for a woman whose life is jeopardized by the pregnancy. It is a choice that no one should ever have to make. BUT, if it was my wife's life in danger, make no mistake, that I would not lose my wife to a situation that could potentially end in the loss of both mother and child. The risk is too great. If that makes me a murderer, then so be it.
The flip side of the coin, requires the same hard compromises. A woman's right to her own body is about as fundamental as any right can get. And yet, excluding the situations listed above, pregnancy, in 2010, IS a choice. There are more contraceptive choices on the market today than ever before...and yet unwanted pregnancies rise. This is why I argue this is not a question of choice, it is a question of responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant, take a pill...get a shot...use a gel...get an IUD...use condoms. If a woman doesn't want to take the responsibility for her actions, I have a problem with allwoing her to just kill the afore-known result of her irresponsible actions (I'm betting I'm down to 231, on that point).
Now, before I'm crucified by the pro-choicers for that statement, let me quickly turn back to the pro-life crowd, primarily the religious-right: Much of the abortion problem is a direct result of the failure of the Church. Abstinence works. But the cold-hard truth is that many, if not most people are NOT going to abstain. And I'm talking about people WITHIN the Church. I don't know that I have EVER belonged to a church for an extended period of time that did not have an "unwed mother accident." Often, these go un-noticed. They go un-noticed because the woman gets an abortion, rather than to face the shunning of other church members. If the church really wants to make a difference in unplanned pregnancies, there are two things that need to be done: 1. Help people who have made mistakes instead of ostracizing them (for SURE, I lost 3 or 4 more there). PEOPLE make mistakes...isn't that why we NEED the church, because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?!? How quick we are to judge others. And rather than facing the condemnation of others, many choose to end the pregnancy, privately, so that they can continue to be accepted by people who don't understand acceptance. One 'unforgivable' mistake to try to cover up another, lesser mistake.
2. Lose the fear of educating young people to the consequences and choices. Yes, I believe that abstinence is the perfect solution (100% effective against pregnancy). But not everyone will abstain. So the tough choice is: do we teach them, and risk being accused of putting our 'seal of approval 'on teen sex by doing so, or do we pretend that everyone will just abstain and then hope for the best?
Mature discussions need to happen on both sides of this argument, and compromise is possible. But both sides have to be able to let go of absolutes and accept that, sometimes, what seems to be an unacceptable compromise inadvertantly does more good for more people....and isn't that the goal that we all have?

50%, plus1 rule

This may come as a surprise to some people, but I actually consider myself a moderate. I say that because my thoughts often don't divide nicely down the party lines. If forced to choose about fiscal issues, I generally side with the GOP. If forced to choose about social issues, I often side with the Democrats.
I guess ultimately, the polarization of the 2-party system is frustrating me. While I definitely see the positives in it, I also see the negatives.
Here is what I would like to see (in my own little world):
A true third-party viability...even if it only existed long enough to scare the doo-doo out of the 2 parties that currently enjoy their strangle-hold on the average american. It seems that both sides are out to strangle...they just do it with noticable different grips.
As I've said before, I believe that most opinions, if graphed, display as a bell-curve. There are outlyers to the far right and to the far left, but the majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle. I believe that it is time to elect candidates who represent the views of those in the middle...the "average american"...instead of the ideologies of the outlyers.
I truly, TRULY believe that most americans (minimum of 50%, plus 1) could come to a compromise on a vast majority of political issues if things like lobbyists and religious pressures were removed. Unfortunately, politicians often feel more pressured by special interest groups than they do by the voters, themselves.
When did compromise become a bad word? We do it every day in our work and family lives. We understand that it is necessary for survival. yet, when it comes to politics our country takes a maverick, "all or nothing and take no captives" attitude. I believe that there is something GROSSLY wrong with politics when a bill can pass senate or house negotiations and the voting is straight down party lines. This tells me that party politics are more important than people.
While I understand that some issues are divisive and will never reach a consensus due to personal liberties and religious beliefs (abortion comes to mind). I believe that it is possible to find common ground among MOST people that reside within the middle section of the bell-curve. And isn't that what democracy is really all about? I believe in democracy. I also believe that there are compromises out there:
1. Abortion. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with the following compromise:
Keep abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic problems, and a medical situations affecting the life of the mother. But, not allowing abortion to be used on-demand, as in birth control. instead, provide prevalaint options.
Yes, some "pro-choicers" will balk at it and, yes, some "pro-lifers" will balk at it. BUT, I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with it as a compromise.
2. Healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could have lived with a reform bill on healthcare that provided subsidies for lower incomes without changing the system for those who are happy with their healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would have been satisfied to see these subsidies back-charged to the insurance companies in "forced risk pools." (like is done with auto insurance) This would have seen a huge number of people insured, with the least disruption. A compromise that would help many, without changing the system for all, billed to those that make the profits.
3. Immigration. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a program that helps people to become legal, making it dependendent upon becoming a productive, working citizen (and consumer, btw) within a reasonable time-frame.
4. Welfare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a welfare scale-back that puts some accountability on the recipient (drug testing, a time-frame to become independent of the system, perhaps a sliding payment scale that helps those that help themselves by supplementing income for those that take any job they can find, at any salary).
5. Fiscal Responsibility. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a scale-back in government spending by hiring indepenedent consultants to find waste and fraud. Only pay the consultants a percent of the money they save.

Am I wrong? Or am I in the 50%, plus 1?

Fixing Welfare

I seem to get my best thoughts while in my car. On the way to work this morning, I had another perfect solution. Once again, the White House refused my call. It could be because it was 4 a.m., but I really am beginning to see a pattern here.
anyway....
I have a proposal that would affect the way we handle welfare/unemployment/even social security.

My proposal is that the government gives every newborn a savings account, depositing $10,000 into it. With a half-way normal amount of interest, the 10K should turn into about 30K by the time the 'child' is 21, 100K by the time the 'child' is 40, and nearly a quarter of a million dollars by the time the child retires. At retirement, the governement gets their entire 10K investment back, and the citizen gets to use the rest of the money to supplement his/her retirement.
In between 21 and 65, this money is earmarked to be used to supplement income during times of unemployment. Think about it: a man is 40, making 60K a year, and loses his job. Currently, he would make 66% of his wages for about a year, until unemployment runs out. Then, he either has to take whatever job he can find, or lose everything. Under my program, he would be able to take another job at less money...say 50K a year, and be able to dip into his "fund" and draw an extra 10K/year out of his fund for a set number of years, while he adjusts his payments and lifestyle to the new income level.
The key is that once the fund is gone, it is gone. If someone chooses to use it all during times of unemplyment during their 20's (when the value of the fund is still pretty low), then that is all there is. No more welfare, no more public aid. If someone is vigilant and uses the money wisely, they retire in additional comfort.
Because the original investment is returned to the government upon retirement, the program actually costs the government next to NOTHING.
There. next problem?

New Welfare Society

I've decided that it is time to 'give in' to the fact that we are going to become a socialistic, welfare state. So, rather than fight it, I've decided the better option is to embrace it...with a couple of minor changes. Here are my immediate thoughts:


Let's go ahead and have a public health insurance option (hey, it only creates a million pay-to-play government hand-out jobs, while unemploying 750,000 actual insurance company employees). BUT, I want to make a minor change. Approximately 4 hours wages are deducted from my paycheck every week to pay for my health insurance. Then, there are the co-pays and deductibles. So, let's make the new, improved, public option that is fairly distributed. Everyone has to work 4 hours a week for the government...public service, if you will. cleaning bathrooms in parks, painting benches, cleaning up litter, etc. Then, instead of co-pays and deductibles, additional work hours are added to make up for usage.
The beauty is that this program levels the playing field for every single American. This plan costs no consumer a single penny. Rich and poor are treated the same. Those who consume the most, 'pay' the most. The government program would cost more, but the government would be spending less money on public works programs. I love this thought.
Need a pap smear? Go work at the homeless shelter for an evening. Need a colonoscopy? clean graffiti off of sidewalks for a weekend. Need a face-lift? scrub toilets at local parks every weekend for a month.
Gravely ill, would create a problem. I suppose if someone was so ill that they couldn't work off their debt, it would be cheapest and most humane to just have them euthanized. Hell, work off a tummy tuck by euthanizing sick folks for a weekend....
Nah...that wouldn't go over well. Strike that thought, I'm just thinking out loud. Hey, wait, I have a BETTER idea for the gravely ill: Someone ELSE 'works' off their debt. Since some people already work 40-50 hours a week, how about we have the unemployed work off the debt? Hey, what else are they going to do...they're unemployed, they may as well do SOMETHING. It sounds ludicrous at first...but I'm SURE that unemployed people would not mind paying for the healthcare of their fellow man any more than 'rich' people mind paying for it now. In today's system the 'rich' pay for it out of their abundance of money...under my plan the unemployed pay for it out of their abundance of time. It's no less fair.... It might even encourage the unemployed to go out and get a job. Hmmm. Added bonus!
I thought about running for congress. how important do you have to be before you are assassinated instead of just murdered?

The immigration Hypocrisy

I figure that it's been a while since I thoroughly pissed EVERYONE off, so I thought I'd give it a shot.
This country is in the middle of an immigration crisis. This crisis is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but mostly because we HAVE to face the hypocrisy of closing our borders to immigrants. The fact is, that unless we are 100% american indian, we are descendents of immigrants.
Still, there has to be some kind of regulation; some kind of workable balance that allows for immigration to be done legally and quickly. Now, for anyone who read my last post, I will take this moment to make my personal plug for the best way to make immigration, both legal AND illegal, beneficial to the country instead of a detriment to it: get rid of income taxes and move all taxation to sales taxes. Once that happens, a person's legal status matters a whole lot less because they are consumers, either way. But even beyond that, there really are some common sense ideas to bridge this volatile gap:
1. first, and most oppressive, start treating this like a legal issue instead of a political issue. Illegal=Criminal. If someone is breaking the law, we generally have a suitable punishment. STOP treating this like a political issue. They are not "undocumented workers," they are "fugitive criminals." Treat them as such, and coming across the border won't be as much fun. As long as the benefits from being here illegally outweigh the consequences of being caught, it will continue to be an issue.
2. stop the practice of making anyone born within our borders an automatic citizen. Citizenship requires responsibility. Two "fugitve criminal" parents should not be given refuge (and welfare) by our country because she managed to sneak across the border before her water broke! This is stupidity at its finest.
3. institute large fines to businesses that knowingly hire "fugitive criminals." I'd say 2X the cumulative total of all of the fugitive criminal's past wages should suffice. If there is not enough documentation to know how much that is, then, a) make the fine an automatic $10,000 per worker, and b) revoke their business license and charge them with fraud IMMEDIATELY.
4. impose large fines for individual citizens who knowingly house a fugitive criminal. $10,000 and a year in jail should do it.
5. immediately deport any fugitive criminal, confiscating everything they have, save the clothes on their backs. Yes, even from Emergency Rooms. Stabilize them and ship them back.
6. make a law (the ONLY new law we need...why make new ones when we don't enforce the onces we have) that states any fugitive criminal found here without a green card can NEVER become a citizen.
7. Issue green cards abundantly, but monitor them in 1 year increments. Taxes collected by greencard workers become property of the US...no 'tax returns.'
8. Citizenship is available to anyone who:
a. can pass a constitution test.
b. can pass a high-school level english test. (and as a sidenote, no 'american' should be able to graduate without 4 years of a foreign language. Drop the 'engilsh arrogance' and start being as smart as the rest of the world)
c. has had 5 years of gainful employment on their green card OR enlists to serve 3 years in the military. Citizenship is dependent upon an honorable discharge.
9. No federal benefits are available to anyone who has not been a citizen for 3 years, gainfully employed the entire time.
10. Yes, I'm a jerk.
11. Get over it.

Fix this country!

I was bored on my way home last night, so I fixed the nation's problems. Oddly, Barack Obama wouldn't take my call...I'm assuming that it was because it was so late. I'll try back later today.
My idea is this:
We do away with all federal programs and all federal income taxes, leaving them up to the individual states (sort of like the 10th amendment guaranteed they would be, until the federal government usurped that autonomous authority).
Instead of income taxes, all taxes are levied by way of sales taxes and property taxes. Food and medicine are not taxed. Everything else is taxed: houses, cars, etc.
This levels the playing field for everyone, rich and poor alike. Those who spend the most (the rich) pay the most in taxes. Those who spend the least (the poor) pay the least. Then tax rates differ depending on product. Food/Meds, no tax; toilet paper/toothpaste, maybe 2%. Cigarettes/Booze, 20%. It's fair. It leaves very low taxes on those who only buy neccesities (assumedly, the poor), and a 'luxury' tax on those who can afford the vice. Pro-rate tax rates based on price range of things like cars and homes. lower tax rates on lower-priced items. Businesses are taxed solely on purchasing goods and a reasonable VAT. All taxes levied go directly to state. A percentage of state taxes go to fund the federal government. All property taxes stay in the county and township. Each county and township is responsible for its own social programs, school districts, etc. This way, those who work the hardest and choose to keep their money, can move to districts where property taxes are low because there are minimal welfare programs. Or those with children can move to districts where education is a top tax priority. Each state would be in charge of defining acceptable limits. The Federal government tests constitutionality, regulates the inter-state commerce, and provides foreign protection.
I actually thought that I was on to a brilliant idea until I realize that this idea is not new...this is constitutional. This is the way this great country started and functioned for 100 years...before politicians decided that they could do a better job spending our hard-earned money than we could....

A failing Republic, part 4

One of the greatest concerns that I have as an employer and as a citizen is the fundamental shift in responsibility seen our country.
Once, there was an American dream. It was the idea that anyone could be anything that they wanted to be. It was an idea that people could work hard, work smart, and be successful. Enterepreneurs, inventors, and workers came together to make the impossible happen. Children dreamed of bettering themselves through hard work. News of this dream brought in immigrants from all over the globe.
Now, there is another American dream. This dream is very different than the dreams of decades passed. Now, the American dream is to win the lotto. Or, perhaps the "american lottery," that is, finding someone really rich to sue. Work ethic has gone out the window. More people are promoted because of WHO they know rather than WHAT they know. Why work hard, when the labor unions dictate the same raises and benefits to both the hardest worker and the laziest worker alike? If the lazy worker somehow gets fired, no problem. There is nearly endless unemployment and then state-aid...subsidized housing, food vouchers, even free healthcare. This is ALL picked up compliments of 'the government.' Entitlement for the lazy at the expense of those who have succeeded. This doesn't bother most people, because most people have lost the American dream: the idea that if they work hard, they could someday be the one being taxed to pay for the welfare state that we live in. The truth is that the government officials like to have people dependent upon them...it is the ultimate power over them. Once dependent upon the programs, it would be very hard for the consumer to pull the plug on the game, because they would lose their benefits.
We have governmental economics backward in this country. Reaganomics brought forth the concept of lowering taxes and starving the federal government. federal programs had to be cut back because there was no federal money to fund them. HOWEVER, the money was back in the hands of those who earned it, giving them the ability to spend it as they saw fit. The current model of governmental economics is exactly the opposite. Grow the government as much as we can, taking however much from the people that we need to...if we take too much, they can get put on federal programs to help them out. What a stupid idea...except that it gives the government more and more power over us.
I have become a bit of a Libertarian in recent years. I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative. I can't swallow the democrats' ideas of 'rob from the rich and give to the poor.' If you take away the incentives of working hard, then no one has any reason to work hard. i can't swallow the republicans' ideas of trying to legislate morality, based on their own, narrow viewpoint...while ignoring the opinions of the majority. And now, in the past few elections, democrats have begun to strip away as many freedoms as the religious right, and the republicans have gone on spending sprees that scare the liberal of the liberals.
We need to return to the idea of hard work paying off, and we need to elect candidates who support the kind of governmental environment condusive to LETTING hard work pay off. We need to stop legalizing the greedy governmental theft of family money through death and capital gains taxes...let the people re-invest that money into their community, where the money is NEEDED. We need to stop raising taxes on those who employ the middle-class. We need to cut the type of welfare programs that breed dependency. Ultimately, we need to restore the concept of personal responsibility.
Please allow me to build my own future instead of taxing it away from me, leaving me to hope that the government won't run out of money before I retire....

A Failing Republic, part 3

The hardest part of economics is realizing how inter-dependent each system is on some other system. The bailout of the auto industry is a perfect example: we can spend tax-payer money to bail it out, or we can let it fail and unemploy thousands of workers, losing their tax revenue, and putting them on government aid. Both scenarios cost the taxpayer a lot of money, so the question is: which one leads us to the point we want to end up? This is the third really important lesson in failing economics.
3. The 'government' is NOT an entity.
When we talk about "the government" we talk about it as if it is a self-aware independent being. "The government" should do something about Katrina. "The government" should provide healthcare. "The government" is in debt. We almost personify the government, and we need to stop it. The idea of a federal government was so that the US could be a representative republic. Pure democracy was (and arguably still IS) impossible, given the land mass and transportation abilities of the US in 1789. So the constitution allowed each state to elect 2 senators and then a certain number of representatives, respective to the census of each state. This gave equal power to each state in the senate (small states would not be ignored), and weighted power in the house (larger populated states would have more voice). An executive branch was created to oversee, and a judicial branch was created to be the final say on whether or not laws were constitutional. That's all the government is. It was given very limited power and have a very small pervue. It was financially supported by the states. The federal government was nearly 100 years old before it passed the first federal tax on to it's citizens. This tax had a single purpose: to pay for the civil war.
The problem is, where there is money, there is power. As money-hungry, power-hungry people took more and more control, the government became a huge, self-aware ogre. Instead of the government being a group of representatives making decisions that affect the well-being of the citizens, it became an entity. the government now defines education, business, healthcare, and industry. As this happened, the civil war tax was never stopped as promised. Instead, we are taxed more and more to feed "the government." We have come to believe that it is our job to give peace offerings to 'the government' and wait for 'the government' to tell us what to do and then to take care of us.
The government is draining our economy. Capitalism is what made this country great. Capitalism is what has made this country rich and prosperous. and the laws of equilibrium ultimately keep capitalism in checque (through an ebb and flow process). the government wants more of the capitalists money, so it socializes industries that were once privatized. the politicians take advantage of every capitalist indescretion to prove their point and whittle away at the rights and freedoms of business owners, and thereby private citizens. Those elected to the "government class" have a free ride. "the government" has a direction that it wants to go (take healthcare reform for example), and it simply goes that way. Someone afraid to vote for the bill, for fear of voter backlash, is simply promised a government job in the new healthcare system. They have become "governmentalized," marching to the beat of an over-indulgent ogre. The politicians are no longer there for the good of the common citizen. They are there to get rich and powerful...the type of elitist class that the patriots of the late 18th century gave life and family to fight against.
We, as 21st century Americans, welcome it with open arms. This government, right now, demands more taxes, allows less true representation, and cares less about the average citizen than England did in 1776.....

A Failing Republic, part 2

Looking further into the financial woes of our country, and the reasons for the economic distress:
2. Refusal to pass a law requiring the government to balance the budget.
I fully admit that I am not the best book-keeper or statistician in the world, but I'm not stupid either. I know how much money I bring in every month, and I have a rough idea of what my bills will be. I balance that amount, trying to be very careful to put enough away every month to cover the 'unexpected' realities in life. Am I always successful? No. Does it still need to be my goal? Yes! So why, then, do we allow the federal government to spend money without any accountability to the taxpayer? The following statistic frightens me beyond belief. Scared me so much that I triple checked sources: In 2009, the interest payment on the national debt was $100,000,000,000. That's not the debt itself, just the interest paid out. There are approximately 125M tax payers in the US right now (down from 131M a couple years ago, because of unemployment). This means that the average taxpayer pays $800 in income taxes every year, just to pay the interest on the national debt. Frighteningly, the debt doubled last year. Likewise, the interest will double and the amount of taxes needed to cover the interest will double. $1600 per year per taxpayer is the cost of the interest on the national debt for 2010. This is an 'eternal' amount. By that, I mean that this is without paying down one penny of the debt itself. You and I will have to average paying $1600/year for the rest of our lives, without ever actually lowering the debt, just because the government spends on an out-of-control basis.
In our private lives, we have a budget (whether thought out, or just paid by the seat-of-our-pants) that restricts our spending. We come to a point where we simply have nothing left to spend. The government does not have that spending cap. If the government spends too much, it has the power to just increase it's income by raising taxes. Must be nice. Can you imagine having the financial power of the government? Spent too much last year? just give yourself a raise to cover it. Credit card debt too high? just pass the interest on to someone else. If the people who actual pay for it complain about it, just take some more of their money and then give it back to them in a program that they like and hope that they are too stupid to know that it was their own money to begin with (and yes, the average American IS, unfortunately, that easily distracted).
The national debt and the deficit HAVE to be contended with. The interest is eating up the hard-earned labors of the American people. Without it, each of us would pay $1600/year less in taxes...or that $1600 could be used for humanitarian efforts (healthcare, for instance?). Instead, it just blows away with the wind.
The problem comes in trying to find a viable candidate with a campaign agenda of: the only way to fix this country is to either, 1. raise taxes until the debt is paid off, or 2. cut programs until there is no deficit. This candidate's own MOTHER might not vote for him.... So the only real answer is for Congress to pass a law requiring a balanced budget and requiring a certain percent of any outstanding debt to be paid each year. Get rid of the debt, and stop surviving in deficit mode. At the rate we are going, a large-scale depression would bankrupt the US government before it would bankrupt the average citizen. There's an old phrase asking who owns your house. The light-hearted answer is the bank (and you). So I wonder who the US owes the money to.... Who actually owns our country?

A failing Republic, part 1

I'm not sure whether I'm getting more retrospective in my middle-aged years, or if things really are just headed down the crapper in this country. Either way, it's my blog, and I'll whine about anything that I want to!
America is in a greater economic crisis than we were prior to the Great Depression. The problem is that no one wants to see it. While a positive outlook can keep things rosy for a while, there is a dark economic shadow looming over this country that can not be kept at bay forever. I truly believe that America is headed for an economic "reset" and I believe it for some very specific reasons. My next few blogs will hit some of these points.
1. Americans don't seem to learn from their mistakes. If I ask the average American what caused the Great Depression, they will generally blame the stock market crash of '29 and the subsequent bank failures. The real question is, what caused the stock market crash/bank failures? As much as I hate to believe this, I truly do think that most Americans...even educated people...don't understand anything about the economics of what caused the failure. Because this knowledge is not present, the option of trying to learn from our mistakes has been taken away (by our own willful ignorance).
The stock market and the banks have a lot in common. Both are 'worth' a real amount, but 'valued' at another amount. Betting on this gap makes people very rich and it makes people very poor. I apologize for the length of this example, but it takes time to get our heads around some ideas:
Let's say that there is a bank that has $100 (actual worth). The bank knows that it can lend money for a house, and by charging interest, can make $3 for every dollar loaned, over the course of the contract. Essentially, the bank has a future 'value' of $300, so people invest. Every time $1 of a loan is paid back, the bank can re-loan that money and make another $3. So, if the bank continues to loan out all of it's assets, like a revolving door, it's 'value' continues to climb, geometrically. The problem is, although the bank may show a 'value' of thousands of dollars, its 'actual' money on hand is really only $100. If it loses this $100 of 'real' money, its future 'value' is irrelevant because it is bankrupt...there is no more working capital to "loan out." It has to seize assets and hope to make a profit. This is exactly what happened to the banks (and similarly the stock market, since it works on the same principle) in the early 30's. This is also what happened to the banks in 2008, and to the stock market in 2007, and to Fannie and Freddie, et al. Their books showed them to be worth trillions of dollars, but without any operating capital, they were actually not worth anything except over-inflated assets. The problem that we have in this country is that we are over-extended...much the way the banks and the stock market are/were. We, as individuals, have borrowed more money than we are actually worth. We buy houses that exceed our yearly income by 10 times. We finance cars, boats, and vacations. We have credit card debt with interest so high that it will take decades to pay off, even if we stopped using them. THIS is what happened in the Great Depression. The American people were over-extended because the banks kept screaming "borrow more." Blindly we listened, until we became over-extended to the point that we couldn't make our payments. Just a few missed payments by the right number of people caused the banks to fail, as they didn't have enough 'real' money to cover the losses. Their only option is to foreclose on the properties in arrears. The problem is that the property's 'actual' worth is 1/4 of what the bank had planned on. Foreclosure only profits if the property has gained value over the course of the loan...and the housing recession had proven the opposite to be true. The house was worth less than was borrowed against it.
So, 2008 comes around. Instead of looking at our past and saying that it's time to curb our borrowing, the Government bails out the failing banking/housing industry, with taxpayer money and the directive to "loosen up credit and lend more." The solution that was presented is the cause of the original problem. Nothing has been fixed...just prolonged. In order to truly fix this, the Government should have taken the money ($800 Billion, for those who have forgotten) and re-written existing, failing loans for the lowered, re-assessed property value and no interest. This would have kept the American people in their homes, kept the banks from going under by paying them for their 'actual' losses, all-the-while surpressing the ability for all parties to continue to spend money that no one had.
This cycle is far from being over. At what point will we learn?

Act, don't re-Act.

The past several years have seen some amazing polarization in politics. It seems that each candidate who gets voted in is even more extreme than the previous one. A far-right politician goes too far right, the public cries out and over-compensates by voting in someone who is too far left. It is a pendulum of reaction that is causing some of the worst partisanship ever seen in our country. I have always believed in the notion that it is not wise to "base policy on the outlyers." And yet, this seems to be the norm, rather than the exception in the world of politics.

Case in point: Abortion. The left-wing radicals (meaning the ones we continually vote into power) believe in a woman's right to choose to the point of (in many cases) wanting partial-birth abortion legalized. The right-wing radicals (again, the ones with the voices) believe that Abortion is always wrong, no matter what. The American public as a whole (I believe around 70%) believe a similar statement: Abortion in the cases of things like rape are a necessary process, but abortion used as birth control is the problem. So why is it, if even 50% of the population believes in a similar statement, that we continue to elect the extremists?

Barack Obama was elected as an answer to the unpopular stands of George Bush. Anyone who doesn't think so, look back at the election footage. The slurs against McCain were rarely about any of his personal plans or goals, he was portrayed as "four more years of Bush." It was the same pendulum. We elected someone who was extremely right, got tired of it, and then reacted by electing someone extremely left. Already, Obama's popularity has plummeted. He has broken nearly ever campaign promise made, except for healthcare, and less than 1/3 of the country supported the healthcare bill that he forced through. His popularity polls the day after the vote were the lowest that he has ever seen. So, the GOP, once again, sees the pendulum swinging their direction. I believe that the GOP will pick up many seats in the Novemeber elections as they look at their representatives as people who "sold out."

But what will happen in another 2 years?

I think that everyone who considers themselves a part of the GOP needs to ask themselves this question. A huge choice in presenting itself, and the choice is this: Do we act, or do we react? Reacting will bring about more of the same...the current aganda is so liberal that the belief will be to nominate the most conservative candidates that can be found...thus perpetuating the problem and further polarizing the two parties.

Instead, my advice to the GOP is to ACT. I believe that 70% spoken of earlier have similar beliefs: concerned about the size of government, concerned about rights being infringed upon (and don't be smug, I'm still talking about Bush's legacy), concerned about being over-taxed, concerned that bailing out the rich failures at the cost of the average american was, and is, not the correct answer. By the way, those thoughts are ALL the founding principles of the Republican party. The problem is that the Republican party has been hi-jacked by special interest groups, just as they accuse the democrats of. A true Republican believes in...well...the Republic. State sovereignty, small federal government, and fiscal responsibility are no longer the battle-cry of the GOP. State's rights are fine...unless the religious right is against it, then is should be federally illegal (abortion, gay rights, etc). Small federal government is fine...unless it is controlling something that we don't want to bother with (education, banking, etc). Fiscal responsibility is fine...until it cuts a program that we like.

A TRUE republican does NOT base their vote upon social stands, that is the voice of the religious right. And despite the fact that I am proud to be a Christian, the Religious Right's Agenda has railroaded the GOP into being a party that has lost touch with it's roots. It's time for those Republicans, who believe in the basic fundamentals, to recapture control of the party. If it does not, the GOP is going to splinter into factions...one that has a religious agenda, and one that more closely mirrors the moderate views of the nation as a whole. While those factions split the vote of the GOP and the conservative Independents, the Democrats will gain more and more power...while the Conservatives wonder what happened.
Act, don't re-Act.

gotta love the electronic age

the following link is a series of democrats discussing GW Bush's desire to use reconciliation tactics in 2005 to pass a bill outlining "the nuclear option." These same democrats are now trying to SHOVE an unpopular healthcare bill (current polls have it's support at around 36%) down the throats of americans by use of...you guessed it...reconciliation. Any use of this parlimentary trick is deplorable and a law should be enacted to plug the loop-hole.
It is a sad day when, for the first time in my life, I see the Government as being the biggest obstacle to the success of Americans. Politics should be about honor and leadership and vision, not about power, greed, and spin.


http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy/?utm_source=Illinois+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=e6bfb8326c-March+4%2C+2010+E-letter&utm_medium=email

Entitlement

I haven't thoroughly pissed off any of my more liberal friends lately, so I decided that it was time to 'take off the gloves' again, regarding healthcare.
As is true with nearly every tidbit fed to us by the media, I think that it is sometimes wise to question their facts, fact-finding process, and even their core assumptions.
For 2 years (since the beginning of the primary races), the media has been whole-heartedly supporting the candidate's cry for healthcare with universal coverage. As the healthcare debate has rambled on, I think that very few people have ever looked at the basis for the whole debate.... Do we really need a trillion dollar bill to extend healthcare to an additional 10% of the country (that's all the currently debated bill will cover)?
The following facts were found on google by searching out various websites, including the Illinois public aid office, department of health and family services, patient's first (non-partisan grassroots healthcare forum), rasmussen reports, etc.

In Illinois, a family of 3 (mom, dad, sonny-boy) are eligible for public aid up to 200% of the national poverty level. This means that at an income of $3052/month, there is still no cost to the family for their healthcare. Now, I'm not saying that 36K/year is a comfortable income. I am saying that no one will starve at 36K/year...AND they are still eligible for Medicaid. This seems to substantiate some claims being made by rasmussen and others that over 40% of the uninsured americans fall into one of two categories: are eligible for public aid, but CHOOSE not to apply, OR have income levels in excess of 75K/year, meaning that they could afford a modest healthplan but CHOOSE not to. This brings up a couple of disturbing thoughts to me. First, why can't the lower/middle-class afford healthcare? I happen to manage an indigent clinic. Let me tell you some FACTS about this population group:
1. every single one of them has a cell phone. Is a cell phone a necessity? 20 years ago, no one knew what one was, so I hardly think so. A convenience, yes...but a necessity? please. So this begs the questions, how much does the average cell phone bill run per month? I'd put money on about $100 month.
2. a huge number of people smoke cigarettes. I don't smoke, so I don't know prices other than what I see advertised in convenience stores. In chicago: about 7 bucks a pack. so, at a pack a day, that is $210/month.
3. most drink alcohol socially. Let's guesstimate that that is 2 drinks, twice a week. In a chicago bar, a beer is $4.50, a mixed drink is $6.00. far argument's sake, let's say one of each, to try to reach a fair norm. that's $20/week (with no tip) or about $80/month.
4. we validate parking, so I know that many of these patients have cars. a car may be an arguable necessity in the country, but it is not a necessity in the city. Average car payment nationwide: $250/month, plus $80/month for insurance.
STEPS FURTHER, because I notice things and listen.
5. many come in with hair extensions and fake nails. price? $100/month
6. many come in wearing designer clothes, prada shoes, coach purses. I'm not even going to guess a cost, because I can't afford that stuff, MYSELF.
7. they bring their kids in, sporting cell phones, hand-held playstations, and talking about their Wii's.

so what's my point? Easy. I read a letter the other day from a Physician who hit the nail on the head. We don't have a healthcare crisis, we have a lifestyle crisis. If you pick and choose only a COUPLE of the lifetyles above, most people have enough money to purchase major healthcare insurance, but CHOOSE to squander their money on other things. Then, they cry that the health insurance industry is unfair, so the government should step in and give them the insurance for free...not because they can't afford it, but because they don't want to change their lifestyle.
the kicker? the things that I have listed (and observed) above are public aid patients, which means that they are under the 36K scenerio...and they can STILL afford these amenities. How much more-so the people making 50 or 60K?
We need healthcare reform, and I'm not saying that we don't...but until we have some lifestyle priorities reformed, it will do little good.

Healthcare Summit

So the media is on a frenzy talking about the healthcare summit on Friday. FOX is reporting how unfair it is to Republicans, the others are all reporting an Obama triumph for bi-partisanship.
I've decided that the best way to really get a feel for what is going with the national healthcare debate is to take healthcare OUT of the equation and look at it from a common-sense, easily related-to scenerio: a family vacation.
In our scenerio, we have:
Dad (Obama, congressional Demo's)
Mom (congressional Repub's)
Kids (americans)
I'll do my best to keep this straightforward:
Kids: we should go on vacation, we're tired of the broken down old park!
Dad: the kids deserve vacation, the old park stinks.
Mom: can we afford vacation, maybe we can do something different at the park, maybe pitch in and fix the broken equipment?
Kids: can we take all of our friends with us?
Dad: sure, take the whole neighborhood...they deserve it.
Mom: seriously, we can't afford it if it just OUR kids... for half the money, we could make the park really nice.
Kids: can we go on a 14-day cruise of the Mediterranean islands?
Dad: sure! that sounds great! The whole neighborhood will love it. maybe they'll even close the park.
Mom: HEY! where will we come up with the money? that is 10 times more debt than we have EVER gone into!
Dad: we'll cut out on our excursions to the park and borrow some of the kids' college money.
Mom: Umm...that won't save anything and will cost us money in the future.
Dad: well, we'll just cut the allowances for the kids as well.
Mom: still won't pay for 1/10 of it. we'll need to cut out grocery money too.
Kids: ummm...no allowance cutting, no grocery cutting...maybe the park isn't so bad.
Dad: you can't have the park anymore, you said you wanted a vacation. you're getting a vacation, whether you THINK you want it or not. trust me.
Kids: we don't want to give up our allowance so that the whole neighborhood gets the same vacation as us...that's not fair. Can't we just fix up the park...it IS the nicest park in town, even if does have some problems.
Dad: no. i know best. the park needs to be torn down so we can go on a cruise.
Mom: other people like the park, it seems to me that helping to fix the park is a good investment.
Dad: i don't care who likes the park. you shouldn't be so mean to the neighborhood kids who don't have parks.
Mom: most of the neighborhood kids could go to the park if they really wanted to. If we fixed it up, we could make it beneficial to everyone.
Dad: If you all hate it, fine! We'll discuss it when we get back.
Mom/Kids: once we do that, we won't have money to fix up the park, and the park will be gone.
Dad: Fine, we are going to have a family "vacation" summit. You will then tell me which parts of my vacation plan you want to change. maybe a 13-day cruise instead?
Mom: no one can afford ANY part of your vacation plan! We need to start over.
Dad: I'm telling the kids that you just aren't cooperating, and that you are a whiney, selfish person that just wants to say "no." You should be ashamed of yourself for hating the neighborhood kids!
Kids: you KNOW we can hear you, right Dad?
Dad: shut up. I'll tell you when to think.